I agree with you regard to 5e but i would just like to note that some people (like myself) really like the delve format and do not see as a reason for poor adventure design. I also disagree with 2 above.
Is it time for 5E?
- Thread starter CleverNickName
- Start date
I agree with you regard to 5e but i would just like to note that some people (like myself) really like the delve format and do not see as a reason for poor adventure design. I also disagree with 2 above.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Well, it might be coincidental that, since Barrow King in the 3e era, the vast majority of WotC's adventures I have read have been dismal. Or it might just be MHO only. Or an unfortunately poor sample set.
But I suspect a causal link. And the link is:
(1) We provide a format that makes running an encounter in a set way more valuable.
(2) We then provide adventures that emphasizes running those encounters in a set way. In some cases, also in a set order.
(3) We provide little or no guidance in the event that the PCs want to differ, except to encourage the DM to ensure that the encounters occur in that same set way.
Now, I won't say that Delve mandates sucky adventures. That would be crazy talk. But I do think that it makes it harder to write adventures that flow organically. And I also think that great adventures flow organically.
So, if WotC should choose to stay with the Delve format, may I suggest that they mandate adventures be written in a different structure, and then formatted as Delves? And then that they give us access to both, and let us tell them which is better through the only vote that counts - our wallets?
I will remind you.....When people talked about those old modules, they didn't talk about how cleverly the module was written. They talked about how they handled the encounter, and about how the play was affected about the choices made by the players. The more homogenous the experience, the less there is to talk about, the less impact your decisions make, the less there is to care about.
RC
But I suspect a causal link. And the link is:
(1) We provide a format that makes running an encounter in a set way more valuable.
(2) We then provide adventures that emphasizes running those encounters in a set way. In some cases, also in a set order.
(3) We provide little or no guidance in the event that the PCs want to differ, except to encourage the DM to ensure that the encounters occur in that same set way.
Now, I won't say that Delve mandates sucky adventures. That would be crazy talk. But I do think that it makes it harder to write adventures that flow organically. And I also think that great adventures flow organically.
So, if WotC should choose to stay with the Delve format, may I suggest that they mandate adventures be written in a different structure, and then formatted as Delves? And then that they give us access to both, and let us tell them which is better through the only vote that counts - our wallets?
I will remind you.....When people talked about those old modules, they didn't talk about how cleverly the module was written. They talked about how they handled the encounter, and about how the play was affected about the choices made by the players. The more homogenous the experience, the less there is to talk about, the less impact your decisions make, the less there is to care about.
RC
Last edited:
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
The various 4e adventures I've bought have varied somewhat in how good and-or useful they are as adventures, but they've all suffered from some consistent flaws that I've come to realize are all format-based:
1. Too much emphasis on making each encounter or area its own set-piece without reference to other nearby things and how they might interact. Set-piece battles or encounters can be wonderful things, but that doesn't mean every battle has to be like that.
2. Encounter write-ups are too often either padded to fill the 2-page spread or edited to fit the 2-page spread harshly enough that required information is left out. At the same time, empty areas (where they occur, not often) aren't even mentioned half the time even if only to note they are empty.
3. As long as the overview map is clear and readable, there's usually no need for the blown-up map of the encounter area in the 2-page spread. If its only purpose is to tell me where the area occupants are, a few lines of text will do that and in much less space.
4. The overview map needs to be physically separate from the main booklet, so I can tack it to the back of my DM screen or - if the back is blank or has no adventure-related information on it - even use it *as* the DM screen if I don't have one. (in fairness, this problem goes all the way back to 2e; but it's still a problem, and bloody annoying)
5. The poster maps are great once the party has seen the entire area - but not before. Just plopping the poster map on the table when the party reach that encounter gives away *far* too much hidden information; and usually by the time the party has explored enough to make the poster map viable, they're well into the encounter and it's not worth disrupting everything to take up the minis, put the poster down, and put 'em all back.
Lan-"in 5e the entire campaign will be one great big encounter"-efan
delericho
Legend
Frankly, with very few shining exceptions, the WotC adventures have always been poor. There are maybe half a dozen decent ones in the bunch.
As for the Delve format...
For most adventures, I agree: it sucks; drop it.
Where it does have a place, though, and where it can really shine, is for adventures intended for zero/low prep, generally to be run in a single night, and possibly to be slotted in by the DM at the last minute. You know, like in the Dungeon Delve event for which the format was originally developed. In my mythical "if I ruled the world" plan, WotC would produce a book of Dungeon Delves for this purpose maybe once a year, and might even do a single adventure in this format in eDungeon each month.
Basically, I think Wizards saw that it was a useful tool, and therefore decided it was the only useful tool.
That is lasy writing and not necessarily the fault of the delve format. My experience is that Wizards have an objection to empty rooms and especially giving empty rooms interesting descriptions. They also seem to have issues to infpormation not relevant to the main plot and that has nothing to do with the delve format.
Raven Crowking
First Post
I had a look last night at the fireball text from the original D&D booklets, from Moldvay/Cook D&D, from the BECMI Rules Compendium, and from the AD&D 1st ed PHB.
Only the last-most talks about igniting all combustible materials. None of the other three do- they simply tells you that the spell does 1d6 per level to all creatures in it area of effect - almost identical text to 4e. Yet I've never heard it suggested that original, basic or RC D&D are creativity-killers. In fact, they're normally referred to as creativity inspiriers, precisely because of their sparse rules text!
The notion that 4e has narrow or restrictive rules text in contrast earlier editions is, in my view, simply not borne out when one makes comparisons. Heck, even the 1st ed AD&D PHB, in the introductory text on character classes, talks about different classes having roles - like clerics doing some fighting but being mostly supportive. There are similar comments in the individual class descriptions also (including a comment that most thieves tend towards evil). There is no radical difference, in my view, between this text and the 4e text.
Now, this is not to deny that there are difference between AD&D, Basic D&D and 4e! Any review of my posting history will reveal that I have always asserted that there are differences - if there were, I wouldn't play 4e, because it's a long time since I've really wanted to play those other versions of D&D. But the differences are not to be found in the restrictiveness of rules text, or the alleged narrowness of the game's focus. Roughly speaking, they're to be found on the GM side, in the way the game approaches encounter and adventure design, and on the player side, in the way the game approaches the relationship between mechanics and gameworld.
Raven Crowking
First Post
It seems to me that width of focus is a factor in different editions. It is a factor between various incarnations of TSR-D&D as well......unless you'd also like to claim that there is no difference in the width of focus between Holmes Basic and 2e? I know I'd not make that claim! 
In addition, it is difficult to extract a single bit without taking the overall tone into account. The tone of later 4e products might be different, but the early release (first three core) definitely had a different width of focus than (some) previous editions -- and the designers made no secret about it. They made clear statements about what D&D was, and was not, and the design followed those statements.
RC
In addition, it is difficult to extract a single bit without taking the overall tone into account. The tone of later 4e products might be different, but the early release (first three core) definitely had a different width of focus than (some) previous editions -- and the designers made no secret about it. They made clear statements about what D&D was, and was not, and the design followed those statements.
RC
Last edited:
You otherwise make good points. But not with this one.
When the creators say themselves that they have changed the focus to combat encounters, there's not much room for debate.
4E feels very narrow, and because all the changes shifted towards combat. Is there any new feature of 4E that actually pushed focus away from combat? I know of none. Not the skills challenges, for sure. 4E has the narrowest skills acquisition and development of any edition since the OD&D. Even Basic DnD went further--not in skill mechanics, but in breadth.
And read all those 80s adventure modules. About half exploring and half combat. 4E? Combat, combat, combat, combat, and a skill challenge. This tells us what the makers are focusing on.
Similar Threads
