D&D 4E What do you think of the delve format used in 4E adventures?

[Nemesis Destiny]

I think they have their uses; I like them for when I need to have a "drop-in" adventure to fill in a section of plot, or even to use as a destination in a minor plot quest, but I don't want to use them all the time.

I would like to see more modules put together like Reavers of Harkenwold. Stuff like that is also "drop-in" but in a different way. It becomes a destination and home-base of sorts, with countless RP-opportunities, quests, no set order, and yet things are happening, and you can even drop delves into it as well. The only thing I don't like about that particular format is that most of the locations are too delve-like, but it's the best thing I've seen from them in a while.

Slaying Stone wasn't bad, but I didn't think it had enough adaptability or enough RP-encounters. But I'm getting a little off-topic here now.

That's my two coppers on the matter.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Overall, I am not a fan, because to me, a module needs to be readable, an the flow needs to be strong, Sure the party will skip rooms or areas on occasion, but overall I wan to read the module and know what is going on. With the delve format, it is great for combat, with all the monster blocks on one page, but it makes it hard to read through.

Now, when I grab a module's encounters and refluff them to use in my own adventure, the delve format is perfect.

 

[KidSnide]

it seems like the delve format promotes good encounter design but poor adventure design.

Agreed. For both the writer and the editor, the delve format requires an excessive focus on the encounter with an insufficient focus on the adventure as a whole. It seems to me that most delve-based encounters are little more than (1) backstory that, while sometimes interesting to the GM, is almost totally irrelevant to the adventure itself and (2) a series of encounters. I like good encounters, but they shouldn't be at the expense of the adventure itself.

Also- the "delve format" seems to encourage overreliance on dungeon tiles. In that column he mentions the importance of good maps. Tiles generally don't make for good maps. They make for adequate battlemats.

Also true, especially for outdoor maps (which are almost impossible with dungeon tiles).

Another problem with the delve format is that they tend to tie monsters to particular locations. I wish there were more published modules in which a monster encounter could occur in different locations, depending on the PC's actions.

-KS

 

[Aegeri]

Personally I don't really mind it and find it a more than adequate way of doing things. The problem is they have recently started just turning all adventures into "Delves" just about - some exceptions. So we have billions of (worthless to me) dungeon tile maps thrown together in 5 minutes. The irony being that he talks about how important maps were - especially those from Castle Ravenloft (which was truly inspiring at the time). Yet Wizards themselves are abandoning actual cartography for 5 minute dungeon tile throw together jobs.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy Mengu!

Only thing I care about is all monsters/traps for an encounter on one page. If monsters don't fit on a page, it means there are too many different kinds of monsters (which I don't like and some should be cut off), or the monsters have too many abilities or fiddly bits (which I also don't like). It's kind of a nice spacial boundary, not to mention I don't have to flip through pages when running an encounter.

This was my original opinion, but the WotC format is really a chore to read over (as others have also commented). I'd be willing to sacrifice some convenience for it to actually be an enjoyable read.

I'm leaning towards the idea that a given adventure could have its individual encounters seperated into Random and Scripted.

Random Encounters would be basically just areas of the Dungeon (or whatever) where its suggested you roll from Random Encounter tables. It could even suggest an encounter to save you rolling, in fact it could even have multiple potential encounters listed based on the PCs actions, if they have been stealthy the guards will be fewer than if they have been alerted and ready.

Whereas Scripted Encounters would be important set piece affairs with four pages covering them (Pages 1 and 2 are story, illustrations, maps, tactics, features etc, Pages 3 and 4 used for the stat-blocks).

Random Encounters would be with stock troops and monsters, whereas Scripted Encounters would have special monsters (solos), important NPCs, special terrain features, traps, hazards and so forth.

Not every encounter needs to be handled in such overwhelming detail. Make the special encounters stand out and be special. If everythings so special, then nothing really stands out.

 

[korjik]

I had to do hate it, but that dosent really say what I think.

The problem with pacing is the second worse to me. Having to hunt down the encounters, instead of them being near the descriptive text is a real pain. It is good for running encounters, but not good for much else.

The worst thing to me, is that when badly done, it makes an adventure pretty unplayable. Sometimes it seems to me that the guy who made the encounters never spoke to the guy who made the dungeon, or the guy who came up with the plot. Sometimes that means that you have to spend an hour just trying to find where the encounter is on the main map. That kinda defeats the whole purpose of the purchased module.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

I voted 'hate it.'

There's a similar topic over in General, and I replied similarly.

The delve format is mind-bogglingly bad. On the list of the 1,031 bone-headed, misguided, facepalm decisions that WOTC has made since 2007, the delve format is tied for #2.

 

[Mengu]

This was my original opinion, but the WotC format is really a chore to read over (as others have also commented). I'd be willing to sacrifice some convenience for it to actually be an enjoyable read.

I won't disagree with that. I tend to just skim rather than read cover to cover. This is much easier to do without having to skip through pages of encounters. Once I get the jest of the adventure, I'm ready to run it. Honestly, I would rather just have it in PDF format, so I can print and arrange however I like. Again, my only requirement would be monsters/traps for each combat encounter be on one page so this sorting is possible. It would be nice if the map and terrain info would be on another page. I kind of like the LFR adventure presentation, but I wish the terrain descriptions would be on the same page as the map, and they could suffer to be less wordy.

In a delve adventure, I'm fine with seeing something like:

...and windows shatter as a dozen black clad assassins swarm into the town hall. The clerk ducks under his desk, the city officials wildly scramble for the doors in the back, the mayor is too far from the exit, his two guards boldly step in front of him but they don't appear to be any match for the Onyx Clan assassins. Go to Encounter 4.

I just know there is some combat resolution that I'm not very interested in for the moment while I'm reading, because I want to know what happens when the PC's defeat the assassins before they kill the mayor, and what happens if they fail.

Sometimes it seems to me that the guy who made the encounters never spoke to the guy who made the dungeon, or the guy who came up with the plot.

Yeah, there shouldn't be noticeable disconnect, but I'd rather they be written by different people. There are good authors who can write great story, and present a well connected adventure. And there are good designers who can make great encounters, and design memorable monsters, traps, and terrain. These two sets of people are not necessarily the same. For instance, as much as I'm a self authoring DM, I'm not the best at story telling, I've played under quite a few DM's better and more organized than me. I fly by the seat of my pants, and get by. But I'm decent with the mechanical stuff, good encounter design, and resolving conflicts, and I have enough notes to handle all these.

I really think it would be best if the fluff and mechanics were written by their respective specialists. Honestly, same goes for any dragon articles too, but sadly, they typically have one author.

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

Here's the thing about the delve format: focusing on tactical combat paints you into this corner.

Tactical combat: what does this mean if you don't know the territory, the enemies' position, etc?

Conditions: how do you push, pull, slide, restrain movement, unless you know where you are in relation to every enemy for the duration of the encounter.

The more tactics matter the more you have to know everything about everything in the encounter. This became a sometimes avoidable problem in 3.x and unavoidable (by design, WotC wanted to sell minis) in 4E.

And so here is the conflict for WotC: if you don't detail every encounter, DMs have to do it themselves. Which, if you've ever DMed a post-3.x D&D game you know is usually a ton of work. Especially if it's something you paid for expecting to be able to run that night.

But detailing every possible encounter is impossible in good adventures. In good adventures the DM and players work together to create infinite possibilities of combat and non-combat encounters as they try to overcome obstacles between themselves and their goal. The impossibility is due to the cost of paper and psychological issues that arise when DMs and Players are faced with adventures that are 1000 pages long.

If WotC had a competent digital magazine team they would have recognized and exploited the opportunity they had when they brought Dungeon in house and made it a digital exclusive. But instead they insanely, naively kept the restrictions in place that were mandated because Dungeon used to be a print-only magazine!

This format of presenting combat should only be used in a published product—digital or print—for climatic encounters with a very large combat area (30x30 at the minimum) with complicated traps or terrain features.

Otherwise give the DM a map that covers a large area and general guidance as to where the PCs start and where the bad guys are.

Combat railroad adventures are fundamentally a failure of leadership and imagination by the team that sees fit to publish them as "professional", physical products.




tl;dr: WotC created a hammer and turned adventures into nails.

 

[Obryn]

I generally hate it, so that's what I went with.

I think it's fine when it's used right - like in the Expedition series. I think it's awful when it's used poorly - like in the H-P-E series. It makes adventures feel fragmented into tiny chunks, and makes it too easy to ignore the big picture.

-O