• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

4E, Ashen Crown, and Dungeon Crawls

MrMyth: How do you decide how long events in a skill challenge take? How do you adjucate players wanting to use attack or utility powers or rituals to gain successes in a challenge? What rules elements do you find encourage blending action types? More details of all kinds please, inquiring minds want to know!

Well, as for the first - that tends to change from skill challenge to skill challenge. It might involve a day spent traveling around town asking questions, or it might be a 5 minute ritual to converse with spirits, or it might be having some players fiddle with a golem control panel during combat, while the others keep them safe.

My goal is usually for skill challenges that don't feel like they are overriding other activity, but I have also had success with more transparent skill challenges. The first scenario is how I tend to run challenges in LFR adventures - usually, the goal of such challenges is to find out some information or accomplish something over a period of time. Rather than going around the table and having people make skill checks one at a time, I will have the group RP their way through the scenario, recording skill challenges as they are made, and going from there.

I tend to let the players come up with their plans first, but will usually provide possible approaches (ie, appropriate skills) if they are stuck. And I've had great success with this method, including several adventures where some players never realized they were in a skill challenge at all! Letting it provide a framework to determine success without having it impose upon the roleplaying itself is perhaps the most valuable element the skill challenge system offers.

I've also run more complicated skill challenges where I've tended to lay out on the table exactly what the PCs can do as part of it. I use this generally for scenes that I want to feel big and cinematic, but want to still move through in a pretty brisk timeframe. My most recent example involved the party, having acquired a magical artifact in the elemental chaos - and incurring the wrath of a primordial in doing so - now needed to flee to a portal to the Feywild (on the back of a friendly magical Roc), break through the enemy lines on the other side of the portal, and get to the place they could use the artifact to save the day.

What I decided was that there would be several 'turns' of the skill challenge - the first few involving fleeing the primordial's ice storm and driving off the elementals he sent to chase them down, then a round spent escaping through the portal (which would be sealed by a wall of ice), and then avoiding hurled boulders and other attacks from an enemy army as they get to their goal. Each round represented a solid chunk of time - maybe a few minutes, maybe hours fleeing across the ice.

I took an idea from one of Mike Mearls extended skill challenges, which was that if a PC spent their skill challenge 'turn' attacking enemies, they got several rounds of in-combat actions with which to do so. I didn't bother with a battlemat, just assumed PCs would be able to freely line up attacks as desired, since giving the time-frame involved, enemies would constantly be moving in range of their attacks. I used simple to track enemies (two-hit minions, essentially).

PCs that weren't actively fighting could do a variety of things. Some of them were ones I had accounted for in advance - using Arcana or Nature to help drive off the storm assaulting them, using skills to help heal the Roc or let it evade enemy fire, etc. On the other hand, some of them came up with their own clever ideas - one player wanted to expand a daily item power that would let him turn invisible, and instead try and briefly extend its power to cloak the entire party from the storm. Not something I accounted for in advance, but I let him try an Arcana and Stealth check to pull it off, and it made for a very memorable moment.

SInce it was a long challenge, and I wanted to encourage PCs to be using powers in the midst of it, I featured a milestone in the middle of it, and allowed their success at the end to give them various bonuses/recharged powers as it dumped them into the final battle of the session. Some still just held onto combat powers for combat, but others were pretty creative - such as the Stealth check Invisibility mentioned above, or a Warden using several plant-growth creating powers in interesting ways. I don't have hard and fast rules for the use of powers in creative ways, but I tend to encourage it, tend to use Keywords and resource as an easy way to figure out what can be done with the power, consider its resource level (Encounter vs Daily) to figure out how powerful an effect it can produce, and usually still require a skill check if they are being used in an unusual fashion. If a power would simply naturally produce an effect that would work in place of a skill check - using a Teleport power to get onto a roof instead of an Athletics check, for example - I might simply count it as an automatic success. Rituals would be addressed similarly.

All in all, this was a pretty big event, but it allowed me to have a big, epic scene that the PCs could all shine in, without having to simply run it as a series of encounters or just sit there describing things to them. That blend of action and narrative is really what I feel skill challenges are all about. Ideally, entirely on their own, players can come up with what approach they want to take to solve a problem. In an earlier edition, I might just decide whether or not that approach works, or try and come up with a way to run it on the fly. With a Skill Challenge, I have a simple set of guidelines I can extrapolate to figure out their success or failure.

The danger, of course, if that if the PC feels forced into rolling a skill they don't want to, or wants a more direct solution (bash people's heads in), a skill challenge can feel like a straight-jacket. Or if they have a creative solution the DM doesn't want to let them use, or if they fail a check and get upset at seeing the results of failure without another chance to try again - there are a lot of potential pitfalls. Which is really why I try to let the players drive the challenge, and try to keep them seamless with everything else going on, rather than suddenly have them feel like they've been shifted into 'skill challenge mode', and playing a button-pushing game rather than an RPG.

The key to realize is that the fundamental action a player is making during a skill challenge shouldn't be rolling the dice for a skill check, but instead making a decision for how their character will be trying to succeed at the current task. Too many skill challenges focus on the check itself as the key element - the check is simply something that helps evaluate their success. Making sure the focus is on the decision itself, and what their character is doing - focusing on that is the key to a good skill challenge, more than anything else.

The truth is that I certainly don't have an elaborate formula for plotting out all these rules - I've considered it, but found that the guidelines from page 42 simply make for a great starting point, and anything beyond that can be figured out on the fly. It does often come down to DM call, but in ways that helps the fluidity of the situation, and hearkens back to the atmosphere of trying crazy things in earlier editions, as well.

And... hopefully that at least helps with the 'more details', since I've definitely rambled on for quite a bit. There is a lot of good skill challenge out there already, both in Dragon Magazine, the DMG and DMG2, and numerous independent blogs. But it really is an art in many ways. I consider it one of the areas of 4E with the most potential, but also the area filled with the most potential pitfalls for both the DM and the players.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Warning: Major Thread Necromancy and Minor Spoilers for "Seekers of the Ashen Crown" follow.

So, now I've actually run the Ashen Crown! Not all the way through it, but a fairly good portion of it. Or should I say, I've barely run a third of it?

The group got to Encounter 22: Moon Pool and beat it, which has only taken 4 sessions to get there. But, I skipped 13 encounters on the way! So, really, I've only run 9 encounters from the book (out of 30) and thus I've only really 'run' a third of it. So anyway, I can't agree more now with the quoted section in the original post, about how 4E is not meant to be used for dungeon crawling, at least, not how the writers are trying to use it.

So why did I skip so many encounters? Well, the fact is, very few are essential to the story of the module. I've come upon a little rule of thumb that I use: 1-2 encounters per story bit. Generally, that corresponds to a quest, but sometimes the players don't know about a 'story bit,' as in this module, where they are stumbling upon the place where a piece of the Ashen Crown is hidden without knowing.

So to lay it out, the players are sent into the tomb with only the mission of clearing out some Kruthiks. That's story bit one. The other story bit is that it's the resting place of a crown fragment. That's story bit two. So, solving this problem, or seeing it through should take 2-4 encounters. The module stretches it out beyond what I see should be the maximum to 8 encounters in this mini-dungeon.

Why do I have this rule of thumb? From my own point of view, I get bored running encounters that don't have any relevance to the story. I think my players would be bored too, but it's hard to speak to that. If anyone has any experience with dungeon crawls in 4E or in particular with this module feel free to chime in.

So really in that section I only skipped 2. But the next section, "On the Road to Six Kings" and "Six Kings" itself, I skipped 11! Story bit one here is meeting the Order of the Emerald Claw and their local captain, story bit two is meeting the Wordbearers whom you will be working for, and story bit three is going in to 'Six Kings' to what is identified as the 'Moon Pool' to get a crown fragment. So, that's 3-6 encounters. I ran it in 4, but the module called for 12! That's the difference between it taking 1 session and 3 sessions! For some people, that's three weeks, for others, 3 months or more.

For those curious, I 'ran' the skipped encounters in Six Kings by just rolling 3d6 and telling them to subtract surges from the group as a whole equal to that amount, and to roll a save, and on a failure their daily is spent (used during the previous skipped encounters.) That actually worked well. I probably wouldn't do that again, though, I would rather beef up the encounter than take stuff away. It ended up being a really tough encounter for my party as it was.

(End Minor Spoilers)
--

Problem: Dungeon crawls in 4E should be designed entirely differently, if not scrapped altogether.

Proposal: If you want to have a bit of a crawl before reaching the story relevant section, instead of having 6 encounters on the way, have 1 or 2 that spread out among the dungeon, and don't allow a short rest. When they start resting, a wandering monster appears! The 4E characters won't have much problem sawing through 1 or 2 monsters at a time, but without a rest, you will have the feeling of attrition and speed! that previous editions had, and maybe toward the end the party could be running low.
 

I too skipped encounters when I ran Ashen Crown. I think out of 30, I might have deleted six or seven.

In the case of the first dungeon (kruthiks, etc.) I just simply chopped a couple of the superfluous rooms off, describing them as "caved in". I left the best parts, like the mechanical dragon's jaw trap.

I also specifically remember that I cut encounter #11, Turakbar Toll, because it was completely incidental to the plot. Yet WOTC chose to use that encounter to fill up one side of the poster map supplied with the adventure. That was a little annoying. At least the map is still useful for other wilderness encounters.

Another thing you can do to increase challenge and decrease grind is to run two encounters together into one. Take Encounters #16 and #17, which are in adjoining rooms of the Six Kings dungeon. If you simply trigger #17 when the party's in the "grind phase" of finishing up #16, you save time. This especially works well with the various grind-shortening strategies that have been well-publicized here on ENWorld.
 

So, mega dungeons can't be played using 4e? I was thinking of running one, but I am expecting that players will be combat fatigue very fast. I was also planning to run Keep on Shadowfell and pruning the encounters. Only having combat that furthers the storyline, not for the sake of getting xp. With that said, running a game full of intrigue will only end up with a few combat and tons of skill challenges, which might be a welcome change.
 

Bagger,

For me it comes down to amount of time spent. In my 3 hours running the game, and for the player, the 3 hours playing the game, I want a certain amount accomplished. The number of combats doesn't matter, so whether I'm fighting 1 combat in a 3 hour session, or 10 combats in a 3 hour session, I still want, to have an arbitrary number here because it's different for every group, 1 hour of good story progression. If it takes a several sessions to just go through '1 hour' of story, as I found to be the case in 'Keep on the Shadowfell' and 'Seekers of the Ashen Crown,' then there is a problem. Every session should have that '1 hour,' and with modules written as they are, that means you have to insert story or delete encounters.

To more directly answer your mega dungeon question: maybe. Just fit in your group's version of the '1 hour,' and it'll be fine. Consider spreading out what would normally be 1 or 2 encounters of the mega dungeon into a few different rooms and don't allow short rests. They should fairly quickly take down the enemies and move from one room to the next as is expected in dungeon crawls, without healing up for free after each bout. Good luck, whatever you choose to do.
 

There's nothing like that in 4E because sealing doors would be a ritual, which means it would take ten minutes; only one character could do it, so if that PC's player didn't show up and you'd planned the adventure around the party being able to seal in the Glabrous Death with a web, it'd eat everyone; if that one character ever did manage to use it effectively in combat, everyone else would complain that they had the "I win" button; and fighting is supposed to be fun and a central activity of play in 4E, not something ridiculously lethal that is best avoided if at all possible like in OD&D.

You can still attempt to seal doors with iron spikes.

Once you can afford it, you can upgrade those iron spikes to Nails of Sealing. Instant Ritual in a box!
 

This migh be some major thread necromancy, but it is very noticeable that you did something that most people posting on Moridin's "How to make WotC Adventures better" are definitely suggesting - improve the ratio of combat encounters to story bits in favor of story. And it seems it definitely lead to a positive experience, even if you only used a third of the material. :)

Problem: Dungeon crawls in 4E should be designed entirely differently, if not scrapped altogether.

Proposal: If you want to have a bit of a crawl before reaching the story relevant section, instead of having 6 encounters on the way, have 1 or 2 that spread out among the dungeon, and don't allow a short rest. When they start resting, a wandering monster appears! The 4E characters won't have much problem sawing through 1 or 2 monsters at a time, but without a rest, you will have the feeling of attrition and speed! that previous editions had, and maybe toward the end the party could be running low.
This one I have been thinking for some time now. Change how you express a "dungeon crawl". A single encounter doesn't have to be with just one group of monsters. A good dungeon might be better served with 2 combat encounters each with 3 waves of monsters for a high level encounter, mixed with skill challenges, puzzles, exploration pieces and so on in the middle of an encounter, rather than with seperating them into 6 combat encounters and one skill challenge.

What we need is more examples and experience how to do this.
 

So why did I skip so many encounters? Well, the fact is, very few are essential to the story of the module. I've come upon a little rule of thumb that I use: 1-2 encounters per story bit.
Interesting, since I'm currently doing something very similar for my 3e campaign. I find I'm increasingly influenced by 4e 'thinking'.

For the current module (Deep Horizon) I removed about half the encounters and merged the rest until I had about 4 encounters for every location in the module and one or two 'random' encounters.

We've decided a while ago to use 'quest xp' to make up for having fewer combat encounters and everyone's happy about the change.

For the next adventure I'm also aiming for two encounters per location/scene (one location will be revisited later in the adventure, so that's two scenes in one location).
 

This one I have been thinking for some time now. Change how you express a "dungeon crawl". A single encounter doesn't have to be with just one group of monsters. A good dungeon might be better served with 2 combat encounters each with 3 waves of monsters for a high level encounter, mixed with skill challenges, puzzles, exploration pieces and so on in the middle of an encounter, rather than with seperating them into 6 combat encounters and one skill challenge.

What we need is more examples and experience how to do this.

YES! I was thinking almost the same thing. Say you enter a a barrack and start fighting goblins, but at round 2, the goblins at the nearby room will hear the noise and will enter combat. Perhaps Wizards can come up with rules for waves in encounters. Like you example states, a 6 room-6 encounters can be done with a 2 huge encounters that in a way "clear" the whole dungeon. It is more cinematic that way also. We never see heroes open every door and kill the waiting goblins, though older edition was that way and it was fun.

Think Star Wars IV, Luke and gang are basically dungeon-crawling in the Death Star to find the princess. They didn't open every room, but had a few major stormtrooper encounters and still managed to attain their goals.

One problem is the xp and leveling up though. D&D assumes one level of dungeon can gain you one level up.

EDIT: I just noticed the quest XP part, which is a good way to handle the low combat problem of gaining xp.
 

@Jhaelen

I'd love to agree that what you and I, and I'm sure many others, are doing is considered essential '4e thinking.' But, for an outsider especially, looking at the modules you can only assume that 4e is meant to be a dungeon delve, "slog" format. Because, in a way, the official modules especially from lead designers in WotC like Mike Mearls and "Keep on the Shadowfell" are showing you how the game is meant to played.

Certainly, we can play D&D however we want, and how the game is 'meant' to be played is at best ephemeral. But, can you blame newer players or even experienced D&D players from looking in at these official modules and assuming the game is not for them? I certainly can't. If this were any other game but D&D, I would have put it back on the shelf, sent it back, or what have you.

Maybe we'll start seeing fundamental changes in adventure writing by the time the new Red Box rolls around.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top