• 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

The games that were first associated with this style of dungeon play don't distinguish between combat encounters and everything else the way 4E does. Running from a fast and furious fight into another encounter which you sealed into a room with a web spell and then desperately searched for secret doors to escape before the web wore off an hour later was all part of the flow of gameplay, and meant that there wasn't the kind of separation between "encounter area" and "corridors connecting the lairs" that (IMO) 4E mechanics like "until end of encounter" create.

Yes.

4e definitely doesn't pretend to hide its abstractions.

I think we all agree it's not intended to be a simulation. It certainly suits the style of game where everybody agrees to yell "CUT!" and move on to the next interesting bit, whether that be the next scene or an out of character discussion of strategy.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Jhaelen, "a sequence of relatively small, enclosed areas" is what is called "lairs" when folks talk about megadungeons. The idea of a megadungeon is that it is an all-encompassing environment; the central activities are surviving in this hostile territory (avoiding wandering monsters, finding safe places to rest, avoiding traps and areas of overwhelming danger) and exploring it (mapping, finding ways in and out, navigating from one place to another, finding treasure and hauling it to the surface).
Okay, given that definition, (mega)dungeons don't have a place in 4e.

In 4e you're more likely to just describe travelling through extended 'encounter-free' areas or use skill challenges as an abstraction for the activities central to exploration.
In 4e random encounters are typically a result of failing those skill challenges (or in rare cases resting in inappropriate places).

Dungeons can still be dynamic (in fact many encounters are designed to assume that enemies arrive in waves and/or from several areas) but as a DM you'll have to be careful that combining encounters doesn't become completely overwhelming (unless that's what you want to achieve).

Over time my preferences have changed. These days in 4e and to a lesser degree in 3e I prefer concentrating on the encounters that actually matter. This is partially caused by combat taking so long.

In 4e random encounters just don't really have a point:
While in 3e they were useful to drain some resources in 4e there's almost nothing to drain. Except for healing surges and daily powers they'll start every combat as if it was their first. Consequently random encounters usually don't grant treasure (making them even more pointless). I guess, for groups that still calculate xp for encounters they may be useful to grant those extra-xp required for a level-up, but that's about it.

I don't even like them as a penalty for failing a skill challenge. I'd rather handwave the fight and tell the players their characters lose some healing surges because they had to fight something along the way.
 

Yes.

4e definitely doesn't pretend to hide its abstractions.

I think we all agree it's not intended to be a simulation. It certainly suits the style of game where everybody agrees to yell "CUT!" and move on to the next interesting bit, whether that be the next scene or an out of character discussion of strategy.

The "end of an encounter" is pretty well-defined in 4E. It's whenever the party sits down for a 5-minute rest and nothing interrupts them. So, in the sort of situation described above, an encounter starts with the fast and furious fight; you run from it; you use some sort of hour-long web effect to seal yourself into another room; then you take 5 minutes to catch your breath and the encounter ends, followed by the start of a search for secret doors.

Granted, there's some room for quibbling over the definition of "interruption," but it's not a vague metagamey concept.
 

The "end of an encounter" is pretty well-defined in 4E. It's whenever the party sits down for a 5-minute rest and nothing interrupts them. So, in the sort of situation described above, an encounter starts with the fast and furious fight; you run from it; you use some sort of hour-long web effect to seal yourself into another room; then you take 5 minutes to catch your breath and the encounter ends, followed by the start of a search for secret doors.

Granted, there's some room for quibbling over the definition of "interruption," but it's not a vague metagamey concept.

I don't see anything wrong with your post but neither do I understand the point of it. Why did you quote me?
 

I don't see anything wrong with your post but neither do I understand the point of it. Why did you quote me?
Looks like he was actually trying to quote Tav Behemoth. And I agree with him. I'm a little confused as to why Behemoth is describing a thrilling adventure narrative and assuming that couldn't happen in 4E. Pretty much every part of that narrative can certainly happen in 4E. Running from a fight, check, casting a web spell, check, searching for a way out, check.

If you run out of the initial room the encounter began in, it's not like the encounter ends by some rule. You need 5 minutes of rest for it to completely reset, and being on the run is definitely not rest.
 

I'm not at all saying that you couldn't have that thrilling dungeoneering action sequence in 4E (although you might have to houserule the part where you forestall an encounter with a web spell - previous editions have lots of spells that could be useful in combat but we frequently use to avoid fighting, which 4E has eliminated).

What I am saying is, like Dasuul implied, each of those is a different activity in 4E. There's a whole system for combat, and to keep playing that system from getting monotonous you need to break it up with some play of the skill challenge system. Moving from one kind of play to another involves setup time - now we draw the battlemat and determine initiative order, now we announce which skills can be used in the challenge and set the stakes. What that means is that you're still best off moving from one setpiece to another, with the dungeon being the backdrop between these separate scenes of thrilling action.

In TSR D&D, it's all part of the same system. The point of my example wasn't that cool things happen, it's that you go right from one to the next with no delay due to set-up time. It takes about as long at the table to fight a combat as it does to search for an exit, and the game treats both the same way.

Another way of saying this is that the mixed-up sequence of fighting, running, and exploring is kind of the norm in old-school megadungeon play because it works with the mechanics. Fighting one round of combat takes a minute, and so does moving 90 feet or searching for a secret door. Deciding how you spend each minute is exciting because it brings you that much closer to the point where the DM gets to make a wandering monster roll or check to see if you run out of lamp oil.

My experience as a player and DM is that trying to play this way in 4E is less fun because it goes against the grain of the mechanics. A string of fights without rest isn't just monotonous: each combat is less fun because not refreshing encounter powers robs you of choices and puts you in the at-will grind. And if the wandering monster that kept you from resting is just a nuisance (which is the point, otherwise you'd just bang pots until an interesting enemy laden with gold came to fight you) no one is going to be happy that you've just spent an hour dicing out this boring combat. I'm super interested in things like a social or exploration skill challenge mixed with combat, or a way to handle strings of combats and wandering monsters. But I want to learn more about that stuff precisely because I find it so difficult to have 4E do that well.

There are tons of things 4E does well that are hard to achieve in old-school D&D, like choice-rich tactical combat and social encounters that don't boil down to real life factors like who is the most persuasive (best case) or well-liked by the DM (worst case). I'm just saying that free-flowing megadungeon play is something that people did back in the day, and use older rules to do nowadays, because the rules support it in the way 4E supports dramatic scenes with cut-scenes between.

EDIT 1: In 3E as players my group already treated big dungeons as setpiece battles - we'd scout, retreat and buff, and re-engage at lower levels, and scry and teleport at higher ones. I think that was an unintended consequence of making buff spells powerful, plentiful, and long-lasting enough that you could get in and out before they ran out, but it probably did help create a playstyle that 4E consciously designed around.

EDIT 2: I talk more about megadungeons in 4E at the Mule Abides, which references the older EN World post that that's an expansion of (and which has many good ideas that aren't mine).

EDIT 3: Web in 4E is a useful attack spell that contributes about as much to the outcome of a fight as any other character's power of the same type and level, as it's supposed to. Web in OD&D is a crazy spell that is potentially useful in combat if you want to get real close and are very sure that you aren't going to trap or isolate any of your friends, neither of which is usually true. However, it's great for sealing doors when you're scared to death of the things that are about to come out of them. 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.
 
Last edited:

I'm not at all saying that you couldn't have that thrilling dungeoneering action sequence in 4E (although you might have to houserule the part where you forestall an encounter with a web spell - previous editions have lots of spells that could be useful in combat but we frequently use to avoid fighting, which 4E has eliminated).

What I am saying is, like Dasuul implied, each of those is a different activity in 4E. There's a whole system for combat, and to keep playing that system from getting monotonous you need to break it up with some play of the skill challenge system. Moving from one kind of play to another involves setup time - now we draw the battlemat and determine initiative order, now we announce which skills can be used in the challenge and set the stakes. What that means is that you're still best off moving from one setpiece to another, with the dungeon being the backdrop between these separate scenes of thrilling action.

While I think there are times when that switch can be tricky - and while I think many players seem to believe that there is a clear delineation between the different types of encounters - nothing in the rules actually enforces this. Indeed, there are various elements that encourage this, and I've run quite a few scenes that have blended between different modes without anyone feeling disjointed as RP, Skill Challenge, and Combat all blend into one. I've also run Skill Challenges that were very by the book and clear what was happening, sure - I think 4E support both approaches, and allows the DM to find the one that best suits their group.
 

EDIT 1: In 3E as players my group already treated big dungeons as setpiece battles - we'd scout, retreat and buff, and re-engage at lower levels, and scry and teleport at higher ones. I think that was an unintended consequence of making buff spells powerful, plentiful, and long-lasting enough that you could get in and out before they ran out, but it probably did help create a playstyle that 4E consciously designed around.

You know, I think the reason for this change may simply be that 3E changed the length of a combat round from 1 minute to 6 seconds.

When combat is several minutes long, it integrates well with non-combat activities which are also likely to be several minutes long. When combat is 30-60 seconds, it's harder to integrate it with things like searching, disarming traps, and so forth, and the boundary between combat and non-combat becomes much more sharply defined.
 

Dasuul: Agreed that the time change is a big factor, but also note that buffs typically offer a substantially worse benefit in AD&D than their 3E counterparts (e.g. bless only works if you're not in melee, which combined with the relative briefness makes it much less of a must-cast).

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!

Also, more generally - if you're running a 4E game that achieves a megadungeon or otherwise old-school feel, I want to play in it! I'll be running 4E and OD&D games at Gen Con (and Anonycon, and GaryCon, and maybe others plus anytime in NYC) that IMO are a good way to experience what I think they're each good at. It's much better to show than to tell, so let's not let the powers of the internet age to talk let us forget that the jet age sometimes lets us play!
 

When I'm really on fire, when I'm really doing well as a DM, combat takes place in terms of large, tactical set pieces that involve multiple encounters but only one "scene."
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top