D&D 4E 4e Dungeon Design - New Article

[WizarDru]

I may be misreading the article, but I'm not seeing anything different here from what I've seen DMs do for literally decades. What am I missing? (no cheap shots at Mearls, please)

I think the two core ideas are that you can now SAFELY throw a large group of enemies at your party AT ANY LEVEL and that the dungeon's divisions are being rethought in terms of clustered areas, not just rooms with flows into other rooms.

As he mentions in the beginning of the article, at first level, his monster choices are very limited because of the CR system. He can't design a dungeon with four orcs in one room without risking a TPK and rooms, by necessity, must be segmented. At 5th level, you can design that flowchart (and as you point out, DMs have done so for a long, long time). But not at 1st level.

I'm also guessing that the minions are referring to the kind from the M&M ruleset...which I think is three flavors of AWESOME, if so. Some times the players should get to flex their muscles, even at low levels.

 

[el-remmen]

As others have said, I do not see what is so new here.

I been running encounters like that in all editions of D&D.

As for this:

The monsters need to bring their numbers to bear on the party. Wider corridors and rooms allow the monsters to attack as a group. A monster that’s standing around, waiting for the space it needs to make an attack, is wasting its time.

I have to admit statements like this don't work for me. So what if a monster "wastes its time" - not everything needs to be super-optimal all the time. It just seems like a ridiculous thing to even worry about as a design philosophy. Different dungeons are going to allow for different amounts of mobility and fight access.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

As for the minion rules, I could be wrong but these MAY refer to something similar to the nonheroic character class from Star Wars Saga.

Hey, let's give props to d20Modern's Ordinaries, shall we?

In the context of d20M, Ordinaries don't get Talents.

That one little rules shortcut cuts a big slice of power off them.

And as they are classed as Ordinaries-- sorry, Minions-- it is very easy to apply all sorts of other rules to them as the DM sees fit. Minions are dead, not unconscious, at -1. Minions always take 10 on saving throws. Minions can't score critical hits. Etc.

It's not cheating, it's just shorthand to keep the action moving.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

As others have said, I do not see what is so new here.

I been running encounters like that in all editions of D&D.

As for this:


I have to admit statements like this don't work for me. So what if a monster "wastes its time" - not everything needs to be super-optimal all the time. It just seems like a ridiculous thing to even worry about as a design philosophy. Different dungeons are going to allow for different amounts of mobility and fight access.

From the perspective of the DM, I often find that if my monsters have to wait for the guys ahead of them to die, while the guys behind them are likewise waiting, it starts to feel less like a group of opponents who are legitimately concerned with their own well-being and more like a bunch of cardboard targets. This is sometimes a good thing. I sometimes like to throw "goblin hordes" at my players. Other times it just breaks up the suspension of disbelief for me. I'd rather that the dungeon be designed to accommodate battles in which all participants are participating, and sweep that bit of metagaming under the rug a bit.

 

[el-remmen]

From the perspective of the DM, I often find that if my monsters have to wait for the guys ahead of them to die, while the guys behind them are likewise waiting, it starts to feel less like a group of opponents who are legitimately concerned with their own well-being and more like a bunch of cardboard targets. This is sometimes a good thing. I sometimes like to throw "goblin hordes" at my players. Other times it just breaks up the suspension of disbelief for me. I'd rather that the dungeon be designed to accommodate battles in which all participants are participating, and sweep that bit of metagaming under the rug a bit.

I guess it all depends on how you describe it.

I mean, if those goblins who cannot reach the fight are just waiting there, then yeah, that is lame.

But if they are yapping commands and suggestions to each other, readying to charge in when one of his allies drops, or knocking over the furniture in the back of the room to create barricades, or even yelling for reinforcments, etc. . . it creates a different environment.

Also, I will admit, I allow more than one creature to a "box/space" in my games with various penalities according to number and size.

 

[Mercule]

I don't want to see the "one or two monsters in an isolated room" encounter vanish completely. I have no problem with it being almost gone, but sometimes it's still appropriate. It's going to be tough designing a reason for every area in a dungeon to provide tactical avenues to other areas, or to be wide enough to allow a blitz attack.

I don't want things too far in either direction. What I want -- and think we'll get based on what I've read thus far -- is for encounters to be able to organicly self-chain. By that, I mean that the GM can include the possibility of having an alarm sounded, a lone survivor warning the next group, or some other situation without having either the stand-alone encounter be uninteresting (because of being a non-issue) or the resultant gang-pile be a TPK. You can do that in 3.x, but it's tricky. One of the biggest issues with 3.x, that sounds good, but plays poorly, is that it's over-balanced.

 

[Mercule]

I guess it all depends on how you describe it.

I mean, if those goblins who cannot reach the fight are just waiting there, then yeah, that is lame.

That's what I've gotten out of it. From a gamist perspective, having sixteen 1/2 CR orcs practically forced to go 1:1 with the 4th level fighter doesn't make a 4EL encounter. It makes a string of twelve 1/2EL encounters. And that isn't worth the time to execute it.

Sometimes the lay of the land just happens to work out for the PCs. Most of the time, though, "issuing orders" doesn't actually do anything. If the monsters that aren't engaged aren't reserves, support, or some other tactically or statistically relevant position, then they really are wasted. A challenge that isn't challenging isn't a challenge.

 

[GreatLemur]

You know, this is an interesting design philosophy in light of all the "D&D 4E = MMORPG" commentary. The paradigm Mearls is advocating, here, where monsters in another room actually notice when you start a fight and come running is really a whole lot less more-piggy than the old D&D "one room, one encounter" bit. And a whole lot more logical, too.

 

[el-remmen]

That's what I've gotten out of it. From a gamist perspective, having sixteen 1/2 CR orcs practically forced to go 1:1 with the 4th level fighter doesn't make a 4EL encounter. It makes a string of twelve 1/2EL encounters. And that isn't worth the time to execute it.

This might be just another example of them fixing a problem that has never been a problem for me. . . Doesn't mean it isn't a problem for others - but it does make it harder for me to accept.

Another example, over the years everyone talks about their battles lasting three or four rounds at most, where by last count in my campaigns the average combat length is around 12-13 rounds.

I never think about encounters in terms of CR or EL, except in the most general of terms. Some fights might be a cakewalk for the PCs, others wouldn't.

I LOVE tactics, but I am not a gamist, I guess.

 

[A'koss]

Is that a lizardman or a kobold? (My first reaction was 'what a cute little kobold! It almost looks like it could actually hurt someone! It's really stumpy-looking for a Lizardman, but it's rather thick-bodied for a kobold. And that's a wicked underbite, there!

I thought it might be the new kobold as well (it does look a little stumpy), certainly more threatening looking than the previous iterations. Not so sure about the diaper though...