4th ed's adventure layout: best thing it has brought to D&D?

[Upper_Krust]

Sure, 4E includes such cases, but only cosmetically. Or can you cite a single instance where such cases affect the actual EL's? No? Because if they don't, then the mechanical impact of these things has been nullified. And if that's true, then single room encounters are just as mechanically self-enclosed as I claimed.

Oddly enough I was just reading through Open Grave earlier and it has four encounters within its nine 'mini-adventures' where the outcome of one encounter directly affects the Encounter Level of the next.

I don't possess all the official WotC Adventure Path adventures so I can't comment on whether they use that idea therein.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I like the style over all but there are a few things that could really improve it for me:
1. Have the adventures available on PDF as well (sorry)
2. Number the areas on the maps the same as the encounter naming system.. why have Area 22 on the big map then Encounter S2 (which is the exact same thing) just annoying.
3. Use the same colours/images for the different scale maps, they can look so different it is hard to spot which one is which.
4. ALWAYS orient ALL maps north grrrrrrrrrrrrrr
5. Have a Treasure/rewards section at the end of every encounter. Even if it says NONE. That part is not well organised and since I need to replace the (always inadequate) stock treasure parcels this would make life a bit easier.
6. Please please please don't use a letter from the next bad guy in the chain spelling out the whole plot and asking for evil actions etc as the plot mechanic to get to the next encounter area!

But apart from those things, so far so good. Mostly nice and easy to run.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Another good example is the player and DM maps made for World's Largest Dungeon. You have maps with all the encounters listed, then separate maps showing color-coded arrangements to tell you which group holds what section of the dungeon, then a master map, then individual area maps...that's a lot of freakin' maps! But combining them would look uglier than sin, so how can you really pull this off?

Thanks for the props. I made those.

Yeah, if you want pretty maps, this is NOT the way to go. But, for me, the DM master maps are for use, not for looking at. So, having ugly maps that include as much funtionality as possible, is the way to go. Have two sets of maps. One pretty one that you can use with the players, and a second one that is for DM only.

 

[Beginning of the End]

You have overview of the story, with monsters/items in one booklet.
In the other you have teh adventure "path", and set encounters on the path.

This is the important part: The format is very effective for the "string of pre-designed encounters" style of running a campaign. It is, however, extremely ineffective for other styles of running a campaign (emphasizing, as it does, a lack of interaction within a complex).

A few other thoughts:

(1) While I'm a big fan of not splitting up a single chunk of information across more than one page, the actual strictures of the format seem to frequently end up being the tail wagging the dog. Encounters that wouldn't necessarily fill two pages are either eliminated or bloated up until they do fit on two pages. Longer encounters are occasionally allowed to spill over onto additional pages, but it also seems like those get discriminated against in the design process.

(2) The sub-maps for each encounter don't seem to have much utility for me. I've got the map of the complete complex for reference. And if I'm playing with a battlemat, then I can just look at the map I've drawn or otherwise laid out on the mat. The only utility the map has is to show me the starting positions of the monsters, and (a) I don't really need that and (b) if I did, it could be easily included on the map of the full complex.

There is a tiny subset of encounters where additional details not possible on the large map are useful. But these are the exception, not the rule.

(3) The early uses of the Delve format where information about a single location was split up into two different locations in the same book was an incredibly bad idea. Fortunately, they've abandoned that misguided approach with more recent modules.

EDIT: Okay, I thought they'd moved away from it. But others are still reporting its existence. Ah, well. I thought they'd learned.

So, all-in-all, I'd call the format to be a bit of a mixed bag.

Honestly, I wish they'd go even further. Why have maps with only the initial positions of bad guys? Add in all the things you need to know about the room ON the map. If a fight in room X brings reinforcements from room Y in Z rounds, put that on the map. If there are lighting issues, or any sort of terrain issues, put that on the map.

I should be able to look at the map and get a very good overview of the entire adventure without even opening the module. The location of every enemy, every trap, every terrain feature, and probably more information, should be on the DM's map.

This I agree with completely.

Features I'd like to see in a module:

(1) A keyed listing of monsters by location, allowing for (a) easy modification and (b) running encounters dynamically.

(2) Within each encounter area, I want each major element of the area bullet-pointed. (This way I can quickly glance at the bullet-point titles and know what's in the area. And, when I need specific information on any given element in the area, I can quickly find it.)

(3) Properly constructed boxed text that describes an encounter area without assuming that the characters are taking a particular action. (Even if you don't read the boxed text, this neatly packages the information that PCs should know "at a glance" so that you (a) don't forget anything and (b) don't tell them too much.)

(4) Every single illustration in the module should be something I can show the players and say, "You see this." (Pretty pictures of fictional PCs fighting the monsters or exploring the dungeon are pointless. Why give me illustrations without utility when you could be giving me illustrations with utility?)

(5) Try to favor a layout where chunks of information that will be used at the same time are not split across multiple pages. If it is necessary, try to have the information split across facing pages. (This will not always be possible, but an effort should be made.)

(6) Everything I need for a particular encounter/area should be in the description of the encounter/area. If not, I want a very specific page number so that I can find the information quickly.

(7) If your cartography is gorgeous, make it possible for me to share it with my players. In the digital age there is simply no excuse for not making the maps available for download in size and resolution that makes printing out battlemaps simple and straight-forward.

 

[Hussar]

One thing I loved in the World's Largest Dungeon, was the room effects. They had about 30 or so standardized effects that would appear in various rooms. Since the effects were standardized, it saved so much space while keeping lots of flavor. I think just numbered the effects and stuck them on my DM's Master Maps, with a key at the bottom of the maps. I might not know the exact effect in a given room (some had variables, such as scaling save DC's or whatnot) but, at least I could look at the map and know that there was SOMETHING I had to pay attention to.

And, to add to Beginning of the End's very excellent list:

8. Give me more than one main map. I want a DM's map that lists the inhabitants at a "rest" state and an "alert" state - if you have the baddies moving around when the Gong gets hit by the kobold, then give me another maps that SHOWS me where everyone goes. Heck, give me a third map of "In the middle of rushing around to our posts because the bleeding gong went off while I was in the crapper!"

9. If there are ongoing area effects, show them on the maps. If the five rooms in the northwest are the Troglodyte lair, change the color of those rooms to show that they are stinky. If the floors are unstable, show that on the map graphically.

10. SHOW WHICH WAY THE DOORS OPEN. And, show me which doors are open or closed normally. AND BLOODY WELL MARK THE LOCKED DOORS.

11. Add a line or two about what someone might hear while listening at the door. Maybe not necessary if you mark the baddies that are in a given room, but, it never hurts.

In other words, I want my DM's map to be fugly. I want it to cram as much information on there as possible while still being legible. I do not want pretty DM's maps that are nice to look at but are just pretty pictures.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Personally? I hate the delve format. Yech. Of course, I had no problem with any of the previous formats.

I agree that the delve format tends to prompt designers into a self-limiting paradigm. The first delve format module I bought, Barrow of the Forgotten King, was so linear due to its format that I've never had the least bit of desire to run it.

YMMV, of course.


RC

 

[The Thrifty Monk]

On the Delve Format and PDF's

Hi there,
I'm a fairly new DM that runs 3.5 but I have a huge collection or resources including a plethora of AD&D modules. I'll do my best not to compare editions over all.

Ironically, even with my bookshelves of material, I prefer to run off of PDF's. I'm a bit retentive when it comes to the condition of my books and I just find it easier to scroll on my screen than have half a dozen books on my table. I've read some complaints above about it being difficult to flip back and forth between PDF pages. There's a simple solution. In Adobe, click the Window menu and select *New Window*. This will duplicate what you have on your screen. Now you can have adobe *thumbed* to several key entries at one time. This works with one PDF as easily as it does with several. I hope this helps.

As a new DM with a lot of older material, I have a unique perspective. The new modules really are idiot proof. For a simple game you could almost sit back with the players and watch it all play out. The help and advice for running a more integrated game is out there. It's just not in the modules anymore. The PH's and DMG's are great for this. WotC has done a excellent job making the game accessible to a larger audience.
From what I've seen of 4ed, they've taken that simplification further.

I think this is a shame and marks the end of an era. DMing once took serious work and a multifarious competence crossreferencing the myriad and often contradictory sources. That work was satisfying and engendered a deeper passion for the system. 3ed and 3.5 really mopped the confusion up. WotC consolidated all the homebrew rules and integrated them into a consistant system.

Now, as WotC takes away the extras to make it even more uniform, modules are becoming little more than a statbox filled battlemap hack'n'slash royales. Fun and easy but no longer a lovestory between a geek and his fantasy rpg.

 

[FireLance]

Now, as WotC takes away the extras to make it even more uniform, modules are becoming little more than a statbox filled battlemap hack'n'slash royales. Fun and easy but no longer a lovestory between a geek and his fantasy rpg.

You know, I used to feel the same way about operating systems. I cut my teeth on MS-DOS and I felt that Windows made it too simple to operate a computer. How much intelligence does it take to point at an icon and double click the mouse, anyway? Where was the need for memorization and the need for patience to check through manuals for the correct command to use? It seemed to be nothing less than a tyranny of simplicity, which would result in a generation of people with poor memory and short attention spans.

And I was right, wasn't I?

 

[Aegeri]

I don't mind the delve format as 99% of the time I need the maps and not the actual module. If I bother using official modules in in the entire time I've been DMing I've run official modules very rarely. I've run H3, which I cut a lot of the encounters out of in the end, P2 (which is actually really good in all fairness) and HS1. HS1 is excellent though (see below).

On the other hand some of the complaints actually seem to have been taken note of. HS1 the Slaying Stone is a lot better than the H-E series in both its execution, not feeling like a linear series of (terrible) combat encounters and it is still easy to run. I actually really recommend this and if HS2 is similarly as good it will show wizards have not only listened, they've shown a clear willingness to improve. I am curious if they will try another adventure path or not though.

What I really hate are the fact they have this wonderful cartography and then crap all over it by putting huge circles everywhere. I understand why they do this, because where creatures start can be pretty vital - minding I often change this almost at my own whim anyway. It's particularly frustrating because many Dungeon maps especially are terrific and as I run two VTT games, untagged maps are basically a treasure trove of "Do whatever I think is awesome with this map". But sadly Wizards don't always provide untagged maps, leading to me making a sad face at my computer when I see wonderful cartography I have 100s of uses for - yet all of it is covered by awful circles.

 

[Herschel]

I think this is a shame and marks the end of an era. DMing once took serious work and a multifarious competence crossreferencing the myriad and often contradictory sources. That work was satisfying and engendered a deeper passion for the system. 3ed and 3.5 really mopped the confusion up. WotC consolidated all the homebrew rules and integrated them into a consistant system.

Now, as WotC takes away the extras to make it even more uniform, modules are becoming little more than a statbox filled battlemap hack'n'slash royales. Fun and easy but no longer a lovestory between a geek and his fantasy rpg.

LoL. So if a DM doesn't "suffer", it's bad for the game? Let me direct you to another thread. The modular "delve" design is great for an actually creative DM and one that has a life outside the game.

When I run a campaign, I have an idea of what I want to do. My story arcs are already in my head yet flexible enough to "drop in" modules or encounters as I see fit. I don't need my hand held all the way through and, to borrow the term, railroaded along the campaign as the DM. They do give sections at the end in how to continue the story therein or tie it to teh next module, but you can easily drop them in any campaign. The modular design is great for that and the layout makes finding information a breeze. Well, except for cross-referencing encounter and room numbers. That part does suck.