A different quote from wolfgang

[Zaukrie]

http://the-monkey-king.livejournal.com/213865.html

I think this part of the conversation with mousferatu and wolfgang is important:

3) I'm not going to ask specific questions, but as I still hope to be in on one of the Expedition to... products myself, I'd love to hear anything you have to say about the specific process, and how it differed (if at all) from other
A) ...generic WotC writing gigs, and
Well, it used the new format, so encounters are both very tightly scripted and sometimes padded to make them fit the format. It's got all the plusses and minuses of the old MC loose-leaf: very standardized, easy to DM, with little flexibility for unusual encounter types, and no flexibility for meeting more than two monster types at once (and ideally, only one). NPCs don't fit the format well, either. The format's success depends on whether DMs prefer it to the old style; they pay more per encounter, and it's minis-centric, but it's easier at the table to just flip open a page and run it.

This is not a very positive comment on the new format. Padding, not good for interesting encouncters, NPCs are tough, limited number of creatures.....I can see where this would be a major problem in mid to high level adventures.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Not every encounter needs to be in that format and, if I recall Ravenloft correctly, not every encounter was done in that format. I imagine it comes down to the developer in charge as to whether an encounter gets one treatment or the other.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Hmm...

While I agree with him that the new format can, at times, prove restrictive, I have found in my own experiences working with it that it actually encourages creativity in encounter design.

Precisely because you can't just say "It's a mess of goblins, fight them," it requires the writer take into account things such as interesting terrain, tactics, and other such features that might otherwise have been reserved only for "boss" fights or climactic moments.

And of course, it's scarily easy to use in combat; having every detail you need (or at least 90%+, in some of the more complex cases) is a major time- and effort-saver.

It's not perfect, by any means--but I've personally found, as both a writer and a player, that the advantages of the new format outweigh the disadvantages.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Not every encounter needs to be in that format and, if I recall Ravenloft correctly, not every encounter was done in that format. I imagine it comes down to the developer in charge as to whether an encounter gets one treatment or the other.

That, actually, is one of the problems I do have with the new format: Specifically, that it is supposed to be used for every encounter (or at least every combat encounter), and sometimes it's just not necessary or appropriate.

Again, I'd rather see it for all encounters than none, but I do think there's a happy medium available that hasn't yet been located.

 

[Monkey King]

Hmm...

While I agree with him that the new format can, at times, prove restrictive, I have found in my own experiences working with it that it actually encourages creativity in encounter design.

Precisely because you can't just say "It's a mess of goblins, fight them," it requires the writer take into account things such as interesting terrain, tactics, and other such features that might otherwise have been reserved only for "boss" fights or climactic moments.

I'd agree with Ari that it does guarantee every encounter to have a minimum level of complication. It's simply impossible to do the quick-and-dirty listing like "goblins: hp 7 each". Sometimes that's a very good thing; other times it's a shame, because it does require every encounter to run at least 800 to 1000 words. You do get less encounters for your money than you would with, say, Dungeon magazine.

And of course, it's scarily easy to use in combat; having every detail you need (or at least 90%+, in some of the more complex cases) is a major time- and effort-saver.

It's not perfect, by any means--but I've personally found, as both a writer and a player, that the advantages of the new format outweigh the disadvantages.

As a writer, it certainly lays it out for you: this is what WotC thinks a D&D encounter looks like, every time. As a player, I haven't found it speeds up play for me, but I tend to run my table fairly quickly regardless. YMMV.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Sometimes that's a very good thing; other times it's a shame, because it does require every encounter to run at least 800 to 1000 words. You do get less encounters for your money than you would with, say, Dungeon magazine.

You know what I'd like? So far, we've got 1-page and 2-page spreads for tactical encounters. I'd like the option of a half-page spread, with two encounters on each page; or maybe even a 1/3-page spread. That should be just enough for a very brief bit of description, a single stat block, and a single element of tactics or terrain.

It would allow for the simple/throwaway encounters to remain simple, yet still gain some use out of the new format, and it eliminate the need for every encounter to have a (perhaps inappropriate) minimal level of complexity.

 

[bento]

As a DM, I would much rather run an adventure with fewer, more memorable fights utilizing interesting environments, tactics, etc.

IMHO fewer, more interesting encounters lead to better adventures, while more fights in 20x20 rooms with orcs is just blah.

Nothing worse than "day 6, still in dungeon...why are we here again?" I read through some of RtToEE (2nd Ed) and wondered what kept players coming back week after week.

 

[Reynard]

Quick tangential question: what products so far use the format?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Quick tangential question: what products so far use the format?

Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, Shattered Gates of Slaughterguarde and I think one or two others.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, Shattered Gates of Slaughterguarde and I think one or two others.

Also Barrow of the Forgotten King (and its sequels, though they of course aren't out yet).