Adventure Structure

[Umbran]

What do you think? Are the days of truly flexible adventure/encounter design over?

Given the PCs goals, there will be optimal and sub-optimal approaches to every encounter. A competent writer or GM is going to be pretty good at guessing the likely choices.

I don't think encounters were ever really written to be "truly flexible" - stats and information have always been given for the most likely choices, and the rest has been left up to the GM to improvise.

 

[S'mon]

Given the PCs goals, there will be optimal and sub-optimal approaches to every encounter. A competent writer or GM is going to be pretty good at guessing the likely choices.

I don't think encounters were ever really written to be "truly flexible" - stats and information have always been given for the most likely choices, and the rest has been left up to the GM to improvise.

It used to be you got both (a) NPC stats and (b) roleplay notes for the same NPC. Now if you get stats, you only get combat tactics, and if you get NPC roleplay notes, the NPC isn't statted out. I'd say that marks a severe decline in flexibility.

 

[Umbran]

It used to be you got both (a) NPC stats and (b) roleplay notes for the same NPC.

Looking back at some of the 1e modules on my shelf, I see much the same pattern.

Has someone done a survey of modules to determine how things are statted out? Because human memory is very fallible.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Looking back at some of the 1e modules on my shelf, I see much the same pattern.

Has someone done a survey of modules to determine how things are statted out? Because human memory is very fallible.

The same? Not remotely. I have as an example, the original T1 Village of Hommlet alongside the 4E version of the same. The differences are tremendous. Lets compare and see.

Original: 21 pages + module cover map.

New: 22 pages +module cover map.

Both versions feature approximately the same page count.

Village map: The map in the original module was shown in scale. If a sizable battle took place in the village area, the map served as a tactical representation. The newer version of the map isn't shown in any scale ( I don't even note a 1" = X mention anywhere) because a large combat taking place in the village is not a planned encounter and thus does not warrant a combat useful map.

Village Inhabitants: The original module provided statistics for nearly everyone in the village so that the information was ready should any action occur in unlikely places. Ostler Gundigoot, the blacksmith, Black Jay the herdsman, and even the typical farmer in the militia have combat statistics provided.

The newer version doesn't even provide statistics for important powerful NPC's such as Burne, Rufus, Jaroo Ashstaff and many others. Basically if the NPC isn't supposed to possibly accompany the party or fight them in a planned encounter they are not given stats.

I have both products sitting in front of me, so no memory is required to compare the two.

4E adventures as presented are very structured and the material presented is often insufficient for more flexible use.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Mostly though, the use of the "delve format" has pushed adventures into this weird place where each encounter feels disconnected from the rest. Heck, most of the plot notes are in a separate book from the encounters!

The format is also tailored for combat, which is why even adventures which have the potential for non-combat approaches instead turn into combat-combat-combat.

The format also feeds into the My Precious Encounter school of design, in which every encounter has been carefully prepared and anything that disrupts the pre-designed encounter simply invalidates 90% of the prep work / 90% of the material in the module. You can't even do something as simple as having the orcs charge into the next room without invalidating most of the encounter.

Also, the increasing reliance on Dungeon Tiles has done a lot to take away the sense that each dungeon or adventure is unique. "Hey, didn't we fight orcs in this same room last level?" "No, that was in the Tower of Dead Bats, you're in the Crypt of Unliving Smells." "But the room is the same, with the same crystals growing from the floor and the same magic circle!"

When it comes to miniatures, I've found that it doesn't take much realism in presentation before the imagination shuts down. If I put down a glass bead and say "that's a troll", they see a troll. If I put down an ogre miniature (because it's the most generic Large miniature I have) and say "that's a troll", they see an ogre.

Perhaps the best example from my experience is the PC with pink boots: We'd played almost twenty sessions when the player got a new miniature for her urban druid. The miniature had pink boots. During the first couple of sessions, when the other players mentioned the pink boots, the urban druid's player would make a point of mentioning that her character didn't really have pink boots. About six sessions later? Her character had pink boots. (She hadn't bought new boots or anything... she just had pink boots now.)

Same thing with terrain: If I chicken-scratch a couple lines on a Chessex map, they see the wizard's tower I'm describing. If I throw down some "generic" dungeon tiles, all they see is whatever the tile depicts.

 

[TarionzCousin]

"No, that was in the Tower of Dead Bats, you're in the Crypt of Unliving Smells." "But the room is the same, with the same crystals growing from the floor and the same magic circle!"

How could anyone confuse the Crypt of Unliving Smells with anyplace else?!? That dungeon bludgeoned my poor olfactory glands to pulp!

 

[Mark CMG]

(. . .) I submit that this style of design is superior to either:

* Obstacle (can be overcome by fighting, skill use, roleplaying, or bypassed)
* Obstacle (can be overcome by fighting, skill use, roleplaying, or bypassed)
* Obstacle (can be overcome by fighting, skill use, roleplaying, or bypassed)
* Obstacle (can be overcome by fighting, skill use, roleplaying, or bypassed)

I think this is a problem with many modern adventures -- they are designed with a particular method of solution to a given obstacle (=encounter).

(. . .)

What do you think?

That's a great observation. I'd merely add that some hybrid of your four solutions can come into play and that the best games I have run or played usually include roleplaying hybrids in almost all encounter solutions.