D&D 4E Dungeon Delve format in 4e?

[Dog Moon]

So, think this will continue?

I hope this is one of the things that they change in the new edition. Was looking at Undermountain and Castle Greyhawk and was thinking that they would both be sooooo cool. Until I looked at them. They barely cover anything in those dungeons and most of the space is used up because of this, IMO, stupid format.

And when I DMed through Ravenloft, I found it slightly annoying to have to go from the map to the section of room in the normal section of the book and then to the dungeon delve section of the book later on. Was really frustrating, IMO.

Okay, I'm done complaining.

 

[Shawn_Kehoe]

So, think this will continue?

I hope this is one of the things that they change in the new edition. Was looking at Undermountain and Castle Greyhawk and was thinking that they would both be sooooo cool. Until I looked at them. They barely cover anything in those dungeons and most of the space is used up because of this, IMO, stupid format.

And when I DMed through Ravenloft, I found it slightly annoying to have to go from the map to the section of room in the normal section of the book and then to the dungeon delve section of the book later on. Was really frustrating, IMO.

Okay, I'm done complaining.

Gotta disagree, I love the new format!

And according to their submission guidelines, Dungeon is adding the Tactical Encounter Format when it returns as an online magazine, so I don't think it's going anywhere.

Shawn

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Couldn't disagree more.

While I think the Delve format has some growing to do, particularly in how it relates to the overall layout of the books, it is the first thing I've encountered that makes me actually consider running published modules.

The Delve format seems to be designed to make every encounter a memorable one, excising those encounters that are not entertaining in and of themselves but serve merely as pacing or resource attrition - something I'm 100% in favor of. It also seems much more suited to adventures outside the 'dungeon' environment than the old style, since its focus is on the encounter rather than the area in which it occurs.

With that said, I think the Delve format needs to get better and adventure writers need to get more used to using it and building adventures on an encounter rather than location basis.

Considering 4e's apparent focus on putting more complexity into encounter design rather than creature/character design, I suspect the Delve or something like it will continue as the standard.

 

[Glyfair]

While I think the Delve format has some growing to do, particularly in how it relates to the overall layout of the books, it is the first thing I've encountered that makes me actually consider running published modules.

In theory, things work pretty smooth. In practice, I find you are flipping back and forth an awful lot. Also, WotC needs to really double their efforts in those sections if they are going to be useful.

I've been running Eyes of the Lich Queen. Within the adventure text we have the description of the area, including the "boxed text." If there is an encounter you then have to turn several pages further (the encounters are lumped together at the end of the adventure section). There you get a detailed map of the area and, typically, more boxed text. Once the encounter is over you need to go back to find out what is in the room. If the players then loot the bodies, back to the encounter text. Too much flipping.

Secondly, the sheer number of errors in the encounters makes them run poorly, Many aren't major, but they add up over time. In EotLQ they have an entire section marked with the wrong scale (the map says it's 5' squares, but they are really 10' squares). They also fail to place certain opponents on the maps, put them in the wrong locations, or put extras on the map. For something that was supposed to make encounters run faster, I found these errors slowed it down.

Nick Logue also pointed out that there are problems when designing adventures. For example, having an NPC that might be an opponent or ally depending on factors before the adventure isn't practical.

 

[morbiczer]

I hate the "new" adventure write-up format. For me at least it's really terrible.

 

[FireLance]

I hate the "new" adventure write-up format. For me at least it's really terrible.

So what specifically don't you like about it?

 

[EATherrian]

So, think this will continue?

I hope this is one of the things that they change in the new edition. Was looking at Undermountain and Castle Greyhawk and was thinking that they would both be sooooo cool. Until I looked at them. They barely cover anything in those dungeons and most of the space is used up because of this, IMO, stupid format.

And when I DMed through Ravenloft, I found it slightly annoying to have to go from the map to the section of room in the normal section of the book and then to the dungeon delve section of the book later on. Was really frustrating, IMO.

Okay, I'm done complaining.

I totally agree. I hate this new system. Maybe it you are really, really into using miniatures it is helpful, but for someone who wants to arrange things the way they want it just takes up space. How much actually useful material could have been included in those modules if this stuff was taken out?

 

[Lord Zack]

I like it alot. It works very well for me.

 

[Simplicity]

The Delve format sucks. It's only used because stat blocks in 3e are so friggen huge that they mess up the flow of the adventure. The Delve format manages to make stat blocks suck up even MORE space than they used to. I enjoy having some plot or rooms in my dungeons, thanks.

 

[Aloïsius]

Hum, I don't even know what you are talking about. Endless dungeon crawling is not very fun, IMHO. Maybe 4e modules will see something else than dungeon crawl ?
it's like dragons : you need them in the universe to play D&D, but if you have only dungeons as place and dragons as encounters...