Mearls' Legends and Lore - poll on delve format for adventures

[pemerton]

Mearls, in his new Legends and Lore column, has a poll calling for votes on the merits of the delve format for adventures.

All critics of the delve format, now is the time for our votes to be heard! (And I guess those who like it can vote too, if they really have to . . . )

 

[Ningauble]

I voted to replace it.

When the delve format first came out, I thought it was great to have everything on two pages for running encounters during the game. However, after how many years of the delve format (5 years?), I've found that the drawbacks of flipping around between different parts of a module far outweigh the in game benefits.

I would much rather be able to read a module start to finish. Remember when reading modules was fun? I used to buy modules just to read, even if I had no intention of running them. That ended quickly with the delve format.

I think the delve format also takes away from other elements of D&D besides combat, like background and dungeon exploration. The module writer is so focused on writing the two page combat encounters, that there is little room left for story.

 

[Dice4Hire]

There is a similar thread with a poll over in 4E discussion.

But to be verbose (I like that on a messageboard) I like having monsters right in front of me, but I find the format too hard to read when I am trying to get a sense of the adventure.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Delves have their place. They're borked by being so tied to the "boardgame" format with the dungeon tiles that they kind of grind everything down.

In an adventure that focuses on "choice," delves are not as welcome as they are when you're bored and you need a quick goblin encounter (or whatever).

 

[Ycore Rixle]

The delve format is mind-bogglingly bad. On the list of the 1,031 bone-headed, misguided, facepalm decisions that WOTC has made since 2007, the delve format is tied for #2.

 

[Stormonu]

I've truly despised the delve format since I was introduced to it. Splitting the adventure between two sections was an absolutely bone-headed move.

I'd also vote that with the steady stream of errata that 4E has done for its monsters, that it probably would also be wise to remove the stat blocks for non-custom monsters from the adventures as well.

 

[Keldryn]

Hate it with a passion. It makes running encounters a bit easier, but it also makes it a lot more difficult to read the adventure and fit all of the pieces together.

It also makes the encounter write-ups so long that I inevitably forget some of the details.

Lose it altogether, other than for 1 or 2 setpiece encounters.

 

[pemerton]

The delve format is mind-bogglingly bad. On the list of the 1,031 bone-headed, misguided, facepalm decisions that WOTC has made since 2007, the delve format is tied for #2.

Do I want to know what #1 is?

 

[Baumi]

I find the Delve Format a big step forward from the Way it was before. Page (or Book) flipping in the middle of the Combat to get all the Monster Stats was horrible and battles were hardly as tactial as they are now since rarley have such a detailed (and dynamic) combat map.

I also like the split from the Adventure itself and the Battles, for me it's much more readable then a format where the Descriptions are always broken up with combat stats.

The only downside for me (with the delve-format) is the much higher page count and therefore increased cost of the adventures.

I think the best middle ground would have been if we had a second Combat System for fast non-important Combat. So you can have a long Dungeons without taking years to play out and only the most important battles would need a Delve and the long and highly tactical rules.

 

[Dannager]

The delve format is fantastic. The only way I'd be cool with them replacing it is if what they replaced it with made it easier to run the game. Going back to the old format would be just that: a step backward.