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

[pemerton]

It would be cool to start seeing suggestions (and I mean actual suggestions) on a layout replacement for the delve format from those who dislike it.

I agree with what Lanefan said - especially a single map printed separately - and instead of marking monster starting points the map could have reference numbers and letters printed on its sides, and the module could indicate starting points by grid references. This would also make it easier to track invisible monsters, hidden pits etc.

The stat blocks being all on a single page is good, but again this can be done in a separate booklet from the discussion of tactics etc.

What I don't like about the Delve format is (i) it chews up too much space, and (ii) it makes it hard for me to retrieve the information I want (eg NPC motivations, treasure information, lighting details etc are too often buried somewhere in the encounter description when I need them to referee the exploration that the players are engaging in).

It also encourages authors to write their encounters in a "closed" rather than "open" fashion, which in turn encourages producing modules that are railroads, and have silly narrow plots that support the railroad. This, in turn, contributes (in my view) to the perception of 4e as a "skirmish game" or "dice rolling exercise". The delve format discourages an approach to scenario or encounter design that sees the GM's job as crafting and adjudicating a situation that is responsive to the concerns of the players, rathter than dictating of their concerns.

 

[fanboy2000]

I like it.

1) I like having full statblocks for all the monsters in the encounter in one place. Any replacement of the delve format should keep that. Even if the monster is in the MM1, I prefer it because it's all there in one place. I really have used it without the aid of any MM.

2) The mini maps and descriptions on one page help me find what I'm looking for.

The major problem with it is when some important piece of information, information that is important to the adventure as a whole and not just the encounter, in buried in the encounter entry and not in the up front overview.

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 like the division of "overview of the area" and "minute detail of each encounter." This allows me to get a good overview of what's going on before I look at the encounters.

See, for me, the encounter is the part of the adventure I care about because encounter design is what takes up most of my prep time. Maps, NPCs, places, ideas are fairly easy. Well designed and interesting encounters take more time because I want everything where I can easily access it. And because I want them well designed and interesting.

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.

I don't apply errata to monsters. I only use it when designing new monsters. I played 4e for a year without the errata and I didn't have a problem, so and that seems to continue to be the case. So I don't worry.

 

[Lanefan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 4e is the only system currently making use of the Delve format, yes? If you're not playing 4e, why do you care about the Delve format?

Sure, it was used in 3.5. That system is no longer in print, and its successor (or whatever Pathfinder is) does not use the Delve format. I don't really see the point of complaining about the Delve format if you don't even play the system that uses it.

::shrug::

I don't run 3.5e or 4e. That said, I've used delve-format adventures (and intend to again) in the game I run; thus I do have reason to care. And in general the format as it sits right now is pretty much a fail.

Lan-"DMing is an open-book test that never really ends"-efan

 

[Jhaelen]

You know my feelings about the Delve format. It is the adventure format I have ever seen.

Let me guess, you forgot to include the word 'greatest' before 'adventure format', right?

 

[Balesir]

I would like to keep the delve format for encounters - the two-page spread (or perhaps the landscape wide page, as per the digital magazines). The rest I would change, as follows (more-or-less):

- The whole thing should be digital - PDF would work fine.

- Maps should have layers for lighting, monster placement, secret features and movable objects (furniture, etc.). Any/all layers can be selected in a PDF, thus allowing 'bare room' maps for battlemap preparation, DM setup maps for encounter setup, and 'show the players' maps with only visible features on them.

- Maps in encounters should hyperlink to an overall map. The overview map should hyperlink to all encounter areas.

- The adventure overview should have the same room introduction material as in the encounter pages. This is to allow reading the adventure through with good 'flow' and coherence, while still giving the tools for an encounter all in one place. Area/encounter sections in the adventure overview should hyperlink to the encounter pages; the encounter page introduction should hyperlink back to the adventure overview in the appropriate place.

- All maps, creature statblocks, NPC character writeups, treasure statblocks and game "props" ('letters' the characters find, artwork showing encounter scenes, etc.) should be both included in the overview where appropriate and collected on separate pages so that they can be printed out on card if that is how the group plays. In a PDF, the "extra pagecount" of this duplication is not a problem.

- Develop new flowchart/mapping formats for adventures, skill challenges, NPC character relationships and adventure flow summaries, all to be included with the adventure overview. This in addition to the (obvious) overall map (on its own page - printable).

- Maybe have statblocks etc. as pop-ups from buttons on the overview pages as well. Maybe - not sure how well this would work.

Probably there are some other bells and whistles I've forgotten, but those are the basics, I think.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Let me guess, you forgot to include the word 'greatest' before 'adventure format', right?

[Max Smart]"Would you believe I just couldn't think of an adjective vile enough? No? How about being distracted by rising bile when I thought about the Delve? No, huh?"[/Max Smart]

 

[ExploderWizard]

Here is what I would like the next format of adventure layout to look like: the way it was before - with no artificial distinction between the encounter and the rest of the adventure. That's my suggestion.

Sounds great!

Monsters don't typically make use of magic items during a fight, except as listed in their stat block.

Fail, on so many levels. Some monsters will use magical treasure, others might not depending on the intelligence of the monster or other factors such as whether the monster is actually aware of what it has.

If they carry treasure, it's way easier for me as a DM to just look at the Treasure section of the encounter afterwards to tell the party what they get. Putting the party's loot in the monster stat blocks is just asking for the DM to miss some of the treasure in the encounter.

Treasure should be listed where it is actually located. Those 500gp gems and the periapt of wound closure are inside the stomach of the purple worm. If the party doesn't search there then they will not find the treasure.

Listing everything in one place like some prize package awarded on another exciting edition of, You Beat the Monster, seems cheesy.

 

[ThatGuyThere]

I still prefer the delve format for presenting (significant) encounters. The only change I'd like to see: WotC adventure modules come with two books: One containing the encounters and one containing the adventure overview.

Agreed, with this. I'd think that was awesome. One book is the adventure, in the "traditional" / Paizo / old-school style of written-down series of room descriptions, character interactions, etc, etc. 32 pages of <adventure>. (This might include some maps, some stat blocks, etc.)

Second book, key encounters, also 32 pages. The 16 "key" encounters from the adventure in Delve format - full stats, detailed (battle-)maps (to the point of being usable on the table if photocopied), tactical suggestions to make the encounter interesting, etc.

If the adventure has more than 16 encounters, focus on the large / difficult / interesting ones; give the others space and general description in the Adventures book.

You <could> then box those books, include some dungeon tiles and minis, and have "adventure-in-a-box" product(s).

Downside - Adventures go up in price a little (alright, a lot for boxed sets). Upside - Adventures go up a lot in playability.

Maybe it's not something they can stick with, but it's an experiment I'd love to see. I don't play 4th Edition, and I'd consider buying the boxed-set versions of some classic adventures - including new "classics".

 

[delericho]

The Delve format is a tool. Like all tools, there are good times to use it, and bad times to use it. WotC's biggest mistake with the format, as far as I can tell, is that they decided that this was the way to write an adventure, and so used it for everything.

Largely as a result of this, WotC adventures since 2006 have been mostly soulless railroads.

The great advantage of the Delve format is convenience - it allows the DM to run the adventure with little (or even no) preparation, it cuts way down on page flipping, and so forth.

However, the disadvantages of the Delve format are that everything has to fit on a two page spread, and of course that it takes up a lot more space than the 'traditional' format.

As such, I would argue that the ideal use for the Delve format would be for short low-prep adventures, featuring mostly static creatures, and relatively few paths through the adventure. That is, the Delve format is ideally suited for... Delve adventures.

For pretty much all other adventure types, the Delve format has proven to be too limiting. Railroading shouldn't be inherent in the format... and yet the evidence strongly suggests otherwise. Static encounters shouldn't be inherent in the format... and yet the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

(And, incidentally, the if one major advantage of the Delve format is that the stat blocks are reprinted on the page, that benefit is negated the moment monsters are revised. When running "Sceptre Tower of Spellgarde", my DM spent just as much time flipping through the Monster Vault for stats as he would have with any 'traditional' adventure.)

 

[CharlesRyan]

Personally, I love the delve format. There is nothing I hate more than being asked to look something up in the middle of a fast-moving combat encounter--it is so disruptive not just to the pace of the game but also to my concentration as a GM.

(I remember when Dave Noonan first started laying out encounters this way for WotC's Gen Con activities, way back around 2003-2004 or so. I was a big proponent of making use of his format in our published work, first when I was in R&D and later as Brand Manager. It wasn't my decision, ultimately, but the haters can lay some small part of the blame on me.)

All that said, I agree it has limitations and could be honed. I'd like to see a 1-page version, and a clean, easy-to-reference inline encounter format for those not expected to go to combat, so that encounters don't have to always be 2 pages. I'd like to see better balance/slicker integration between the running text and the encounters--the encounters should really be appendices; you shouldn't need to read them to understand and run the adventure. I'd like to see a removable overall adventure map, as someone suggested. There may be other improvements that could really help.

My gut tells me that most of the objections to the format have to do with the implementation, rather than the core concept. Improve that, and you can probably get the best of both worlds.