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

[Reigan]

I wonder if the format leads to an over emphasis on the encounter at the expensive of the story. The adventures turn out a bit like a Hollywood blockbuster, a string of spectacular set pieces surrounded by a mediocre plot.

 

[amerigoV]

I wonder if the format leads to an over emphasis on the encounter at the expensive of the story. The adventures turn out a bit like a Hollywood blockbuster, a string of spectacular set pieces surrounded by a mediocre plot.

I use some of the old 3.5 delve format products (Ravenloft, Castle Greyhawk) and do not mind it. But one should not blame crappy plots on the delve format any more than one should blame bad Hollywood plots on overabundance of special effects.

Crap is crap. The encounter format/special effects ain't gonna fix it.

 

[fanboy2000]

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.

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.

In the delve format each monster's equipment is listed at the bottom of their statblock. Any powers or abilities granted to them by magic items is factored in.

So yes, in 4e monsters do make use of magic items.

Listing all the treasure in in one place doesn't mean that the PCs automatically find it. That list tells the DM where it is and make use of that information as they see fit.

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.

I think another objection is that the format is meant for people who run the adventure and not for people who use adventures for ideas or convert them.

For example, if you're not playing 4e, having all the 4e stat block in one place isn't any help you. The old format where there was a master map and a key with a description of all the rooms is much better for converting because all the information the converter needs is in one place and identifying any information that isn't useful is easy to skip over.

By contrast, a converter would need to wade through each two page spread for every room, rooms, or whatnot that have monsters in them to find the few bits of information they might want.

That said, if you do run 4e and are playing the adventure "as is" then I agree with you, it's implementation. Wizards still has master maps and keys, but I think that if they fleshed them out more, then they could address some of the problems people have with it.

 

[Alzrius]

And I'd rather pay for the convenience of being able to run a game smoothly, without juggling mutliple hardcover books behind a DM's screen while trying to keep encounters moving along at an entertaining pace.

You keep avoiding the central issue of the delve format - at nowhere in any of your preceding posts do you address the issue of why it's better to have the encounter placed separately in the back of the book than in the middle with the location information where it happens.

Most of what you're talking about is trying to eliminate any need to reference anything beyond a single two-page spread. That might be an admirable theory, but in practice I've found that it doesn't work very well. There's simply too many possibilities and too much information to make that practical - yes, you can try and reduce everything down to such a simple amount of information that it fits in two pages, but that eliminates a lot of options (and still doesn't work in the event of PCs doing something unexpected, like leaving a room in the middle of an encounter and going to another room with a different encounter, with the monsters following them).

The main issue with the delve format, as I see it, is that it (as an example) presents room X on page 27, but has the information about the encounter in room X on page 52. Why move it there? What's the virtue in having the information split up like that, instead of listing it on page 27 where the room is?

Nobody seems to be able to answer that, which leads me to the conclusion that is has no virtue at all.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I double-dog-dare anyone to rewrite B2 in the Delve format, and make it work as well as the original.

If you want to take me up on it, post your conversion here for us to review.

 

[fanboy2000]

I double-dog-dare anyone to rewrite B2 in the Delve format, and make it work as well as the original.

If you want to take me up on it, post your conversion here for us to review.

Ummm, is whether or not an adventure works more a function of the DM rather than the format the module is written in? The players don't see the layout, it's a tool for DM.

Also, unless someone plays the conversion, how can you possibly judge it's effectiveness?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ummm, is whether or not an adventure works more a function of the DM rather than the format the module is written in?

It is, IMHO, a function of both.

The players don't see the layout, it's a tool for DM.

It is a tool that, like any tool, influences how it is used based upon its parameters.

Also, unless someone plays the conversion, how can you possibly judge it's effectiveness?

Having already attempted something very like, as well as having reformatted delves to reflect earlier paradigms, I believe that an experienced GM with an open mind can judge its effectiveness quite accurately. Not as accurately as play, mind you, but quite accurately nonetheless.


RC

 

[Lanefan]

I double-dog-dare anyone to rewrite B2 in the Delve format, ...

Not taking your dare (I have other plans for the spring and summer), but B2 in Delve would have a page count rivalling the Pathfinder players' book. In other words, you could probably knock out a bear with it.

Lan-"hmmm, use a module as a weapon to kill the monsters in that module"-efan

 

[KidSnide]

Adventures need more flexibility. A given encounter might not take place in a specific place and time. The delve format presupposes too much in the setup.

Very true.

I would like to see the adventure and locations information kept together and split out from the monsters. The main adventure book could describe what was found in the dungeon and contain one or two page spreads (as appropriate) that provided the relevant parts of the map along with the common trap and terrain elements found in those areas. Each area would also include a description of which monsters tend to be found in those areas and under what circumstances, but would not include the stat blocks.

Then a separate monster book would contain 1 or 2 page spreads containing the stat blocks of monsters generally found together, along with reference notes stating where these various groups of monsters tend to be found in the complex.

That type of organization would allow (and encourage writers to think about) a vastly more interesting and dynamic environment than the railroad that most delves have turned into.

-KS

Edit: This is generally what I do when I put an adventure together. I print out the main map of the area and all the monsters I think I'll need. When an encounter happens, I grab one of my pre-drawn combat maps and selected the monsters pages relevant in this encounter.

 

[Herschel]

When I make adventures myself, I often make them in delve format, so I'm good with it. Back in 1E when there seemed to be more, little encounters and monster stat "blocks" were just 1-4 lines of text, inputing the stats in to where they occured was fine. Baddies aren't so simple now. When I make an adventure I write the story outline and notes for *(possible) combat here* etc/ then lay out the combats later. Other times I go in the LFR style where the adventure goes along and then *wonk* encounter, but that's when I'm writing more linear adventures.

I don't think the H-series were greatly written adventures, but they were workable pretty easily. They way (IMO) to look at them is like a four-panel DM screen. These panels change to go with the story, these panels change when the monsters change. It was a similar type situation when the 2E Dark Sun adventures were printed with the flip books except one isn't mostly player art.

One thing Lanefan wrote that I could see similar is I would like a single page overview map for each level separate from the battlemaps (and I love the battlemaps, so keep those).