New Dungeoncraft: The Dungeons of Greenbrier Chasm

[king_ghidorah]

Although we apparently share the same "Age Category" ('Ancient Grognard' ) our preferences seem to vary a bit. I like those empty rooms -- or, actually, room that *seem* empty at first glance -- and even after all these years they still serve to build up the mood and the tension for me (and my whole group). I usually hate it when every room in a dungeon contains "action", because it often feels very artificial ("Why have these grells not devoured those kobolds we slew in the previous room?"). Not to mention that playing such (published) adventures usually mean that the whole session consists of little more than dice-rolling, as every fight draws more "heat" (attention) to the party.

Weird that you seem to think that 4E would cater better to your needs (i.e. "more like fiction") since to me it seems (I hope to be wrong, though) that 4E will be *more* about "weird exploration"/"disjointed fantasy" than any previous edition of D&D. For example, the Dungeoncraft installments by James seem to strongly encourage the PCs to delve into the local dungeons (James is even pondering about running the whole campaign as one giant dungeon delve in the Chasm). On the other hand, it seems that 4E is strongly separating the Encounter Areas from "useless" areas (this is also hinted at in Rich Baker's blog as he discusses his work on the 'Thuderspire Labyrinth'). This may actually lead into the game becoming more like fantasy fiction (i.e. by removing "useless" narrative and exploration by focusing the game on action "hotspots"). However, it may also very easily lead into the game becoming little else than separate Tactical Combat Encounters with some marginal role-playing qualities.

And it seems weird to me that you think the problem of D&D devolving into Tactical Combat Encounters hasn't been an issue since day one. D&D has always leaned heavily toward tactical tabletop gaming owing to it tactical tabletop gaming roots, and this has been a complaint of critics since I was a wee gamer. (Okay, I was never wee, but I was once young.)

 

[helium3]

Yes. Exactly. Why should the DM do all the work? There's crunch work, and there's fluff work, and both of those can be offloaded onto your ungrateful players so that you have less prep, and they feel more involved to boot. As an added bonus, they're not going to argue about their own motivations if they're allowed to write them.

I had to read this a couple of times before I figured out you weren't actually trying to argue that the DM should do ALL the work.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I had to read this a couple of times before I figured out you weren't actually trying to argue that the DM should do ALL the work.

Seriously, I am an advocate of foisting prep and background work onto the players wherever possible. I do enough just organizing everyone to show up at my house at the same time. Prep for the game on top of that is tough, and any additional responsibilities involved with trying to cram the various PCs into the plot is just onerous.

 

[kennew142]

I concur. Particularly for the first adventure in a campaign, the players should be prepared to either (a) take the DM's hook and play or (b) address the issue out of character and out of game.

It's also best for the DM to give the players some idea of what to expect before they sit down to play. To some extent, it seems that D&D has a tradition of giving players adventure hooks at the beginning of a game session and then expecting them to figure out what to do from there. This is, in my opinion, a bad tradition. When I sit down to play, I want to know what the PC's are going to do. I don't want to spend 45 minutes making that decision.

I give out potential adventure hooks at the end of each session, and my group uses email and a messageboard to discuss what to do next. If the players don't want to take a hook, they say so (in character or not) and I don't waste time writing an adventure that they won't play.

I place a blurb for the next scenario in my campaign on my campaign blog. Players have a lot of time (we rotate between several GMs) to mull over the story and decide for themselves why they are participating. In the first story, this is especially important.

 

[kennew142]

I don't know about you, but seems pretty dangerous and grim to me. Of course, you can "adjust" the "Danger Level" in your own 4E setting, yet unless Rich Baker has misinterpreted the concept I guess that this Design & Development article is an indication of how things will be presented in the Core Books and published adventures.

I was so going to respond to this post, but John Snow beat me to it - again!

Darn kids. Next time they can just feed themselves, or go to bed hungry!

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I was so going to respond to this post, but John Snow beat me to it - again!

Darn kids. Next time they can just feed themselves, or go to bed hungry!

I'd get a lot more posting done if I could just train my kids to hunt their own food.

 

[kennew142]

I'd get a lot more posting done if I could just train my kids to hunt their own food.

My oldest turn eight in March. Maybe I can send them on a coming of age ritual where they can learn to hunt - and to kill goblins!

 

[I'm A Banana]

As long as the campaign hook isn't too narrow or ridiculous ("you're a group of serial puppy-molesters on trial for Crimes Against Nature; please come up with a reason for why your character is attracted to puppies and small dogs"), it's not burdensome for the players.

My most recent campaign has the PCs beginning in Hell for various crimes against nature that they are alleged to commit. The thrust of the campaign is going to be escaping from Hell.

So my first questions to them? "Decide if you're guilty of the sin that has you sentenced to Hell," and "Find a reason you want to escape Hell and work with the other PC's to do so."

The first character sheet I got back is a Chaotic Evil Fighter who is apparently a serial rapist.

This is going to be an....interesting....campaign.

 

[Pale Jackal]

Exactly: the "hook" has long been viewed as a DM problem. It's not: it's an issue for the players to resolve. "This campaign will begin with everyone on a pilgrimage to a druid shrine in a coastal town. Everyone come up with a reason why you're on the pilgrimage." It's my job, as a DM, to convince players that they want to play, not to convince characters that they want to participate. If a player wants to play, he can come up with a reason for why his character would participate. As long as the campaign hook isn't too narrow or ridiculous ("you're a group of serial puppy-molesters on trial for Crimes Against Nature; please come up with a reason for why your character is attracted to puppies and small dogs"), it's not burdensome for the players.

"There is a dungeon full of aberrations next to your home village. Come up with a reason for why your characters would go in there. I'm willing to provide options."

Well said... and hilarious.

 

[JohnSnow]

I was so going to respond to this post, but John Snow beat me to it - again!

Darn kids. Next time they can just feed themselves, or go to bed hungry!

*chuckle* Sorry!

I don't have kids, which is why it always seems like I have more time to post. I do.

Of course, I'm getting married on March 1st, so I might be a bit busy to post for a while after that. New wife...honeymoon...that sort of thing.

Which means you guys will have to hold the fort post-D&D Experience without me for a while. That's why I'm building up my credit now.