Preferred Format: Ret. to the Temple of Elem. Evil or Exped. to the Ruins of Greyhawk

[delericho]

KOTS has the best new format I've seen in years LOVE IT LOVE IT! otherwise I'll take the "old school" format of GG products, original AD&D modules, C&C modules, etc.

It may be my limited exposure, but I found the format used in the Dungeon Crawl Classics a real pain to use. (I only have two - "Castle Whiterock" and "Forges of the Mountain King".) The room descriptions were generally undifferentiated, meaning that to find out what treasure was available, or what tactics the monsters would use, or any secret areas in the room, I had to read the entire area description very carefully. This was fine when preparing (perhaps even preferable), but it is a real pain when running the adventure 'live'.

It's a shame, because both the modules I have are really strong ("Castle Whiterock", in particular, is full of good stuff), but the format is a problem.

 

[delericho]

Last night I started on "King of the Trollhaunt Warrens", and I do find that the format has improved somewhat over that used in the late 3e adventures. It may be the case that the new, simpler rules for environmental factors take up a lot less space, making the whole easier to read. Or it might be an effect of the new encounter design guidelines.

However, one thing that is very noticable is that the new format is extremely demanding in terms of space. "King of the Trollhaunt Warrens" has a page count of 96 pages (100 if you include the cardboard folder that contains the two booklets and poster map), and spans 25 encounter areas. This is roughly equivalent to the Goodman Games module "Forges of the Mountain King", which has spans 32 pages. And, of course, this is reflected in the costs - $25 for "Trollhaunt Warrens" vs $15 for "Mountain King" despite the economies of scale afforded by WotC's much larger print runs.

(Actually, while composing the rest of this post it occurred to me - "Mountain King" is in black and white, while "Trollhaunt Warrens" is in colour. Naturally, this will have an impact on the price also.)

By way of further comparison, an issue of Pathfinder has 96 pages (a few of which are adverts), and a price point of $20. An issue of Pathfinder is typically comparable to "Trollhaunt Warrens" in terms of support material ("Trollhaunt Warrens" has a number of new monsters, rituals and magic items; the latest Pathfinder had several new monsters, an article on the world's solar system, and an in depth look at one of the major deities in the setting). The Pathfinder adventure, however, covers rather more encounter areas in a lower page count than does "Trollhaunt Warrens".

(Pathfinder also uses a much smaller font than either the WotC or GG adventures, and has considerably less white space. It is also in colour.)

Of course, none of these comparisons say anything about the quality of the products themselves. Personally, the only complaint I would level against any of them is that the Goodman Games module uses the OGL rather than the GSL (necessarily so), and so is forced to use different icons for things than the 4e standard. Considered as adventures, though, all three are very excellent products.

The key question I think this raises, then, is how much are you willing to pay for ease of use? If you want the most adventure for your buck, the older formats clearly have the win. However, the new format definately has the edge in terms of ease of use. (As several people have noted, "Trollhaunt Warrens" could be run almost without preparation; this is not true of either of the other two adventures.)

 

[buzz]

The key question I think this raises, then, is how much are you willing to pay for ease of use? If you want the most adventure for your buck, the older formats clearly have the win. However, the new format definately has the edge in terms of ease of use. (As several people have noted, "Trollhaunt Warrens" could be run almost without preparation; this is not true of either of the other two adventures.)

I've never really understood the "RPG product as bulk produce" view of value. Barring egregious abuses, text-content-per-page isn't something I see as a valuable metric.

City of the Spider Queen, iirc, cost about the same as KotS. It probably had more encounters per page by a wide margin. That didn't stop me from giving up on it after chapter one; there was way too much prep to do in order to get the encounters into a usable format.

KoTS, otoh, has been close to zero prep for me, and our play experience with it has been far more enjoyable than CotSQ, on both sides of the screen.

Ergo, fun-per-dollar and saved-prep-per-dollar is, I think, far, far more important. IME, the current format wins hands down by those metrics.

 

[delericho]

I've never really understood the "RPG product as bulk produce" view of value. Barring egregious abuses, text-content-per-page isn't something I see as a valuable metric.

Because the page count is directly related to the cost, while the number of encounters is directly related to the play-time. I can say with some confidence that my group will get through "King of the Trollhaunt Warrens" in about 3 sessions of play, for example.

Since my gaming budget isn't infinite, the play-time versus the cost is a factor that I consider. It isn't the only factor, or even the biggest one (quality is), but it is a factor. And with "Trollhaunt Warrens" I found myself thinking that it was awfully slim for the price point. Had it not been for the excellent reviews I've seen, I wouldn't have bothered.

Ergo, fun-per-dollar and saved-prep-per-dollar is, I think, far, far more important.

Sure, but I don't think they go hand in hand. Certainly, it will take me less time to prep "King of the Trollhaunt Warrens" than either "Forges of the Mountain King" or the typical Pathfinder adventure. But "Trollhaunt Warrens" is probably 3 sessions of play, "Mountain King" about 4, and the typical Pathfinder adventure 5 or 6. And, in both cases, this is largely down to the format - the new format preps quicker, but gives shorter play-times.

As for how satisfying the game experience is? Well, I'd need to get back to you after we've run through the three. My gut feeling, however, is that there won't be much in it. I suspect Pathfinder would win, but largely because we'd be approaching it in campaign-mode, whereas the others will be in one-shot mode. "Trollhaunt Warrens" should come second, partly because of the format, and partly because the 'official' icons are easier to follow than the OGL ones Goodman were forced to use. But I fully expect us to have a good time playing through all three.

 

[buzz]

I can say with some confidence that my group will get through "King of the Trollhaunt Warrens" in about 3 sessions of play, for example.

You guys are moving pretty fast. My group will have gotten about 7.5 sessions out of KotS. As the adventures move into higher levels, I'd bet that amount will increase.

Looking at the rest of the 4e adventure path released so far, I have a very hard time believing that you'd get through one of them in three sessions, unless your sessions are marathon ones. But, I have no idea how your group works. Maybe we're just slow.

Compared to the roughly 12 sessions we got out of Eyes of the Lich Queen (which used the 3.5 delve format, so was closer in density to CotSQ, but not exactly), our sessions-per-dollar ratio is still more than acceptable. Add to that the lack of prep time required of me, and it's been worth every penny. Add in the battlemaps, and that value goes up even more.

I'm not really worried about raw sessions-per-page. There's more adventure product on my gaming shelf—much less available in general—than my group could probably play in a decade. Quantity is not what I need. What I need are good adventures that are easy to run. Published adventures are tools to facilitate gaming sessions. For me, the current format is the best tool available. The original 3.0 format, otoh, made me want to stop DMing.

 

[delericho]

You guys are moving pretty fast. My group will have gotten about 7.5 sessions out of KotS. As the adventures move into higher levels, I'd bet that amount will increase.

Probably true. We play fro 6-8 hours at a time, and tend to be pretty focussed once we get going. Especially for 'one-shot' adventures, where the amount of role-play is reduced in favour of seeking the goal.

There's more adventure product on my gaming shelf—much less available in general—than my group could probably play in a decade.

That's true for me as well, although it's all for 3e. For 4e I have only the two modules I've cited above, and there isn't a huge amount more out there (for now). Still, I'd rather have fewer quality adventures than a whole load of dross - and both the 4e adventures I have certainly seem to be solid.

 

[buzz]

That's true for me as well, although it's all for 3e. For 4e I have only the two modules I've cited above, and there isn't a huge amount more out there (for now). Still, I'd rather have fewer quality adventures than a whole load of dross - and both the 4e adventures I have certainly seem to be solid.

Yeah, I do probably have more 3e stuff than 4e at this point.

Still, when you count the five published 4e adventures, and the, what, ten or so on DDI... that's probably nearing 100 sessions for us at our current rate. And then there's the RPGA adventures you can get, and the GSL stuff slowly coming out... And this will only grow!

 

[Agamon]

The 1st format is good, as long as you have a seperate copy of the stats rather than having to refer to them in the back of the book.

The new format isn't so bad though, I think it's the best way to do it, honestly (more the 4e format as opposed to the 3.5 Expedition format). The combat encounters are laid out, letting you splice them together however your group likes to play.