Rule of Three 2/28

[KidSnide]

1. A time limit on the mission. While fine now and then, this gets tiresome if applied to every adventure the party goes out on.
2. Wandering monsters, in quantity*. (note that "wandering monsters" can also include other permanent occupants of the place - patrols being the most obvious)
3. Make the adventures small enough that a party of the expected level can most likely finish in one go, without having to rest. BLEAH!

I think time limits can be used to great effect. Red Hand of Doom (except for the sad dungeon crawl between the battle and the post-battle "second climax") is a great example of a time limit adventure. The key is to allow some strategic flexibility and a way to affect the timeline. (E.g. there should be things you can do to gain more time.)

There is also the important time limit variant, where the PCs can take as much time as they want, provided they can avoid being discovered. To me, this kind of Against-the-Giants style game should be the typical way in which PCs enter large armed encampments of hostile intelligent foes. (Group infiltration is an under-utilized adventure style in D&D, and stealth rules that guarantee failure by requiring an arbitrary number of dice rolls prevent if from seeing more use.)

As to wandering monsters, I think random additional monsters are the poorest examples of this. I tend to think the right way to build an active location is to design the major NPC antagonists and then describe how they move about a location and react to PC activity. Preferably, there should be a way for the PCs to gain intelligence about these NPCs before they face them. That way, the PCs and NPCs can go at each other dynamically.

And I have no problem with adventure locals that only take a day. Just because the locale takes a day, that doesn't mean the adventure takes a day. There are plenty of long adventures that feature small "one-day" locations. (At least some of the Kingmaker adventures are examples.) And isn't a well run megadungeon kind of like this? Don't you clear out a defensible location to rest and then try to either take out mini-factions in one swoop (so they can't respond) or risk fighting the bigger factions that will come after you like intelligent foes? A megadungeon where the PCs face no danger if they fail to apply a sensible strategy sounds like a dreadful bore.

Lastly, you missed the adventure style where the PCs spend most of the adventuring figuring out what's going on (maybe with the occasional combat encounter) and then the PCs have a single big fight at the end. I think that's the most common adventure structure in most of the D&D campaigns I've played in over the past decade or so. I wouldn't write a 40-page adventure with this structure, but I don't see why it shouldn't be a regular presence in Dungeon as the high-concept alternative to Chaos Scar.

Speaking just for myself, I have little use for static dungeons filled with monsters and treasure. Less sadistic versions of Tomb-of-Horrors style trap-fests can be a lot of fun, but I see that type of adventure is best used as a change up from dynamic situations and the ability for the PCs to rest when they want is part of the charm. That type of adventure is more about the PCs going as far as they can with minimal attrition until they fail to avoid a disaster.

Edit: This is presumably a non-exhaustive list -- only my thoughts on the techniques mentioned so far.

-KS

 

[howandwhy99]

This says Legends & Lore, but it's Rule of Three, right? That column has been far more informative lately and this last is pretty exciting.

I think the interesting questions are:

How will adventures be designed to balance Combat, Exploration, and Interaction?
What ratios are we looking at?
How are they going to judge which is which (I mean, really. Monsters can be fought, talked with, chased around, and even dissected for parts that may go boom! or ack!)
What are going to be the basic kinds of resources for each adventuring column?
How is renewal of these resources handled? (big question, or is everything permanent?)
How will group play be accommodated, I mean turn taking? Actions by the group as one? Choice by player?
How viable is safety by adventure environment? Delve in dungeons, rest in towns is standard, but 1 fight/day (10 MAD) gets old fast, so...
How easily can safety be had in the proverbial dungeon on an excursion?
How will they address customization aka house rules in the game books?

 

[pemerton]

Rodney Thompson says:

Even in a dungeon crawl environment, if there’s more to do than just fight things, there is a reason to keep pushing on even when one’s resources are relatively depleted, because you might find something around the next corner other than a fight.​

I don't get this. If the game is about things other than fighting, and is also about resourceme management, then why won't talking to things rather than fighting them also consume resources?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Because talking consumes nothing other than air?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Ah*hem, yes, Rule of Three, move along now, nothing to see here...

Keep in mind that RoT takes questions from the public, so the question about the 15MAD was apparently from someone who is actually concerned about it. And I think Rodney nailed the answer pretty well. I think the devil's in the details, though, and giving the DM the right functional advice to address this in her own games will be a challenge. It's easy to say "MAKE BETTER ADVENTURES, STOOPID!", but it's harder in practice, especially when you're trying to help a DM do it via an advice book.

I don't get this. If the game is about things other than fighting, and is also about resourceme management, then why won't talking to things rather than fighting them also consume resources?

It might. But I imagine it wouldn't be the same resources (e.g.: not hit points or daily attacks). And I think the point is broader: a dungeon that is varied will provide more interesting possibilities around the corner, and it can keep the players pressing forward even if they're running a bit low on one resource or another.

 

[Andor]

Rodney Thompson says:

Even in a dungeon crawl environment, if there’s more to do than just fight things, there is a reason to keep pushing on even when one’s resources are relatively depleted, because you might find something around the next corner other than a fight.​

I don't get this. If the game is about things other than fighting, and is also about resourceme management, then why won't talking to things rather than fighting them also consume resources?

Who said it wouldn't? A talking encounter might consume a charm spell, cash or food used as a bribe, political capital, reputation, time, etc.

But unless you're making payoffs with combat critical magic items, it's not going to consume the same pool of resources as combat.

 

[Kingreaper]

I have to ask: what elements can reasonably go into adventure design that would serve to force a party to keep going when they would otherwise rest?

Depends on their reason for adventuring.

If they're trying to help people, it's easy.
Sure, they could rescue the prince tomorrow, he'll still be there to be rescued, but his half-ogre bride is unlikely to let him sleep quietly and peacefully.
Sure, they could defeat the necromancer tomorrow, but another 100 or so people will die over the course of the night.

etc.

 

[Balesir]

Could the 15 MAD be addressed via the Social Contract? Sure.

Could it be addressed via adventure design? Of course.

Could it be addressed through the DM thinking up reasons it will lead to "bad stuff"? Much as I dislike that sort of crap, yes, it could.

But, it seems to me, a system that addresses the issue within itself by offering the players incentives (not prohibitions) to offset the (obvious) advantages of renewing resources whenever possible just seems like a better system, to me.

If you don't like it because it's not what you've got, fine - stick with what you've got. Personally, I'm interested in seeing a better system.

 

[ExploderWizard]

But if you need the kobold artifact to stop the big bad from doing something big and bad, shouldn't the big bad be accomplishing something in the time it takes you to sleep 6 hours and then take an extra day or two catching up to the kobolds? I suppose it's the same old problem: almost no one really has time to keep strict time records for the whole campaign world and the villain's plans, so everything kinda moves at the speed of the players' actions; the big bad's plans are exactly as far along as they need to be for things to keep working smoothly the next time the PCs encounter him , and there isn't much wiggle room to adjust based on whether the players did or did not sleep in the middle of the adventure.

Why should the DM alter the rate of progress for the villain because the PCs decide to rest? After all, the bad guys plans suffer setbacks due to PC interference which means their actions have meaning. The INACTION of the party should have similar meaning.

The basis of XP also have a lot to do with what tactics are best. If XP is primarily earned through defeating "encounters" then having more of them (due to wandering monsters interrupting rest) is a benefit that just helps the party advance faster.

If XP is primarily gained by finding treasure than extraneous encounters with non-treasure bearing wandering monsters slow down progression and are avoided if possible.

Likewise, if XP is primarily gained by achieving goals then too much delay and failing repeatedly with bring constant diminished rewards.


It all comes down to the rewards. If the DM constantly props the PCs up and shifts the goalposts to whatever the PCs are currently doing then nothing will change. Why stop doing something that works.

 

[soulcatcher78]

Tucker's Kobolds would be an extreme example of what could be done to limit multiple return trips to the same dungeon area (presumably with the help of the 15MAD).

Using milestones (finish a section/area/number of encounters) would work best IMO to keep the 15MAD from becoming a common issue.