Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5608529" data-attributes="member: 22424">Absolutely. That is exactly the strength of the Delve format. (It's also why I don't think it's wise to abandon it totally. I mentioned the possibility of the "emergency adventure" in a previous post - a short zero-prep Delve to be run in a single session. I feel this format is ideal for that.)Here's a thought: did every encounter need to be a 1-page spread? Would it have been possible to encapsulate a simple encounter in half a page? Alternately, if you have four encounters that all share the same environmental conditions and most of the same monsters, could those be combined into a single 2-page spread?(I would have thought that something like "Sons of Grummsh" could be done in this way.)That way, you get the tactical spreads without eating up so much space.(Also, electronic publishing should mean that this isn't the same issue as in print. It should be possible to drag-and-drop large parts of the 2-page spreads into place, after having written the "story" part of the adventure. After all, they're going to be reusing a lot of stat blocks, environmental conditions, and so on. And who really cares if a PDF runs to 41 pages instead of 40?)I can see possible conclusions from this:1) They're putting the cart before the horse. The format should not dictate the structure of the adventure, and groups missing 20% of the content shouldn't be an issue. Better to use 80% of a good adventure than 100% of a poor one - especially since it's more likely that groups will instead use 0% of the poor one.Alternately:2) If it's really not acceptable to skip the encounter and miss the content, then the Delve format is unusable, except for the "emergency adventure"/Dungeon Delve style game.</blockquote>

Verification