D&D 4E What do you think of the delve format used in 4E adventures?

[pemerton]

I opted for "hate it" here and on the WotC site.

I've got nothing against maps. I've got nothing against maps with interesting terrain. I've got nothing against monsters on that terrain - and even with starting locations suggested on the maps.

But I don't like a format that wastes space, duplicates information, and makes it hard to run dynamic encounters that move outside of some preconceived portion of the map. And that discourages giving non-combat encounters the same design attention as combat one.

 

[S'mon]

For some reason it didn't seem as painful in Expedition to Castle Greyhawk as elsewhere I've seen it. Must be something about the presentation.

 

[Jhaelen]

I still prefer the delve format for presenting (significant) encounters. The only change I'd like to see: WotC adventure modules come with two books: One containing the encounters and one containing the adventure overview. The latter needs to become the more important one.

I'm imagining something like the 'Hammerfast' supplement. It only has, what, 32 pages? But it's sufficient to spawn a whole (short) campaign.

The encounter book only needs to detail large set-piece encounters. Add a bunch of 'random' encounter areas that you can populate with monsters taken from 'random' encounter tables.

Both has been done before in WotC products:
In 3e it was 'Expedition to Castle Greyhawk', in 4e it was 'The Slaying Stone'.

(reposted from the thread in the General forum with the same topic here)

 

[FireLance]

As I said in the General Forum thread:

I think the delve format is great for describing encounters. However, when it comes to describing adventures, you need more than a series of delves. I agree with those who have said that there needs to be another format for this.

 

[Ourph]

I'd be willing to sacrifice some convenience for it to actually be an enjoyable read.

I voted "prefer it" because I have the exact opposite reaction. I've never found any RPG book particularly enjoyable to read. Especially when it comes to adventure modules, I buy them based on their utility and enjoyability at the table, during the actual act of playing the game. The delve format is great in that regard, IMO.

 

[Balesir]

I'd rather have a good adventure than a crappy adventure with a bunch of good encounters, frankly.

I think the problem here is that previous editions' focus has been on the adventure, leading to not just crappy encounters, but a lack of guidelines or format for making good encounters. The Delve format has redressed this somewhat, but gone too far (in that it has been coupled with a very poor 'adventure' format).

However, my biggest gripe with the WotC format in general is the lack of artwork. There's a sterility to endless Maps and Stat-blocks which really takes a lot of the fun out of reading official adventures. I understand the idea behind artwork in a seperate book (so you can show the players) but that doesn't make these things any easier to read. Added to which there is an inherent sameness to the official adventures which needs addressed.

Not only that, but they have put all the art in the booklet where the scenario overview is, thus gimping the space available for giving a really coherent adventure structure presentation! Not to mention that the art often has a disconnect to what the characters are actually likely to see...

I wrote a post in the article discussion thread, and I won't repeat myself too much, but what I would like to see is:

- Adventures presented in digital form, not to be cheap/quick or whatever, but to take full advantage of the features of digital documents. Hyperlinks from a full adventure overview to 'Delve'-type encounter synopses, layered maps to give monster location, secret and hidden information separately from the overall map (and give "fog of war" options, too, maybe), repeating of text in multiple places so that everything is in one place when you are running (there is no tight space constraint on a PDF) and other linking and layering uses to give maximum utility to each section.

- A carefully developed, fully thought out format for presenting adventure flow, shape and structure. Use of overview maps, flowcharts and relationship charts to give an overview of the scenario that can be easily assimilated into a DM's brainspace. Even have someone responsible for doing this 'digital layout' work, as distinct from writing the actual text or designing the encounters or the adventure.

- Hyperlinking and popups to give easy access to maps, character profiles and artwork. And monster blocks and read-aloud text (even though I seldom use it as written).

- And did I mention hyperlinking? And popups?

I'll stop now...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I voted 'hate it.'

There's a similar topic over in General, and I replied similarly.

The delve format is mind-bogglingly bad. On the list of the 1,031 bone-headed, misguided, facepalm decisions that WOTC has made since 2007, the delve format is tied for #2.

Which translate in: "they are not doing that bad"?

I voted for "I like it for some encounters", as it is a perfect way to make short dungeon delve adventures. Thing is, I still need more than one evening, because of all the roleplaying in between those encounters.

But fact is: some encounters happen at certain points. And then it is nice to all information handy. So the delve format certainly helps. On the other hand, and I must underline what Mengu said, encounters need to fit on one page. More than that and i forget half of the powers.

But there are things that don´t really work with delve format: Random encounters. (Or better said: roaming encounters.)
Adventures need encounters that can happen anywhere. Those encounters can´t have a map layed out. But it does not mean, that a single page of information is wasted here.

Patrol: 4 Monsters of x, 1 Monster of y. Game math is robust enough that a single page can last for several levels. And actually, that an encounter that is nearly lethal at the start of an adventure is just inconvenient at the end shows players, that they advance.

I really hate the idea of everything scales with the characters. And a small area with threats over a 4 level range, with bandits or monsters roaming in the woods that can be encountered at different places, and at different times and levels make the game experience better.

And this is where non delve format and random dungeon tiles have its place.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey there Ourph!

I voted "prefer it" because I have the exact opposite reaction. I've never found any RPG book particularly enjoyable to read. Especially when it comes to adventure modules, I buy them based on their utility and enjoyability at the table, during the actual act of playing the game. The delve format is great in that regard, IMO.

I remember enjoying reading the original Temple of Elemental Evil because of the various factions and interesting encounters.

I really enjoyed reading Queen of the Demonweb Pits with information on the Demonweb, Lolth's servants, her Spider-Ship and the myriad world's she had conquered.

So I don't think its necessarily ever the narrative of the 'story' that grabs me, but more a case of interesting places; NPCs and encounters.

Maybe the WotC 4E Adventure Path series is too caught up in trying to unfold the story rather than just creating an interesting place to explore.

 

[Arksorn]

The WOTC poll on the same subject is closed. It is interesting to see the difference between those responses and these. Too bad we cannot see total numbers responding.

WOTC RESULTS
What do you think of the delve format used in 4E adventures?

> I like it for some encounters, but not all of them: 64.2% (45.5% here)
> I hate it and want it replaced: 20.6% (41.4% here)
> I like it and prefer it to other formats: 15.2% (vs 13.1% here)

The % for here is as of today, I think the poll is still open. There is a higher percentage of haters here

 

[Aegeri]

The last adventure in Dungeon showed Wizards were willing to experiment with things. I hope to see them continue.