What do you think of WotC's new combat encounter or "Delve" format?

[johnnype]

If you don't know what I'm talking about then read this as it explains it better than I can. Essentialy encounters in published adventures are now presented in one or two pages that include a map of the site where the encounter takes place. This is supposed to cut down on "frequent references to other books."

Now, I haven't had a chance to try it out myself but I can't see it being all that useful or necessary. As a matter of fact it just strikes me as another way to pad the page count (what took one page before now takes two). But that's not all. John Cooper, who most of you know for his detailed reviews on this website, had this to say about it in his review of Expedition to Castle Ravenloft:

"At its face value, having a book set up so that each encounter with a band of enemies takes up a single 2-page spread sounds like an excellent idea. And it is an excellent idea, don't get me wrong - if it can be sustained. The problem is, it can't: every encounter isn't going to take up the same amount of words so that it fills up a 2-page spread nice and evenly. That leads to some places where filler becomes patently obvious - like the artwork reruns within the same book - and others where important information is left out because there simply isn't room for it. The best examples of this latter problem are in the encounters with Count Strahd von Zarovich himself. The authors present Strahd's full stats starting on page 6, and they take up a whole page and a half all by themselves. Therefore, in any 2-page encounter spread featuring the Count, what we get are cropped-down stats that leave out required information like his feats, skills, and a handful of his important special abilities. In effect, what we're left with is a partial stat block that cannot actually be used as-is to run that encounter (the DM will invariably have to turn back to pages 6-7 to find out the information he'll need), so the question must be asked: why include it at all? Why not just refer the DM to pages 6-7? The answer, sadly, is that doing so would leave a gaping hole in that 2-page encounter spread, and would make it painfully obvious that the whole concept is not one that can be realized for every encounter. It's a great idea when the encounter fits nicely on 2 pages, but in many cases it's just not practical to even make the attempt. (One question I have is why the layout guys didn't monkey around with font sizes; I'd be willing to bet you could fit in a complete - and thus actually useful - set of Strahd stats if they bumped the font size down a notch or two as needed.)

Another problem with the 2-page encounter spread is you end up with quite a lot of duplicated information. For example, every time a Strahd zombie shows up in an encounter - and over the course of the adventure, they show up quite a few times! - you get a full set of stats for them. All of that duplication adds up to a lot of wasted space; I'll leave the actual page count difference as an exercise for someone with a lot more curiosity (and time!) than I do, but it wouldn't surprise me if you could recover a good 20 pages or so by deleting out the duplicated entries. When you're plunking down $34.95 for a 224-page hardcover, I imagine you (like me) don't like to see all of that waste. "

John has a lot more to say about the book. You can read the entire thing here.

To me it sounds like a colossal waste of time and, excuse the pun, space.

What do you think?

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'd argue that you dislike it because you haven't tried it. Yes, it takes up a bit more space, but it's a huge time- and effort-saver to have everything you need for the encounter in one, organized space.

And as for the argument that not every fight needs a full two-page spread, I agree. But while I can't speak for EtCR, I know that many of the books that use this encounter format have both one- and two-page spreads, precisely because some encounters are smaller than others.

 

[johnnype]

Yes, it takes up a bit more space, but it's a huge time- and effort-saver to have everything you need for the encounter in one, organized space.

You'd be right if in fact everything you needed was on the two pages but as evidenced above it's not. Not even close.

 

[Mouseferatu]

You'd be right if in fact everything you needed was on the two pages but as evidenced above it's not. Not even close.

My experience has been that we do, in fact, get everything we need the overwhelming majority of the time. There are always going to be a few exceptions, such as Strahd, that are simply too complex to fit into the format. But I don't think something that probably amounts to maybe 5% of encounters is enough to make the format a failure.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

At first blush, I like it. I don't generally care about page count all that much, and if push comes to shove and I have to refer back to the book for really complicated fights, well, I'm no worse off than I was before.

 

[tylermalan]

I'll have to agree with Mouse... I just started running EtCR, and so far, I've never needed to reference another book for any information regarding what's on the two page spread. I've referenced other books for other, unrelated rules, but never for anything that's contained on the two pages.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I'd argue that you dislike it because you haven't tried it. Yes, it takes up a bit more space, but it's a huge time- and effort-saver to have everything you need for the encounter in one, organized space.

Yeah this is part of my problem with so called game reviewers. These books are actually meant to be used, so some one rattling off conceptual problems is ok, but dont hold much weight for me unless they've actually used the product. I find the delve format a time saver for me, since I used to have to prep every encounter anyway. This way, MOST, of what I need is on that page and I have an better and more immediate idea of how I want the encounter to go.

I understand why a periodical like Dungeon wouldnt be able to do this but WOTC? Keep it up guys, I'm liking it.

 

[Shadowslayer]

I own Ravenloft, Barrow of the Forgotten King, and Scourge of the Howling Horde. Of the three, I've played Scourge, so I'll give you a playtested opinion.

I like it. I like having everything there in one place for each encounter. I don't care if the same stat block was printed 8 pages ago. If they just settled for wrting the block in on just one encounter on page 5, and then every subsequent encounter with a similar beast just refererred you to page 5, all the "during encounter" page flipping you'd have to do would invalidate the purpoase of the format, which is meant to save all the page flipping. Having it all right there is perfect.

Likewise, the focus on the tactics of the creatures, and a point by point rundown of all the types of terrain and obstacles pertinent to the encounter is all there. I don't have to open up the DMG and figure out how "dense rubble" or a waterfall affects movement.

The format works. The only complaint I have, and I don't think it even applies to all the products, is that sometimes the encounters use critters from expansion books, and then don't tell you which book they came out of. But that's a minor complaint. The fact that I get a working statblock from an expansion book critter when I didn't even have to buy the expansion book in question balances it out IMO.

One other bonus, and I haven't heard it mentioned yet, is that each encounter is pretty much a stand alone encounter. There's a value here if you look at your modules and harbacks as "encounter files" If I'm building a dungeon and I need a room with a fountain with a cool encounter, I can lift one wholesale out of one of my modules. The CRs don't even need to be calculated. I think that's neat.

So, having said all this, the new format leads me to a new concern. (One that raised its head when I read through Barrow.) Now the adventures themselves appear to be nothing but a string of encounters. Next room, next encounter, next room, next encounter etc etc. The only thing breaking it up is that you occasionally get a room with a friendly or a puzzle. Even Ravenloft seems to suffer from this...though it manages to escape the "too linear" problem. (And the two smaller modules in question are horribly linear, particularly Barrow.) What the game designers should realize, and I'm sure they will soon, is that just because you have this big dungeon, doesn't mean that every room is worthy of the Delve treatment. Sometimes a room with a magic healing fountain is just a room with a magic healing fountain. Sometimes a room with a busted statue and bloodstains on the floor is just that. (I'm betting that this has been noted, by the way)

So...Count me down as one who really likes the new encounter format....but maybe not so fussy on the new "adventure design" format...that part needs some tweaking IMO.

I say "Keep up the good work!"

 

[Bagpuss]

Other - As I own Ravenloft and I like what I've read, but not having playtested I'll reserve judgement. Still page count doesn't really matter to me I'll take quality and ease of use over quantity any day.

 

[MerricB]

Other for me. I appreciate the format, but I worry when it becomes all-consuming (such as Scourge of the Howling Horde). I really liked its use in Ravenloft.

Cheers!