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

[MerricB]

That could be like Merric's 2nd Law or something: "cheap", ease of use, or more content -- pick two. =)

LOL. I don't think it uses such a law, alas. The law of miniatures relies on there being three interconnected entities; with the delve format, it's merely two. You can write it as:

"The amount of space used to describe something is proportional to its ease of use."

But that's not accurate, either. (It isn't proportional).

Cheers!

 

[Guillaume]

It is the first time I have heard of the new format. As a DM, I must say I find the concept very interesting. I naturally have not had the chance to try it out, but, it seems very straight forward to use. It gave me the net impression of increasing the ease of use.

As for the OP assertion that not everything is there to run the encounter, I don't know, as it based of an adventure I have neither seen nor read. That being said, I tend to agree with Mouse on this one, I feel it is a good concept for many types of encounters. We cannot dismiss it on the basis of a minority of situations.

On the other hand, I would like to see how it works in whole adventure. I like my games to have a good mix of encounters : role-play, puzzle, fights, traps, etc., and a good mix of environment : outside, city, dungeon, etc. It seems to me that the Delve format would be ill suited for some of these. We'll see how it pans out in the future.

By the way, I get the feeling that this is a great way to teach aspiring DMs the ropes. Everything they need close at hand. One of the problems my wife had every time she tried her hand at DMing was the sheer number of referencing she had to do. She loaths to improvise, everything has to planned for her to work an encounter. This format does a lot of the work for you. It would be perfect for her, I think.

 

[Thotas]

I'm with those who are arguing for a case-by-case basis. Sometimes you can do it with single page (several times in "Scourge of the Howling Horde", but I think using two anyway was okay there, the more open format is more accessible to the newbie DMs it's geared to), sometimes you need two. In those cases, definately use the delve format.

True, the Strahd example proves you can't always present something this way effectively. But that is no arguement for not using an easier and more readable format when you can.

 

[Shadowslayer]

True, the Strahd example proves you can't always present something this way effectively. But that is no arguement for not using an easier and more readable format when you can.

Actually, one thing that could eliminate more page flipping in Ravenloft would've been to have Strahd's stats on a card, or some other sort of pull-out thing.

Just throwing out an idea.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

I like it. It isn't necessary for every encounter, but I can see where it would speed things up on the more complex ones.

 

[charlesatan]

Actually, one thing that could eliminate more page flipping in Ravenloft would've been to have Strahd's stats on a card, or some other sort of pull-out thing.

Actually the best way, without needing to do the delve format, is to have two books: one solely for the adventure, another for the stats (sort of like printing what's normally the appendix on a separate book). But of course there's the publishing feasibility problem (i.e. printing two books instead of just one).

The best way to perhaps illustrate is that if your laptop was your DM screen, you'd have two windows: one for the adventure, another with the stats. That way you can save space on the adventure itself and have access to the stats at the same time as needed.

 

[Thotas]

I like that. The old 3 ring binder approach, especially if the holes are reinforced, might work better for NPCs than it did for monsters in 2e. Or card stock to be put in file folders. That could be handy.

 

[Shadowslayer]

I like that. The old 3 ring binder approach, especially if the holes are reinforced, might work better for NPCs than it did for monsters in 2e. Or card stock to be put in file folders. That could be handy.

The cardstock I'll go for. 3 Ring binder not so much. I still have my old compendiums...they're in rough shape, and I didn't abuse them. (Though the color section dividers, when laminated in stiff card-laminate, and taped together, make a cracker-jack DM screen!)

 

[Hypersmurf]

Actually the best way, without needing to do the delve format, is to have two books: one solely for the adventure, another for the stats (sort of like printing what's normally the appendix on a separate book). But of course there's the publishing feasibility problem (i.e. printing two books instead of just one).

Perforated insert?

-Hyp.

 

[charlesatan]

Perforated insert?

-Hyp.

I might misplace them if I do take them apart. =)