World's Largest Dungeon XP points problem: Region A (Spoiler Free)

[Qwillion]

World’s Largest Dungeon Region A 1st-3rd level dungeon adventure by AEG
Michael Hamemes (Author of Region E), Jim Pinto (Line Developer and Editor), Katie Yates (Editor), Mark Jelfo (Creative Director), Sean Hollard (d20 Rules Maven), John Zinzer (original concept and CEO), Maureen Yates (COO), Mary Valles (Production Manager)
.
In a 1st-3rd level adventure a party of 4 characters should be able to start at 1st level and reach 3rd level by the end of the adventure. To me this means a minimum award of 12,000 XP. Now we do not all have a nice iconic group, I myself run a group of 8 to 9 players so even at the most the XP awarded should be 53,991. This would keep even a group of 9 players from reaching level 4.

In the World’s Largest Dungeon AEG states that you should award half XP for challenge ratings or award by encounter level rather than using the standard rules for XP. I was not sure how I felt about AEG’s decision not to use the existing rules to design an adventure. However, I am a firm believer that you always have a right to create variants as long as those variants are precise and well thought out. Most WLD GMs voicing their opinion have chosen the Encounter Level route. A few have chosen a “leveling room” that when you discover a certain room you level up, eliminating XP awards.

I find the idea of “leveling room” to be anti-climatic. It is also against my love of role-playing XP, XP for good ideas and XP for ideas or tactics that do not work because of bad luck.

Therefore, I sat down with the Encounter Levels for the listed encounters in Region A of the World’s Largest Dungeon. I did not include random encounters or one Variant Level Encounter (an automatically generated random encounter) that occurs in a high traffic zone.

The total XP: 73,450…this number stunned me. Even at 9 players that is 8,161 XP that puts them over half way to 5th level in a 1st-3rd level dungeon. To me this seems wrong on a number of levels and destroys my trust that the XP will be right for other regions. I had hoped this exercise would stop me from having to do this for all 15 regions. Now I will have to do the calculations that AEG could (and perhaps should) have done for me.

The frustrating thing is what if I did not have nine people begging to play this. What if what I had was the 4 iconic people and I was an inexperienced DM, the players would be almost 7th level.

An even more annoying issue though is treasure and wealth by level, treasure is supposed to be a reward based on encounter level if the XP per encounter level is off, how much more so is the treasure per encounter. I am not big on Monte Haul but I am not Dungeonezer Scrooge either. The point being if XP is off, then treasure is off, then equipment is off, then challenge ratings are off (because they expect players to have certain equipment), and if challenge ratings are off then encounter levels are off. Welcome to my merry-go round.

“I find your lack of faith disturbing.” —Darth Vader

I have since decided to award half XP by encounter level after the players reach second level. (Only a DM could love 1st level.) I do not expect they will clear every room and go through every encounter (Murphy’s Law says they will if your do not prepare for it.), but I would like to be able to dole out as little XP gravy.

IN CONCLUSION
This is only one region, I could be wrong about the rest. I like the WLD I am enjoying reading it; its room layouts are the best I have ever read. I will probably buy the World’s Largest City. Yet, I cannot express to you how irked I was by the XP being flat wrong. I hope someone can explain to me why a simple matter of following the rules (even a variant rule you create) was too much for those listed above.

Thank You,
Steven Russell

"Make it cool! Then make it make sense."

 

[Celebrim]

I don't own it and haven't played it, but by all accounts level A is the least interesting and most problimatic of all the areas. I also think that you are making a big mistake in assuming that parties will take a CRPG approach to every area and clean it out fully before moving on.

 

[S'mon]

A "1st-3rd level adventure" always used to mean an adventure "suitable to be started by PCs of 1st-3rd level" - your definition "an adventure that will take PCs from 1st level to 3rd level" is a 3e phenomena that I guess the WLD designers didn't intend. I agree with Celebrim that adding up all possible XP in the dungeon on the assumption that the PCs will get all of it seems pointless to me. In any case, if you think your PCs are advancing too fast award 1/2 XP, as you're doing. I don't take from your post that there is a design flaw in the dungeon, just in your interpretation of the designers' intent.

 

[Sieobahn]

I have been doing the same thing, slowing the amount of XP given after second level. But I had a lot of player deaths in Region A, when they created a new PC, they started with minimum XP for that level, so they lost a lot of XP that way.

One thing to consider is that this is only a problem if they wander around and try and clear out every room. If they miss a lot, they may be underpowered when venturing into the next region. Going into region B with half the group still at first level was a bad idea for my group!

 

[Capellan]

Given AEG's other, far more egregious and lazy hand waves in designing WLD ("ban wizards", "ban druids", "ban taking 10 and taking 20", "ban summoning", "ban web and other spells"), I'd say that non-standard XP is the least of your worries

 

[rexartur]

Wld

My group is mostly through area A, with an early foray inrto area B. I take average party level (compensated for by number of combatants)and determine at what level the encounter will be faced (as is or scaled up or down). The level range of the area determines what the as is avareg party level should be. I award full XP the first time type of challenge is faced. 1/2 XP for subsequent same challenges. Level cap of max. level of the area until they move on. I also don't ban anything, and require concentration checks of DC10 and DC20 to take 10 and 20, respectively. Also, food, water and fatigue are factors. Now among the other motivations, the hunt for food drives them.

 

[Qwillion]

Respodent

CELEBRIM
"But by all accounts level A is the least interesting and most problematic of all the areas."

Yes I have rewritten a lot of this region (mostly replacing creatures) but am doing very little with region B or E

"Big mistake in assuming that parties will take a CRPG approach to every area and clean it out fully before moving on."

I said the following " do not expect they will clear every room and go through every encounter “ but even if they only go through half that is enough for my group to be third level and I have 8-9 players. This is still not counting random encounters.

S'MON
"Your definition "an adventure that will take PCs from 1st level to 3rd level" is a 3e phenomena that I guess the WLD designers didn't intend."

This is exactly what the books states, so the designers intended it to be an adventure that takes you to third level so that you can move on to region B or E. If the book states that is how it is to be used then the book should perform to that expectation.

"I don't take from your post that there is a design flaw in the dungeon, just in your interpretation of the designers' intent."

Quoting the book
"Enough for an entire party to grow from levels 1 to 20."
"Map A is designed for levels 1 to 3"

How is there a flaw in my interpretation?

SIEOBAHN
“Going into region B with half the group still at first level was a bad idea for my group!”

Yea I have tried to make each region a bit more physically different from the other, making the doors between regions special and etc.

CAPELLAN
“Given AEGs other, far more egregious and lazy hand waves in designing WLD ("ban wizards", "ban druids", "ban taking 10 and taking 20", "ban summoning", "ban web and other spells"), “

Yes I found this to be extremely lazy, the whole suggestion that you should ban a particular core classes was annoying, rather than tell his designers, you have to make spell books for wizards and put in a variant for gray druids, your damn right that the introduction comes off as lazy, thank god most of the dungeon does not reflect the introduction.

In defense though I did adopt one suggestion that I loved, when taking a 20 you must make a concentration check (because it’s tedious), if more of the suggestions had been like this I would have been much happier.

I have solved my summoning issue, you can follow transient planes in but not out of the dungeon, If you try you move to the closest exit, if there is a closed door then it stops right at the closed door, I did this simply by making the walls and doors solid on all transient planes (astral, ethereal, and shadow), it’s the roach motel, you check in you don’t check out. This made summonings, blink, dimension door, and teleport actually work. Again your dead on, AEG was lazy.

“I'd say that non-standard XP is the least of your worries “
I disagree all of these things were easy to fix and they were differences of intent and design. With XP they did not change the rules and then follow their changes, they did not create a guideline that their designer had to follow, and then they did not edit and enforce any kind of XP guideline. It’s not that it’s the least of my problems, it just it takes the most work to fix because it screws up, level, treasure, equipment, CR and EL.

REXATUR:
I agree with everything you have done,

I think once the players reach the level that the cleric can create food and water; food will not be an issue anymore. Yet I think I am going to push for that until they get the spell. (And maybe a level after that to make the cleric waste the spells.)

 

[S'mon]

I accept your rebuttal.

 

[Qwillion]

S'MON

Your a gentleman and a scholar.

"We only improve through criticism."

 

[billd91]

I think you're being a bit anal about the experience point issue, especially since the WLD recommends that you not use the standard XP award rules at all. Rather, they think you're better off letting the players play a while and then leveling them up when it seems appropriate. I agree, but then, I also think the XP awards in 3E are far too generous.

As far as the other 'lazy' elements of the intro, I don't consider them lazy at all. Rather, I see them as realistic assessments of what the module isn't built to accommodate: druids, summoning, and wizards. At least they took the time to let the DM know this up front. Now, you could take a look at those caveats in the intro and accept them, adjust the treasure to compensate for them, adjust the standard behavior of summoning, whatever. At least now you know the score.