WotC: Get Rid of the Tactical Encounter Format

[Rechan]

When I looked at Castle Ravenloft in the store, I stared at it and said, "WHAT THE HELL is this crap?" Especially because I was looking for a specific monster or two in there, and I couldn't freaking find it.

Definitely get rid of the non-linearness.

 

[Nikosandros]

Sometimes the format is useful, but I think that it's very bad that all tactical encounters are forced to be represented by it. Sometimes it's a complete waste of space and other times it makes finding things annoying.

 

[Lord Zack]

I like it generally, but I agree that it could be organized better.

 

[Glyfair]

I like the new format too, but like the thread starter, I DETEST having to reference back and forth. THere has to be a better way.

I agree. I like the concept, but it needs refinement.

One idea I like is to go back to box sets. Have the encounter is a separate booklet, or loose sheets. Have both open in front of you with no flipping (shades of Gary Shandling).

Second, some encounters are enhanced by the format, and some are actively hurt. Don't use them for them. For example, Nic Logue has pointed out it fails for chase scenes.

 

[KarinsDad]

I actually really like this format. It seems that it could use some better organization, however. They need to be more consistent in which area they give what information in. They are at about 90% for this but if they split it correctly, it should be fine.

That's one of the problems. Even when they are consistent, it is still not always split "correctly".

For example in EotLQ, "Features of the Area" like illumination level and such are in the tactical section.

If one wanted two sections, information like this should be in the descriptive section. When the DM has to flip from the descriptive section to the tactical section in order to tell the players what they see, it a) gives clues to the players that an encounter is about to start, and b) slows and breaks the flow of the game.


The main problem with segregating the two sections is that the DM has to flip back and forth in order to quickly understand the situation and explain it to the players.

For example, the tactical section typically has the map along with the tactics of the NPCs and the starting locations of the NPCs. If the DM is describing the room and does not know the starting locations, he has to flip back to the map in order to find out where the NPCs are.


I agree that this format is slightly better than RttToEE, but not by much. Flipping back 10 pages is nearly as much of a pain as flipping back 100 pages. 3x5 cards can be used as placeholders in either case.

But, neither of these is as efficient as having all of the information on 1 to 3 consecutive pages.

 

[PeterWeller]

Here's how I'd fix the situation:

1. TWO or more maps showing the actual tactics the monsters are "supposed" to take
2. Cardboard fold up with monster stats on the half-page and pictures on the top half (so the players could look at the picture and the DM can look at the stat blocks



jh

I'd get behind this. It's like the old Dark Sun modules, but better.

 

[Glyfair]

For example in EotLQ, "Features of the Area" like illumination level and such are in the tactical section.

If one wanted two sections, information like this should be in the descriptive section.

I disagree. If anything this should be in both. The illumination is an important tactical element and I shouldn't have to flip back to be reminded. On the other hand, it is an important descriptive element (at least in many cases).

I'll also note that it really fails in Eyes of the Lich Queen. It seems that whoever made the maps didn't have access to the final text. Also, whoever did the final development didn't have the map. There are many cases where the map and text don't match, and often are contradictory. Most these are listed in my EotLQ errata thread.

 

[KarinsDad]

I disagree. If anything this should be in both. The illumination is an important tactical element and I shouldn't have to flip back to be reminded. On the other hand, it is an important descriptive element (at least in many cases).

True enough.

Just another reason there should be one section instead of two.

 

[NaturalZero]

I ran EtCR and found it to be quite a pain. Id rather they use the tactical format and just stick the damn combat write-up where it occurs in the story/description. The tactical write-ups are fine, theyre just in the wrong place.

 

[Klaus]

Separate booklets would be neat.