Will Dungeon magazine feature the new "Delve Format" mentioned on WotC's web site?
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060317a
I looked at it and while it would save the DM a lot of time, which I'm all for, I'm afraid that it would drive up the word count to the point that Dungeon would have to drop down to two adventures per magazine.
I would support increasing the page count to adopt a format that includes more information and reduces rule book page flipping, but that would entail a price increase (which I don't mind, but most other disagree with me).
Looks like it saves some effort, but this looks like it's heavily biased toward you to buying miniatures, and I'm not a huge fan of buying D&D miniatures.
I avoided Magic: The Gathering and Warhammer because they were all about buying more and more products, and with D&D miniatures you don't even have the challenge and satisfaction of painting them like you do Warhammer minis. You also get less use out of individual miniatures in D&D, where you might fight a red slaad once in an entire year, than in Warhammer, where many of your minis will see action on a regular basis.
The established D&D userbase are too used to playing the game the cheap way, and that's in part how it got popular. Poor people and misers might not be Hasbro's ideal market, but it's a lot of us - if you have good imaginations, then one set of core rulebooks and six boxes of dice is all a group really needs. That's one of the game's strengths.
Anything else they want to sell to us tightpurses, has really got to convince us. Tome and Blood was good because every group has arcane casters who want extras. Miniatures with every adventure? That's a challenge to convince us. Again, we're used to being a lot more frugal. Some adventures, they don't even use miniatures at all. Dungeon magazine, they can't really package miniatures either.
So we have to look monsters up in the book at a given page number. Big deal! Preparation should see you looking the monster up in advance. Just open it at the page number they give, and set a bag of dice on the book to keep it open. Now, there's an idea for a product...
You don't have to use miniatures in your game if you don't want to. I use reusable or printable counters in my game. The only miniatures I use are for the PCs, and they are Reaper miniatures.
Anyway, I think this is off-topic really. The question is more about whether Dungeon will follow suit with the new format in terms of keeping in line with Wizards of the Coast's design, similarly to the new statblock format that was adopted.
I have been discussing this subject with a local gaming group board here in Portland. I think that premade modules type adventures would be the way to go. I agree with what F2K said about Dungeon going this route. More paper = more money.
I'd prefer some good software that allows me to make my own adventures in the "delve format".
Some what was written in the above mentioned article looks really cool. For instance, printing a small confusion spell table alongside an encounter with an umber hulk. Very useful.
Creative Director
|
We've known Wizards has been contemplating this change in adventure presentation for some time, and aren't quite yet sure how Dungeon will incorperate any of these changes. On the one hand, it DOES make the game easier to play to have all the information you neeed on one page or on a spread of pages. On the other hand, it takes up a LOT more room, and it's a LOT more expensive to produce an adventure like this since there'll be art and maps on every page.
Personally, I think I still prefer the current format. Sure, there's page-flipping and you have to have several books open, but the fact is that in some cases, an encounter simply won't fit on one or two pages. And it remains to be seen how this format will work in non-combat encounters.
For now, Dungeon is staying with its current format.
The current Dungeon format works very well, I've found, and if I'm on the ball as a DM by the time we're actually playing I've got all of the monster manual entries I'll need bookmarked along with special rules entries (fighting underwater, concealment, etc.). It can be a pain keeping everything open, but that's alright with me as long as it allows Dungeon magazine to fit more content into the same page count without skimping on art.
That being said, for a published module put out by WOTC or a published campaign like Red Hand of Doom where there is more breathing room in the page count, I think it's a great idea and I'm looking forward to checking out its debut in print.
Personally, I think I still prefer the current format. Sure, there's page-flipping and you have to have several books open, but the fact is that in some cases, an encounter simply won't fit on one or two pages. And it remains to be seen how this format will work in non-combat encounters.
For now, Dungeon is staying with its current format.
I assume distributing an electronic version of the new formats wouldn't be cost or time effective enough to consider as well.
For now, Dungeon is staying with its current format.
I would strongly recommend one change: page numbers. It is horribly frustrating for me as DM to have a player step on a trap, trigger a "Wail of the Banshee" spell upon himself and, suddenly, I can't find the spell in any of my books.
Even if you don't write out the effects of a spell or monster ability, the DM's job can be made MUCH easier by just putting something as simple as, for example "(PHB p. 212)" after the words "Confusion spell" in an article.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I would like to see the new format used, but I don't think Dungeon is the place for it. I buy Dungeon primarily because I enjoy reading it. The adventures are a source of inspiration and (more commonly) a trove of good ideas to be stolen. I'd say I have actually used 5% or less of the adventures I own. Despite the fact that I really like the delve format, I would probably stop my subscription if Dungeon used it.
That being said, it couldn't hurt to adopt it for climactic encounters now and then.
I would also like to see page numbers. I love the stat blocks in Age of Worms, and would like to see as part of a download the full statblocks for all creatures in all encounters. That alone would save me a night of typing.
Looks like it saves some effort, but this looks like it's heavily biased toward you to buying miniatures, and I'm not a huge fan of buying D&D miniatures.
They just used the actual miniatures there because they hadn't gotten around to getting an artist's rendering yet. But a picture of the mini is useful even if you don't have D&D minis, because it makes you go, "Oh! That monster..." And if you do have the mini, it helps when you want to find it. But it doesn't seem biased toward buying minis, per se.
Actually, incorporating the "What squares are the monsters starting in?" into Dungeon would be of great benefit. I've had some very questionable placements before, and a list of where they would start in, given the assumed entry of the party, would be great.
Squid
For space reasons I don't feel the new Delve format would be appropriate for general use in Dungeon -- I'm against anything that lowers the number of adventures per issue -- but the editors should consider use of the format for extra special climactic rooms, as previously mentioned.
I was pretty impreesed with the Delve format, and would love to see in in published adventures, but clearly it would put a great deal of strain on Dungeon. As a rule I'm against anything that would lead to less content in Dungeon, though I have no aversion to spending a little extra money if needed.
What I think could be cool is incorporating some of the core ideas of the format. Checkboxes and hit point space in stat blocks is a good idea. The "You are Here" map was great, I could see a smal sillouette of the map at the end of each room description. But most of all I'm a big fan of having the relevant rules printed right where they are needed. We all know it's a pain to flip through the PHB looking up the overrun or trip rules or whatever, butI relaize it may seem like a waste of print space.
How about a new Game Mastery product: pre-printed sticky notes with the key rules. You could have a pad for each special rule, color-coded for ease of use. Got a room with lava, just peel off one of the stickies with the lava rules and slap it on that page! If sticky notes aren't cost effective enough--how about a card?
Meh, stickies are perishable. I'd rather see a hypermedia product that has a clickable map that pulls up relevant information. Any rules references would also be hyperlinked to a local copy of the rule as per the SRD. Nothing over the top either. Just a basic image with links to text, which links to other images and text and so on. Even a "blueprint" map would do. I don't need super high-end graphics for a simple reference.
We've known Wizards has been contemplating this change in adventure presentation for some time, and aren't quite yet sure how Dungeon will incorperate any of these changes. On the one hand, it DOES make the game easier to play to have all the information you neeed on one page or on a spread of pages. On the other hand, it takes up a LOT more room, and it's a LOT more expensive to produce an adventure like this since there'll be art and maps on every page.
Personally, I think I still prefer the current format. Sure, there's page-flipping and you have to have several books open, but the fact is that in some cases, an encounter simply won't fit on one or two pages. And it remains to be seen how this format will work in non-combat encounters.
For now, Dungeon is staying with its current format.
Yeah, I like the current format much better than the delve. First off, the delve format does make things easier, but it also limits the creativity of both the writer and the DM when it comes to running the encounter. It becomes very paint by numbers. Just my opinion.
It also completely does NOT work for chase scenes, and encounters that might erupt into fights and might not. If the delve format were to be adapted I would hope it wouldn't be "standard" but maybe just an option usable for some encounters and not mandatory for all of them.
That being said, it couldn't hurt to adopt it for climactic encounters now and then.
That could be an idea for using this format: Just the "final enemy" of an adventure, or one situation in which the placement of the creatures (and perhaps items) is crucial. Otherwise, it would need too much space. The reprinting of crucial rules or abilities for an encounter would be helpful, too, but for more complex situations or creatures, this could eat up too much space also. Rather, go for page indications for the sources, and then the DM has to do some homework. I could live with losing one page per adventure to the "Delve Format" (three for a whole issue of Dungeon), but no more.
I would recommend a test run with one page just to see how it works out.
Stefan
Yeah, I like the current format much better than the delve. First off, the delve format does make things easier, but it also limits the creativity of both the writer and the DM when it comes to running the encounter. It becomes very paint by numbers. Just my opinion.
Yeah, "paint by numbers" seems quite an accurate description. Seems good for dungeon crawls where the DM is basically a referee, since this makes his job easier, reduces preparation time and frees him to think about tactics. It gets less useful the further you go from that - roleplaying, intrigue, chases, combat encounters that aren't tied to a site, and so on.
Combats do get more complex as your game levels up, but I think DMs get more competent as the game levels up, so that compensates. Most stuff in the standard format has page numbers to make flipping easier, and spells are easily found by flipping to the back half of the book - unlike 2ed, the spells are in alphabetical order by name instead of by class, so for monster spell-likes you don't even have to know what class' spell that is.
A good question is, will WotC own the rights to this format, preventing third-party adventure writers from using the Delve format if it becomes the de-facto standard?
I wish Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil had the new format. It would have made my job a lot easier. But then again, the flexibility of the Crater Ridge Mines might not allow for such a rigid presentation of encounters.
Delve looks nice.
I'd rather have more adventures, rather than adventures that take up more pages in Dungeon, though.
I like the idea of using delve format for final enemies or for specific placement-important rooms only.
|
Creative Director
|
It's doubtful we'll use the delve format even for one encounter, especially if that encounter is the last in the adventure, since this encounter is likely to be the most complicated one in the adventure.
I'd be curious to see how huge "Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil" would have been (and how expensive) if it had been presented in the delve format. I doubt I'd be able to afford it myself.
It's doubtful we'll use the delve format even for one encounter, especially if that encounter is the last in the adventure, since this encounter is likely to be the most complicated one in the adventure.
I'd be curious to see how huge "Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil" would have been (and how expensive) if it had been presented in the delve format. I doubt I'd be able to afford it myself.
Good point. :)
I'd be curious to see how huge "Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil" would have been (and how expensive) if it had been presented in the delve format. I doubt I'd be able to afford it myself.
RttToEE is only ten levels, too. If the twenty-level Shackled City hardcover is $60, what would RttToEE have cost with all its combat encounters, not counting the expense of replacing my bookshelf when it collapses from the weight?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It's doubtful we'll use the delve format even for one encounter, especially if that encounter is the last in the adventure, since this encounter is likely to be the most complicated one in the adventure.
Not entirely on topic, but James, what is the reasoning behind not showing monster positions on most maps? Is it that editing the text is easier than editing the maps? Do the creatures clutter the maps too much? Is there a feeling that having monster positions on the map unduly restricts DM monster placement or makes adventures too static?
Just curious. Your post about RttToEE made me think about my experience running the game. I was a playtester for the module, so I had big hand drawn maps. I made copies and spent time populating them with the monsters in the adventure. It was easy to tell at a glance where monsters were and whether or not they would respond to noise and trouble.
Even if the pure delve format is not feasible (or necessarily desirable), I think the maps could contain a little additional information (such as monster location). I think my ideal map in Dungeon would include monster positions, a summarized key with page references, and maybe even some dotted lines showing monster routes/reactions in response to player actions.
I'd be curious to see how huge "Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil" would have been (and how expensive) if it had been presented in the delve format. I doubt I'd be able to afford it myself.
I was rethinking this statement today, and I came to the conclusion that RttToEE might have been a better and shorter module if the "Delve" format were used. I always felt that the Crater Ridge Mines were just too boring and long. It had a lot of hack and slash that the players would pretty much carve through effortlessly except for the key locations such as bridge complexes, entrances, and temples.
If the "Delve" format were used for those encounters, and all of the petty encounters along the way were removed, then RttToEE might have been easier for DMs to run and more exciting for the players while maintaining the same page count.
Of course fewer encounters would mean less experience, which in turn would mean slower advancement, but the adventure could have been written with a different style that involved more roleplaying opportunities. It could have been designed also for a shorter range of character level advancement and lower ECLs toward the end of the adventure. Additionally, it could have been broken into two or three seperate, smaller modules the created a campaign arc. It wouldn't necessarily require everyone to play through all three parts either. Heck, I stopped running it and claimed that the captured relics at the moathouse was enough to prevent the Doomdreamers' plans to free Tharizdun.
Alternative stopping points could include destroying all four elemental temples in the CRM, or destroying the dreaming stone in the Inner Fane.
Either way, the new format makes adventure modules easier for the DM to digest, which gives opportunities for the DM to enhance the adventure in his or her own ways.
We've known Wizards has been contemplating this change in adventure presentation for some time, and aren't quite yet sure how Dungeon will incorperate any of these changes. On the one hand, it DOES make the game easier to play to have all the information you neeed on one page or on a spread of pages. On the other hand, it takes up a LOT more room, and it's a LOT more expensive to produce an adventure like this since there'll be art and maps on every page.
Personally, I think I still prefer the current format. Sure, there's page-flipping and you have to have several books open, but the fact is that in some cases, an encounter simply won't fit on one or two pages. And it remains to be seen how this format will work in non-combat encounters.
For now, Dungeon is staying with its current format.
I'm so pleased to hear you say this! Don't do it! The new format might be cool, but it is completely unnecessary particularly in the pages of DUngeon. Let Wizards make things easy for new players to pick things up and be lured in to the hobby - and let Dungeon cater to the majority of its readership who are all familiar enough with the system that they can handle a little page flipping.
Cheers
Llowellen
I'm so pleased to hear you say this! Don't do it! The new format might be cool, but it is completely unnecessary particularly in the pages of DUngeon. Let Wizards make things easy for new players to pick things up and be lured in to the hobby - and let Dungeon cater to the majority of its readership who are all familiar enough with the system that they can handle a little page flipping.
Cheers
Llowellen
While I agree that the new format wouldn't work well in Dungoen due to the limited page count, I disagree with your rationale. You forget about the new players who are also potential subscribers. If I had known about Dungeon Magazine when I first started DMing, I would have subscribed immediately. The cost of the subscription compared to the number of adventures I get is far cheaper than buying printed standalone modules.
Basically, it's not a good idea to assume all Dungeon readers are advanced players.
I think the main advantage the "delve format" offers is that a DM can pick it up and play it with little or no preparation time whatsoever. This makes it ideally suited for RPGA conventions. It also helps to insure that if several different DMs run the adventure, each one will run it basically the same way. Again, this is great in the RPGA convention setting.
Having said that - I have to say I greatly prefer the current format used by Dungeon. I may have to read each adventure several times (taking notes) before I'm ready to run it, but for an ongoing campaign (not just a one shot game) it the added freedom and flexibility make for a richer game experience.
I'd be really surprised to see new WotC adventure modules entirely in delve format. Surprised, but interested in perusing them.
It'd be like they decided to publish an adventure in picture-book format.
It's doubtful we'll use the delve format even for one encounter, especially if that encounter is the last in the adventure, since this encounter is likely to be the most complicated one in the adventure.
I'd be curious to see how huge "Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil" would have been (and how expensive) if it had been presented in the delve format. I doubt I'd be able to afford it myself.
The delve format seems like a waste of paper, IMO. It seems perfect for a dungeon crawl in that, as someone said earlier, paint-by-numbers way. Also, I know they're pumping the minis game, but while the delve format is initially attractive, it just makes me nervous that it's going to be there to pump the minis and thus discourage cool art, stifle DM creativity, etc.
|
Reviving this old discussion now that the layout of Expedition to Castle Ravenloft has been released and the issue of non-combat encounters versus combat encounters is alot clearer.
Has the possibility of seeing Dungeon using this new format been reconsidered?
Personally speaking I love this new format over previous versions and I have even converted some of my old "repetative" encounters to it.
If not maybe there is room for a new article in Dungeon that creates "Random Encounters" using the Delve format with a leading page discussing hooks, links and how to use the double-page encounter? I recon pick-up and play random encounters in this format would get used alot.
It's doubtful we'll use the delve format even for one encounter, especially if that encounter is the last in the adventure, since this encounter is likely to be the most complicated one in the adventure.
I'd be curious to see how huge "Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil" would have been (and how expensive) if it had been presented in the delve format. I doubt I'd be able to afford it myself.
I'm glad to hear that. Although there are some nice things about the new format, the costs it incurs just aren't worth it. There's a lot less room for content, higher art costs (most likely leading to higher price), and less room for creativity as mentioned above.
Looking at the new Ravenloft book, those individual encounters may be easier to run, but the overall adventure doesn't really benefit enough to be worth the costs. I'm all for looking at ways of presenting adventures better, but unless it's for an inexperienced DM, the Delve format just isn't worth it... at least as long as talking about print products, that is. The current format (or possibly some only slightly tweaked form of it) is flexible enough to handle all of the myriad styles of adventure out there.
Let me add my voice to those who prefer the more traditional looking format for adventures in Dungeon magazine.
The best adventures in Dungeon are driven by story -- not combat tactics. And I think that having the maps downloadable in the Resources section is a good nod to those who want to "convert" certain encounters to a delve format.
I'd also like to say that I prefer Dungeon's adaption of the stat block format, especially, font choices and point size, which makes it fit snuggly -- and readably -- in the one-column format. It's far more attractive that how WOTC products do it.
Just my two cents.
|
I tend to go with what seems to be the consensus above. I have just read (in the last couple of hours or so) my first "delve format" adventure: Scourge of the Howling Horde. Not, it's an OK adventure (and segues quite nicely into a campaign for setting up The Red Hand of Doom). But it has used 32 pages to describe a small, single level dungeon. The Sunken Citadel was the same size of book but a considerably larger and more complex dungeon, and I didn't really see the minor increase in playability to be worth the major loss of content. Also, as pointed out in posts above, the format is pretty static and only really works for dungeons.
That said, there is much to be said for increased playability. The Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil is TERRIBLE in terms of being a page-flipping nightmare. But the delve is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Scourge takes two pages (two pages!) to describe a simple shrine with a single trap and some treasure. That's just a waste of space. Improved referencing of the relevant setions in the rulebooks would be useful. Placing appendices so they are more accessible and better ordered (the appendices for tRttToEE were appalling difficult to navigate) would help. But I know a lot of rules, so I don't need most of them repeated in the text unless they are weird (like grappling) or obscure (unusual spell effects).
As a DM, I always forget something. It can be a pain to dig out the books and start checking as it slows down play. But I prefer to have more content too. I don't think Dungeon could seriously use the delve format without drastically reducing the content in adventures, the number of adventures, or bloating in size. None of these options sound like a recipe for success.
|
This format would eat up to much page count, art budget, and DM flexibility to be worthwhile or practical for entire Dungeon adventures. An occasional short adventure designed to be handled in this way could be fun and enjoyable--a very welcome change of pace and an interesting feature--but in most cases the resources used to include it in the magazine would be better spent in other ways.
However, I think it would be a fine way of handling location-based Critical Threats.
|
Creative Director
|
Dungeon will NOT be using the delve format.
Now that "Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk" has been anounced, I can talk a little bit about my experience writing in the Delve Format. It sucks. Building encounters using this format takes MUCH longer than building them in the current format. I think that the payoff (having everything you need to run an encounter on one or two pages) is worth it though. Delve format adventures are CERTAINLY easier to run in game.
But the problem with the delve format really starts to show in higher level encounters. In "Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk," I was the one who got to design the highest level encounters. And there were many times that the delve format simply didn't work. For example, one of the most classic encounters (the evil adventuring party) doesn't work in this format, since there's simply not enough room for four compelx stat blocks. Often, there's not enoguh room for one complex stat block, and a final encounter with only one BBEG is generally an anticlimax since the PCs outnumber him and can take him down easy.
In addition, the delve format takes up a hideous amount of pages. In a product like a a 224 page adventure, that's not as much of a deal. But in a magazine, it's impossible. Let's take issue #140 as an example. In the three adventures we have in that issue, we've got about 54 combat encounters. Using the Delve Format, we'd be able to strip out the stat blocks and tactics sections from the adventures themselves, which would probably save us about 19 pages. But then, each of those encounters would have to have at LEAST a one page encounter, and most of them would have to have two. A few of them wouldn't work at all, and we'd have to cut creatures from encounters. My experience writing the Greyhawk adventure was that, if you plan well, you can do about 1/3 of your encounters as a 1 page encounter. Using that math, we'd need 90 pages of content to do those combat encounters; subtract the 19 pages we save and you're still at a magazine that's 71 pages over. Nevermind the fact that since each delve encounter requires a map, that'd skyrocket our budget and leave us with a magazine that was illustrated only with maps; I doubt we could afford any art at all.
We might be able to do one adventrue per issue if we used the delve format, and that's not an option, so therefore we won't be using the delve format.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
In working the the delve format, are there particular elements that you think would work in the Dungeon format? I haven't had direct experience with the delve format, and I'd be interested in hearing what, if anything, can be adopted for planning a good playable adventure.
|
I was rethinking this statement today, and I came to the conclusion that RttToEE might have been a better and shorter module if the "Delve" format were used. I always felt that the Crater Ridge Mines were just too boring and long. It had a lot of hack and slash that the players would pretty much carve through effortlessly except for the key locations such as bridge complexes, entrances, and temples.
If the petty encounters along the way were removed, then RttToEE might have been more exciting for the players.
It could have been broken into two or three seperate, smaller modules that created a campaign arc. It wouldn't necessarily require everyone to play through all three parts either. Heck, I stopped running it and claimed that the captured relics at the moathouse was enough to prevent the Doomdreamers' plans to free Tharizdun.
Alternative stopping points could include destroying all four elemental temples in the CRM, or destroying the dreaming stone in the Inner Fane.
It could have been more fun if our PCs had just slit their throats at the beginning...
Far too long, with no sense of achievement; if you're reading this, Sebastian, it's adventures like RttToEE that encourage PCs to camp out in enemy territory (see your other thread), since fighting through the same 3 entrance rooms for 12 months is absolutely tedious.
What I believe the Delve Format tries to accomplish is a sense of Plug and Play. Which in my opinion cannot be done with DnD. As a DM you need to invest a certain amount of time in the preparation of your game, if you don't, you have no control and things get messy.
What I also don't quite see is how this educates the DM, does this really improve his skills as a DM? As a DM you need to master the rules (all of them) completely and this is best done by reading the rules and applying them as the opportunity arises.
|
|
What I believe the Delve Format tries to accomplish is a sense of Plug and Play. Which in my opinion cannot be done with DnD. As a DM you need to invest a certain amount of time in the preparation of your game, if you don't, you have no control and things get messy.
What I also don't quite see is how this educates the DM, does this really improve his skills as a DM? As a DM you need to master the rules (all of them) completely and this is best done by reading the rules and applying them as the opportunity arises.
The thing I most enjoy about the Delve format is the way it presents information you may not have thought about as a DM reading a written paragraph room description. by having a map for each encounter drawn in detail with monster placing you can immediately visualise possible tactics. in addition there are many enviromental effects that DMs either forget or don't use often enough to know how they work.
[/b]For example;[b] I put together a delve adventure and created a map for it. once i had finished the basic synopsis and drawn the map aspects of the encounter started jumping out at me. The area had trees so I included the rules for trees and cover, some of the trees where stumps so I indicated uses for these (balance DCs for standing on them and the like), there was a large bonfire so I included rules for catching fire. etc., etc.
By using the delve format DMs will become more aware of these little details and in contrast will perhaps promote their players to utilize these effects instead of simply charging the nearest enemy.
I think the Delve format is a great way to present new DMs with a lot more help when they are just starting to learn the rules. While most experienced DMs may feel they are just being told how to suck eggs most will be glad to have the rules to hand.
And if you can introduce me to a DM that knows every rule off-by-heart in the 100+ books available from WotC I'll eat my hat!
------------------------------
[/i]I'm disappointed the Delve format will not be used in Dungeon but I can totally understand the cost and time issue. As I commented before though, it would be nice to have a single random encounter presented in the Delve Format in Dungeon, perhaps as a counterpart to the random map found on the back page.[i]
[/b]For example;[b] I put together a delve adventure and created a map for it. once i had finished the basic synopsis and drawn the map aspects of the encounter started jumping out at me. The area had trees so I included the rules for trees and cover, some of the trees where stumps so I indicated uses for these (balance DCs for standing on them and the like), there was a large bonfire so I included rules for catching fire. etc., etc.
And if you can introduce me to a DM that knows every rule off-by-heart in the 100+ books available from WotC I'll eat my hat!
Don't you make my point here? You actually prepared the encounter, thought things over and saw that certain rules could be applied. Good job! But did you really need a delve format to do that?
There are only 3 core books, it's only reasonable to assume that a DM will gain familiarity with most of the rules described in those books during a campaign.
Dungeon will NOT be using the delve format.
Now that "Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk" has been anounced, I can talk a little bit about my experience writing in the Delve Format. It sucks...
James:
Is Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk in Delve format, as your post implies?
Not having bought a WotC adventure since RttToEE, thus far I've only seen an example or two of the format. Despite any advantages, I'd rather page count give me more content -- let me decide how the encounter will be set up and play out.
BTW, Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk is great news, and I'm going to pick it up as soon as it appears, Delve format or otherwise :)
Thanks,
Jack
Dungeon will NOT be using the delve format.
Great news. The current Dungeon format, to me, seems like the optimal combination of space, stats, and graphics--its greatest flaw previously was in the lack of utility in the old (1-paragraph) stat block design, which was remedied some time ago. Almost any change now to help in one area would almost certainly hurt the others disproportionately, in my opinion.
|
|
Don't you make my point here? You actually prepared the encounter, thought things over and saw that certain rules could be applied. Good job! But did you really need a delve format to do that?
to be honest yes. I'm 31 years old and have been the main DM for my group (there are others but they prefer to play) since 3.0 came out. Ive been playing D&D since 1st edition however.
The delve format provides a set layout that helps to jog my memory with regards to certain aspects of the encounter. just like the stat blocks provide titles to make sure i complete the NPC completely, and just like those forms you fill in for credit cards or mortgages prompt you to include all the relevant information. Its not what goes into the format that matters, its the fact that the format is there to remind you of those aspects.There are only 3 core books, it's only reasonable to assume that a DM will gain familiarity with most of the rules described in those books during a campaign.
Even with the 3 core books I don't claim to know all the rules, I couldn't spell out the saving throws for every spell my NPCs use, I wouldn't be able to remember the different terrain restrictions present in the mountain terrain, I couldn't even remember how all the different types of combat options work without referring to the book.
I don't claim to be the best DM but 90% of common rules I do know and the delve format gives me the reminder for those rules I forget.|
|
Is it possible to copy the good aspects of the delve format, without copying all of it?
Everyone agrees putting the confusion table in an encounter with Umber Hulks is a good thing, why not do it?
Sure the big maps waste space, and other multiply repeated data is another big waste, but pulling together the "need this a lot stuff" into an encounter shouldn't be so bad.
Alternatively, assuming it isn't financially unfeasible, put a single pullout cardstock page somewhere in the mag that has all the tables and such for all the adventures.
to be honest yes. I'm 31 years old and have been the main DM for my group (there are others but they prefer to play) since 3.0 came out. Ive been playing D&D since 1st edition however.
The delve format provides a set layout that helps to jog my memory with regards to certain aspects of the encounter. just like the stat blocks provide titles to make sure i complete the NPC completely, and just like those forms you fill in for credit cards or mortgages prompt you to include all the relevant information. Its not what goes into the format that matters, its the fact that the format is there to remind you of those aspects.
Reading your description it would seem that you, and probably a whole lot of DM's, would be better served if the DMG contained a template that covered all the steps you've taken.
On another point, has anyone got this strange feeling that by using the Delve Format Wizards can now actually go the Magic the Gathering route? Think about it, it's all plug and play, you could make a dungeon by adding several Delve Format's together. You could sell them at a few dollars (euro's) a piece. Damn, the idea bugs me already!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Reading your description it would seem that you, and probably a whole lot of DM's, would be better served if the DMG contained a template that covered all the steps you've taken.
On another point, has anyone got this strange feeling that by using the Delve Format Wizards can now actually go the Magic the Gathering route? Think about it, it's all plug and play, you could make a dungeon by adding several Delve Format's together. You could sell them at a few dollars (euro's) a piece. Damn, the idea bugs me already!
There's a big hole in your argument. Whenever you make a generic elitist OMG they're dumbing down the game argument, you're supposed to say that it's going to be like Yu-Gi-Oh.
Here's the dirty secret: there are different types of D&D consumers with different needs. Not all products will (or should) appeal to all consumers. Adventures are by their very nature pitched to people who either (a) don't know the rules very well or (b) are looking for something to "plug and play". Making adventures suited for the audience that actually purchases them does not imply that all products should be produced for that same audience.
Delve format adventures are like boxed cakes. Boxed cakes aren't the best cakes, but if you want a cake, heck, just throw together eggs, oil, and water, bake for a while, and bam, you've got cake. Dungeon adventures are like a simple Joy of Cooking level recipe. They have a few more ingredients, require some additional tools, and are slightly more complex. People who just like to cook might not even bother with a recipe, or may feel comfortable throwing together elements of various recipes to make their cake. Some people like making the cake; some people like eating the cake. There are a lot of ways of enjoying cake. Some people no longer live in their parent's basement, and don't have time to make a fancy gourmet cake. They want to make a simple cake and eat it with their friends.
As for whether or not you can learn something through a professionally prepared product designed to be used as a model to familiarize yourself with basic concepts; well, I'm not an educator, but I think it's possible that maybe, just maybe, some people learn that way. Other people learn by participating in groups run by more experienced DM's. Again, the process of learning is not so narrow that only one True Way works.
Point to take home: different consumers are interested in different products and appealing to those different interests does not necessarily translate into dumbing down the game.