I'm a huge fan of giants, and even if I don't run 4E, I do like to read through a good adventure. Given that I've not been thrilled with some of WOTC's 4E published adventures (although some of the Dungeon adventures haven't been bad), I'm wondering if I should indulge my giant fascination, or if this one is worth the time.
Anyone have this, and what are your impressions?
|
I was interested in this one as well, but I have not purchased it yet. There is a review of it on Critical Hits but it is a "read through" review and not a play review. I only mention that because there has been some furor over the process in which the module was reviewed by DavetheGame. Otherwise, seems as complete as it can be without accommodating all the crazy things that can happen while running a mod.
I was planning to get it, and I still may, looking through it the format of the book just didn't excite me. The only specific thing I recall right now is that there seemed to be eight to ten pages of giant monsters that are new to 4th edition. I will look through it again tomorrow, to see if I will actually decide to get it, either way I probably will post my reactions here. Note that since I'm likely going to be flipping through it in the game shop, so my perceptions will not be of the quality of the adventure plot and such, but more on how pretty I think the exterior and interior of the book is.
After looking through it again, I have to call it not pretty.
Most of the art in the book seemed to be gridded-maps (several of those were just cropped depictions of a larger mat with monster positions for an encounter), then a few of the other pictures are reprinted from older sources (Which I'm fine with, but for me there was a bit too little art to have them in there). Most of the new art (or at least pictures I wasn't familiar with) appears early in the book and are for the beginning of chapters and for pictures of what appeared to be new giant monsters. But then there is the large battlemat included with the book, I couldn't get a look at it without pulling it out (and buying the book), but given the quality of the maps in the book, I would imagine the battlemap would be good looking as well.
While I do count the maps as art, repeatedly seeing them lessens the impact they have on me (especially if it is just a part of a map a few pages ago). The amount and type of art in the book makes me have a low ranking of the art of this book.
Now, this says nothing about the quality of the writing, design, and everything not presented in picture form. If I read and played through it, I might think it were a great adventure except for the art. So I really don't want to present this as a review of the book, it was just my own reasoning for not deciding to purchase it rather than a declaration of the quality of entire book.
I have to say that the maps replacing artwork is one of the things I hate the most about the delve format. When they posted the art gallery for the book on their website the other day there were only about 12 pictures- for a super module that seems ridiculously low. Seeing map after map showing were the bag guys should start sucks the life out of an adventure for me. If anything makes 4E feel like a video game, it's the delve format of adventures they publish, which is essentially one combat encounter after another where all the monsters just stand on their little map spots waiting for heroes to come kill them. I want to like the 4E adventures, but it really isn't working out for me. I wish paizo was making 4E adventures. Fortunately, the 3E stuff is easy enough to convert. That being said, I did run the 4E version of Last Breaths of Ashenport (from digital dungeon), and I enjoyed that so maybe I just actually have to get past the lack of art and such and try to play them.
Does anyone else have this?
I've avoided WotC adventures for a quite a while now unless they have Rich Baker's name on them (and I would also make an exception for Chris Perkins if he ever writes an adventure again).
I'm really wondering if this is the usual WotC style (grab random monsters of the right role and level and plonk them down together in an encounter without considering why the different types are co-operating) or most Paizo-ish (you know, where it actually has a plot).
Edit: I'm lost as a customer. There is time travel. I don't do time travel.
Does anyone else have this?
I've avoided WotC adventures for a quite a while now unless they have Rich Baker's name on them (and I would also make an exception for Chris Perkins if he ever writes an adventure again).
I'm really wondering if this is the usual WotC style (grab random monsters of the right role and level and plonk them down together in an encounter without considering why the different types are co-operating) or most Paizo-ish (you know, where it actually has a plot).
Edit: I'm lost as a customer. There is time travel. I don't do time travel.
Wait Time Travel? Unless it's Time Travelling Ninjas I'm not interested :P
I have to say that the maps replacing artwork is one of the things I hate the most about the delve format. When they posted the art gallery for the book on their website the other day there were only about 12 pictures- for a super module that seems ridiculously low. Seeing map after map showing were the bag guys should start sucks the life out of an adventure for me. If anything makes 4E feel like a video game, it's the delve format of adventures they publish, which is essentially one combat encounter after another where all the monsters just stand on their little map spots waiting for heroes to come kill them. I want to like the 4E adventures, but it really isn't working out for me. I wish paizo was making 4E adventures. Fortunately, the 3E stuff is easy enough to convert. That being said, I did run the 4E version of Last Breaths of Ashenport (from digital dungeon), and I enjoyed that so maybe I just actually have to get past the lack of art and such and try to play them.
PH, not only do I agree with your thoughts on the 'delve' format, but the artwork from the giants product you mentioned are all lousy. WoTC's taken frost giants from their traditional viking-appearing norm, and depicted them as something I'd expect to see on a Pokemon or Yugio card. That said, at least WoTC is Attempting to reference the 'classics' in this adventure, even if there is no tie-in to Against the Giants from 1st edition days.
I had high hopes for this, which were unwarranted based on other hack-and-slash delve adventures that WotC has produced. I spent a good bit of time going through it at a bookstore, and was overwhelmed by the multiple fights against different types of giants, and very little else. The story seemed thin and the plot railroading. I thought the "everyone participates" skill challenges were a nice change, but I would've rather seen some more open-ended roleplaying and problem-solving instead.
I wanted to buy this adventure when I walked in the store, but 20 minutes with it revealed that neither I nor my gaming group would enjoy it. So I walked out without it.
I encourage anyone on the fence about this product to first look it over closely as well. If...
I did see a copy in my local store, and was surprised to discover it was a hard cover release. But when looking into the adventure, it was the typical Dungeon Delve. For incorporating the dungeon delve format into your own world is very easy.
However, I do miss the plot elements, when I don't feel as adventurous to incorporate my own.
I think the expectation was to see a close proximity to their original modules. Perhaps one day, they may change their focus.
The originals were pretty much just a big fight themselves but I have to say that If they just went down that road then they really might as well have just done a full on conversion. 'Its just a hackfest' is very forgivable when its a full on conversion of a classic but not really forgivable when its a modern product - even one inspired by a classic.
|
Well, I've had a look, though I haven't got all the way through. I'd say it's maybe a 3 out of 5 so far. The plot is not terribly original - giants gang up to release horrid primordial - and that doesn't need spoiler because that is basically told to the characters after the first encounter or so. So there isn't that much in terms of mystery or suspense either (though I guess you can rejig it if you want to). There are the usual delve-style encounters.
But on the other hand there are a large number of skill challenges too which, while they can devolve into just a bit more dice-rolling, can also be used as chances for interraction and roleplaying - for example, there are a number of missions to gain allies from various factions. There are also some interesting locations, such as an arctic-type island in the Elemental Chaos. They have created a few recurring villains who have the annoying habit of teleporting away from fights with the various plot tokens, which could be cool or merely annoying depending on how it is handled in play. And there are new types of monster, especially giants - new types of frost, earth and fire giants in particular, which is good for me since I intend to do use giants in one of my current 4e campaigns, even if I am unlikely to use this product in its entirety.
In the hands of a good DM I expect it could be a blast, but they would have to invest the scenes with a bit of description and narrative thrust which is a bit lacking in the actual book itself. There have been comments about the lack of art - yeah, there isn't much of that either and it really doesn't bother me too much, but of course places a lot of onus on the DM to describe things well.
Hm . . . I was hoping if the adventure had various giant types, that instead of just having multiple giant types, there might be some subtle nuances of differences between giant cultures. Perhaps some tension between them even if they have a common goal . . . things like that.
Am I picking up correctly that this sort of thing doesn't really enter inter the whole picture?
Yep... it's another dud 4E adventure by WotC.
Seriously, why can't the staff writers put something decent together? I love the 4E rules, the 4E game, but the story guys at WotC have no idea (IMO).
I don't know why they don't just hire the Paizo guys to write the adventures for them without the stats then have the WotC guys go back and add in the crunchy bits.
Seriously, again using that word, WotC needs to realise that it has a quality problem with the adventures it has published. With very few exceptions (and Rich Baker's name is the only one that basically guarantees there will be quality) the adventures that are being published are simply not up to scratch, and certainly not comparable to Paizo's offerings either now or in the "dead tree" Dungeon era.
I think Bill Slavicsek needs to stop writing Ampersand columns informing the world about how important he is and get down to the basic business of making sure that adventure products his team (and he loves to remind us that they are "his") produces are great products. Rich Baker can't be expected to write everything, can he?
|
|
Hm . . . I was hoping if the adventure had various giant types, that instead of just having multiple giant types, there might be some subtle nuances of differences between giant cultures. Perhaps some tension between them even if they have a common goal . . . things like that.
Am I picking up correctly that this sort of thing doesn't really enter inter the whole picture?
Well, yes and no. There isn't much giant politics, though there is a bit where a frost giant jarl disappears and his cohorts factionalise a bit - but it isn't really much of it. But also bear in mind that I haven't finished it yet.
I'd also hesitate to call it a dud - but you would need a good DM to make it work. The problem with the delve style of adventure is that it really emphasises the combat elements to the extent that the non-combat elements can be hard to find on a flick-through. But they are there, disguised as skill challenges or mentioned briefly as asides in the (relatively sparse) descriptive sections. It seems a bit stupid to me that a system that is designed to be easy to use and a good intro into roleplaying games has adventures that really downplay a lot of the stuff that makes roleplaying interesting. Yes, there is a lot of stuff in the DMG and DMG2, but it should be in the adventures too - a novice may well not pick it up. And I would agree that Paizo adventures are vastly better, both in the late-lamented Dungeon mag and currently.
Just starting to read this myself and finding a lot of potential. As Aubrey and others have already said, it needs work for a group that isn't entirely focused on getting from one fight to the next. That said, the material is there, albeit not in the most user-friendly way.
Combined with DMG2 in particular, there's an interesting campaign to be had here I think. I would certainly look at running it.
|
The originals were pretty much just a big fight themselves but I have to say that If they just went down that road then they really might as well have just done a full on conversion. 'Its just a hackfest' is very forgivable when its a full on conversion of a classic but not really forgivable when its a modern product - even one inspired by a classic.
The oiginals were only set-pieces. There was not really a plot. The "plot" that emerged later on was sketchy at best.
How the adventures were played and what stories emerged were mainly player and DM driven. So, if you like hackfest, hackfest it was. If you like sneak, investigate & kill it was that.IMHO this plotlessnes and open-endedness is the main reason, this adevnture series is on of the "classics".
|
|
Yep... it's another dud 4E adventure by WotC.
Seriously, why can't the staff writers put something decent together? I love the 4E rules, the 4E game, but the story guys at WotC have no idea (IMO).
I don't know why they don't just hire the Paizo guys to write the adventures for them without the stats then have the WotC guys go back and add in the crunchy bits.
Seriously, again using that word, WotC needs to realise that it has a quality problem with the adventures it has published. With very few exceptions (and Rich Baker's name is the only one that basically guarantees there will be quality) the adventures that are being published are simply not up to scratch, and certainly not comparable to Paizo's offerings either now or in the "dead tree" Dungeon era.
I think Bill Slavicsek needs to stop writing Ampersand columns informing the world about how important he is and get down to the basic business of making sure that adventure products his team (and he loves to remind us that they are "his") produces are great products. Rich Baker can't be expected to write everything, can he?
WoC does not really need to produce what many of us perceive as "high quality adventures" in the style of the late Dungeon or the various Paizo APs.
Compared to 3.5, this time around the only 3PP with a "Name" Goodman Games produces adventures ("Name" in this contect means a company that also casual gamers might know). And the GG DCCs are not "official" adventures, meaning you can not use you WoC digital tools.So, in the end, WoC has basically the monopoly on everything 4th edition.
And if their delve format adventures sell well enough -which they must do, otherwise WoC would change the format/style to suit the consumers- why should they change anything?
And if their delve format adventures sell well enough -which they must do, otherwise WoC would change the format/style to suit the consumers- why should they change anything?
This is the most valid point. Adventures are notoriously low sellers when compared to many other types of books. If WotC has found a way to make them a viable product then they are best to run with it.
For those that enjoy more roleplaying it shouldn't be too hard to inject more into the adventure.
|
|
Actually, there isn't much competition, I suspect, against the delve format - most 3rd party publishers have dropped out and the WotC stuff has much greater name recognition. So I suspect for many people it's delve format or bust - very little alternative. Plus they made such a fuss about creating it that it would be a big climb-down to junk it. I'm sure some people like it, of course, but I also suspect there isn't actually that much pressure to change it either even if they didn't, and lot's of corporate pressure not to.
|
|
For those that enjoy more roleplaying it shouldn't be too hard to inject more into the adventure.
For DMs:
1) Strip the Book down so just the locations with the inhabitants remain. No plotline, No Hooks etc.2) Tell the players or better, show the players how Giants attack a humanoid settlement.
3) Let the players create their own story. Of course that might mean that the players ignore the Giants and start fortifying the settlement and train the inhabitants. Roll with it.
For Players:
1) Never do what you think the DM or some Metaplot wants you to do.
2) Create your own story: "Legends are made, not born "
Actually, there isn't much competition, I suspect, against the delve format - most 3rd party publishers have dropped out and the WotC stuff has much greater name recognition. So I suspect for many people it's delve format or bust - very little alternative. Plus they made such a fuss about creating it that it would be a big climb-down to junk it. I'm sure some people like it, of course, but I also suspect there isn't actually that much pressure to change it either even if they didn't, and lot's of corporate pressure not to.
I don't find it a question of competition. As I said, adventures are poor sellers. They tend to be bought by one person in a group (DM) if any at all (as many groups create their own adventures). If the new format finds itself being bought by more people, then it would be foolish not to follow it. It may be that more DMs are finding it easier to take the parts that they like (the different encounters) and inject them into their own adventures. I find the new format of adventures to be very modular,even more so than the past. This may be the reason they are working better than in the past (as they seem to be) and making them viable.
|
|
As I said, adventures are poor sellers.
Appearantly Woc thought so on the onset of 3rd edition. But, as it is plain to see, they revised their opinion (which IMHO already started in the dusk of 3.5).
It seems that there is a market for adventures after all, or Companies like Goodman would not prosper.And do not forget, the Delve format is comparatively easy done. Not much "Fluff" to write but lots of stats and encounter descriptions.
Compare that to a Non-Delve format adventure from Paizo or Necromancer and you will see that the latter two need a lot more writer input in terms of creativity. And creativity takes time. Time is money.
Disclaimer:
I do NOT say that WoC adventures lack creativity, they are quite creative in their encounters. But IMHO they lack "Fluff".
Appearantly Woc thought so on the onset of 3rd edition. But, as it is plain to see, they revised their opinion (which IMHO already started in the dusk of 3.5).
They made adventures then, but in the more traditional format. Their switch to this delve format seems to be making their adventures more popular. Whether this is because people like their adventures focused around encounters or people just like them because they are more modular is difficult to say. As long as they continue to profit enough from them then we will continue to see them. We may even see 3pp switch to the format.
It seems that there is a market for adventures after all, or Companies like Goodman would not prosper.
Small companies can succeed with products such as adventures where a large company like WotC would treat them more like support products or maybe even a loss-leader. I have no hard numbers, but it seems to me that the new format adventures seem to be doing well. If they have stumbled onto something which makes the idea of adventures better fiscally, then I can see them running with it, leaving the more fluff-filled adventures to the smaller guys.
|
|
I'm not sure where all this stuff about the delve format making them more popular is coming from, unless you have access to some figures. Also, the coming of the delve format (and WotC's re-entry to the adventure-writing arena) also coincides more or less with the revocation of Paizo's licence to produce Dungeon (until then, the main source of 3e adventures, and certainly the best at the time). There simply isn't anything much else out there in terms of official adventure support for 4e, so if you want official adventures, or indeed any adventures, for 4e, your choice is much more limited than it was. It may be that the delve format is making WotC's adventures more popular, or it may be unrelated to the delve format, or (possibly) they aren't actually more popular at all.
The oiginals were only set-pieces. There was not really a plot. The "plot" that emerged later on was sketchy at best.
How the adventures were played and what stories emerged were mainly player and DM driven. So, if you like hackfest, hackfest it was. If you like sneak, investigate & kill it was that.
IMHO this plotlessnes and open-endedness is the main reason, this adevnture series is on of the "classics".
I don't think their plotless nature really hurt them but Ravenloft - which drips plot and atmosphere is also very much one of the classics.
I don't think their plotless nature really hurt them but Ravenloft - which drips plot and atmosphere is also very much one of the classics.
While the original I6 Ravenloft module certainly does a good job in creating atmosphere there is precious little plot involved. It is a cleverly disguised dungeon bash centered around a vampire. Little tidbits exist like Strahd's journal notes but really you are just there to kill everything that moves.
Don't get me wrong - I loved I6 back in the day and ran it 4 times for different groups over the years but the plot was never its strong point.
I take it from the comments that there's no Greyhawk connection. Sad really.
This can't come as a surprise though. Greyhawk hasn't been important to WotC for 8-9 years now. Given the sparse nature of the background for the adventure it shouldn't be that hard to add in some Greyhawk elements.
As far as the good/bad ratio of the delve format I have found it to be a boon myself. It was the rare adventure I would run straight out of the box from the old Dungeon mags (even Aps like Age of Worms were heavily modified) so having small set pieces I can mix & match is an excellent fit for me. Not everyone's taste of course but for those who write their own adventures and just want some help in setting up the combats & skill challenges this format works.
|
|
I don't think their plotless nature really hurt them but Ravenloft - which drips plot and atmosphere is also very much one of the classics.
Let me make that clear; I love the old G1-3 series! An the plotlessness is a feature, not a bug IMHO.
Ravenloft is a different kind of adventure (which I also dearly love for different reasons).
I only referenced the G series as it is plain to see that "Revenge of the Giants" takes inspiration from these old modules.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I take it from the comments that there's no Greyhawk connection. Sad really.This can't come as a surprise though. Greyhawk hasn't been important to WotC for 8-9 years now. Given the sparse nature of the background for the adventure it shouldn't be that hard to add in some Greyhawk elements.
surprised? No. Disappointed, yes. Part of the 'fun' of reimaged/continued adventures is the idea of 'easter eggs' relating to the original.
*shrug* Still, thanks for confirming.
I don't think their plotless nature really hurt them but Ravenloft - which drips plot and atmosphere is also very much one of the classics.While the original I6 Ravenloft module certainly does a good job in creating atmosphere there is precious little plot involved. It is a cleverly disguised dungeon bash centered around a vampire. Little tidbits exist like Strahd's journal notes but really you are just there to kill everything that moves.
Don't get me wrong - I loved I6 back in the day and ran it 4 times for different groups over the years but the plot was never its strong point.
I certainly see were your coming from but there was still a pretty descent amount of plot considering the limitations of it being what amounts to a one off adventure. It had plot in the sense that there was a strong, if classical, backstory and this backstory was tied up in how the adventure played out. The better examples of your average Dungeon adventure had comparable plot and, generally speaking, you'd not want much more or the plot will start to make the adventure unusable in too many situations. APs and mega adventures can go beyond this level but stand alone adventures really can have to much plot.
So I had a chance to skim through this yesterday and I'm pretty much with Aubrey in rating it. It could prove really useful for a DM thats willing to spruce it up and might be an excellent resource if you want to tear it apart for ideas but its not that likely to become a classic itself.
I was glancing at the third installment of Legacy of Fire and looking at the art and I think part of the reason WotC might be shying away from art would be the desire to maintain their PG-13 rating. You can do fantastic art at the PG-13 level but the ability to go beyond that a little really does make Paizo art stand out. I adore the picture on p.31 of Jackal's Price but that has a lot to do with the fact that its both fun and sexy. Kyra glaring at Valeros while Merisiel flee's the bathtub is a really engaging scene. This is what Paizo gains from being a more adult orientated product. Not sure WotC can really compete with their PG 13 rating and they might not want to spend a lot of time trying. Especially in a print product where the art really is only for the DM as its nearly impossible to show it to ones players.
I can't see myself running down to get this product but if my players ever end up going on a giant orientated section of a campaign I'm running I can see myself picking this up and using it and the originals for inspiration in creating that adventure arc.
I take it from the comments that there's no Greyhawk connection. Sad really.This can't come as a surprise though. Greyhawk hasn't been important to WotC for 8-9 years now. Given the sparse nature of the background for the adventure it shouldn't be that hard to add in some Greyhawk elements.
When WoTC is referencing a classic adventure, in this case 'Against the Giants', in order to market their new product; then I think they ought to do so plainly and overtly. We as readers shouldn't have to "add in" our own material to tie the new product to its original source or campaign world. In the WoTC "Return to" adventures of the late 1990's and the 3rd/3.5 editions, each referenced the original product and its campaign world (Greyhawk) in question. I see no reason why that tradition can't continue. After all, by the use of the new product's name, and the connotation that it carries; the people whom WoTC are marketing this product to, are players who can remember the original adventure in the first place. Newer players to the game, who didn't experience Against the Giants previously, wouldn't recognize the reference, and thus wouldn't be swayed to buy the product for that reason. So why use the reference to the old adventure to market the new adventure to newer players? Simple. It's designed to market the product to the older players of the game.
While I don't buy 4th edition products, and haven't played 4th edition since 2008, IF, WoTC would market a product like this with actual connections to the original product and the history of the game/Greyhawk campaign, I'd buy it. As it is, the name of the new adventure is ultimately a cheap gimmick that references the glorious past of the game, but then utterly fails to deliver any actual ties to that glorious past it references after you've bought it. Sadly, this has become a common occurrence for WoTC since 4th edition arrived.
|
|
I don't really agree with this. Making it a Greyhawk product would make it niche. Personally, I don't give a stuff about Greyhawk - never played it, don't care - and I doubt I am alone. I don't really see that WotC is that interested in kicking off a nostalgia-fest - it wants to look forward, as its approach to the whole cosmology and lots of other things makes clear. I don't think it is much of a commercial proposition either. And you can pay homage to something without cloning it - you don't have to hold the plot in Greyhawk to have that feel (though it is questionable if you actually have that feel in these scenarios).
Personally, I get a bit frustrated with the idea that referencing D&D's past is a great way to sell product. To grognards (in the best sense of the word), maybe. But I missed most of the classic period of D&D and only began playing it seriously with 3e. When Dungeon under Paizo used to reference this stuff it was cool in a way, but I didn't really feel the geekgasm myself because I wasn't there the first time around. It could actually be a little bit excluding, like being invited to a party and not knowing anyone there.
In my view, while junking the past is a bad idea, I don't think that it is good for the future of the game to be constantly in awe of the "Good Old Days". New players won't care about Greyhawk and they may not pick up something which references it because they will be unfamiliar with it. The game can't survive (assuming it can at all) trading on the memories of older players and gazing at its own navel.
Greyhawk? No thanks.
|
|
Now, discussing the dungeon delve format itself, and the focus on combat encounters, is perhaps a discussion for another time. I know the justification WotC gave for it in panels at GenCon was that they somewhat intentionally focused on the more mechanical elements, under the theory that each DM will want a different amount of story and RP and can flesh things out from general guidelines as they see fit.
On the one hand, I don't entirely agree with that - I think they can provide more room for such 'fleshing out' without overburdening those who don't want to use it. But on the other hand... I ran Pyramid of Shadows for my group. An adventure I've heard a lot of criticism of for being nothing but room after room of fighting.
For my group - a typically combat-focused group - I ran an adventure filled with backstory, roleplaying, and character interactions and developments. The adventure had everything I needed to do so - and I expanded on it, yes, to bring those elements forward... but it was probably the best experience I've had running a pre-written adventure. So maybe WotC is onto something.
Sure, it was several dungeon levels filled with combat encounters. But... those encounters each had a distinct personality and focus, and the adventure gave guidelines for how they interacted, how the PCs could play them against each other, and how they were each vying for control of the Pyramid. The adventure did a fantastic job of building up the main villain so the party grew more and more focused on defeating him. They grew close to some NPCs, were betrayed by others, bargained with others, and, yes, battled their way through many of them.
One could definitely run the adventure without any of that, as just one fight after another. And many may well enjoy that! But one certainly doesn't have to, and the adventure definitely gives the tools to go beyond that.
I'm not going to say there isn't room to improve WotC's offerings (though Dungeon actually has had some quality adventures lately.) But I think some of their products thus far have been dismissed pretty quickly, without acknowledging what they are actually trying to do with them.
My main beefs with the delve format are:
1. It wastes space on the page. A delve adventure takes up far more space than a traditionally formatted adventure (say, like Paizo). So, in effect, you get a bit less for your money. Compare The Howling Horde (a 32 page, 3e delve style adventure for level 1 characters) with the Sunken Citadel (a 32 page, non-delve style adventure) and the difference is stark.
2. They are buggers to read. Man, I hate reading them. I find them disjointed, hard to follow and just plain lacking in entertainment value.
That said, I do appreciate they they have tried hard to make them useful in combat, so I understand the appeal. I think someone mentioned they are very handy for convention play. So, fine and dandy. My comments above in the thread were more about my personal preference. I have no real idea how popular the delve format is, and I'm not sure there is any hard and fast information out there about it - I just know I hate it.
Also, the delve format doesn't preclude roleplaying, and more than 4e in general precludes roleplaying. But they do tend to leave out a lot of the fluffy stuff you might expect in, say, a Paizo product. I know they have put literally tons of stuff about roleplaying and GM'ing in the DMG and DMG2 (more than in any previous editions of the game, or indeed in any game I've ever seen) but it seems they haven't really integrated that with their own modules. That's probably less a problem with delve per se and more a problem with how they string together the encounters with the relatively low quality linking material in the modules. The Revenge of the Giants, with a savvy DM, could be really good as I said above (and, frankly, the orignal G-series modules are a very uninspiring read - I know, I got excited by all the talk in Dungeon a few years ago, bought them, attempted to read them and was shocked at how rudimentary they were). But it doesn't seem to be especially encouraged.
Among my largest issues with the Delve format is that I don't feel the format is really all that good a fit with the rest of the rules. 4E provides a lot of opportunities for monsters to move around and has a system in place that makes players want to push forward instead of constantly retreating to get their daily back but these sorts of things require the adventure to be less static and the delve format really wants everything to hang on stasis until the players finally show up.
Greyhawk? No thanks.
Grehawk? Yes please.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Interesting discussion. I'm also not a big fan of the delve format for the reasons provided above - and in particular because I am much more likely to read an adventure than run it. If I find reading it to be a chore, much of the value is lost for me.
My other complaints about the delve format are that it highlights the disconnect in the 4e rules between combat and non-combat encounters and sacrifices the forest for the trees. I have a hell of a time seeing a holistic dungeon when it's presented in the delver format.
I wonder how many people actually like the Delve Format. I don't know too many people who have said good things about it. WotC seems insistent on combat heavy adventures in the said format. Is this really what the customer wants?
It's hard to say. We fans of Paizo appreciate a certain kind of adventure writing. Do others actually prefer the Delve Format? If not, why does WotC insist?
While I certainly appreciate Paizo's style, I don't think the limitations on the adventure (vs. limitations on reading) being argued for the delve format necessarily hold. OpenDesign's Wrath of the River King is in delve format, and is extremely rich in design and detail and rp opportunities.
The 4E WotC adventures that I have seen so far are split into two parts. One had the adventure summary and basic plotlines. The other (much larger) part has the monster/maps/encounters listed one after the other with little plot informaton outside the tactical information.
Is this the delve format? I like it quite a bit. When I just want to read about the adventure plot, I have a much small book to read through. When I want to think about how to actually run encounters, I have a map and monster information all in one spot. It is a very useful format for me. I would not mind if Paizo used a version of it.