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.
I think your projecting something here, I didn't introduce the concept of a)elitism or b)dumbing down dnd.
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.
True, but I think that if your level 5+ you've already gained enough experience running the game that you really don't need 2 full pages describing one room.
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.
I guess we differ on the way to teach then, let's take for example the sunless citadel, which was obviously designed to introduce players to the game, I learned a great deal from that adventure as a DM while I was making the transition from 2e to 3e. But as you say, there is no one true way.
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.
The dumbing down part is your take on this, when I hear 2 pages for 1 room descriptions I get the feeling that those pages could have been used for something else, like content.
But you are right that not every product can or should appeal to everyone.
Creative Director
|
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.
EttRoG is indeed in the delve format. At least, that's the format we used to write it up; it's still months and months away from release. Who knows what strange mutations it might still pick up?
|
Creative Director
|
Is it possible to copy the good aspects of the delve format, without copying all of it?
Not without either:
A: Reorganizing the layout of the magazine drastically (which seems like a poor choice, since it seems to be really functioning well now).
or
B: Printing less adventures.
Now, I agree that it's nice to have all the information you need to run an encounter right there, but really, that's nothing that you can't do for yourself during the preparation phase of an adventure. The delve format does the work for you, and that's cool... but it takes up a lot more room to do so. In Dungeon, where we're constantly deciding which 150 word Sidebar lives and dies so we can fit the adventure in the magazine, reprinting information from the core books (such as the confusion table) seems almost criminal.
In Dungeon, where we're constantly deciding which 150 word Sidebar lives and dies so we can fit the adventure in the magazine, reprinting information from the core books (such as the confusion table) seems almost criminal.
Word! Hang tough, Dungeon editors. In another year WotC will introduce 3 new formats, and the one that Dungeon uses now will still be the best.
...In another year WotC will introduce 3 new formats, and the one that Dungeon uses now will still be the best.
It has come to bother me that, in a few cases, WotC has tried to sell us some content-light glitz over crunchy stuff. A couple of recent supplements come to mind, as well as the Delve format itself -- useful, but less bang for our buck in the end.
Jack :/
Are the three examples as shown at the link, part of the delve format?
http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20061115a
I like the checklist, this is good for new DM's.
I like the format if applied to low level adventurers, and meant for new DM's.
I can easily see that if the format is applied to higher level adventurers the sheer number of hitpoint checkboxes would explode (200 hp = 200 checkboxes arghh).
|
I think Sebastian makes a very valuable point. The Scourge of the Howling Horde would be great for an inexperienced DM, and probably enhance the experience for DM and players. For a more experienced DM, it's superfluous. I'm curious to know how the higher level delves have panned out - I'm thinking particularly the new Ravenloft. Any comments?
I think Sebastian makes a very valuable point.
You mean me, right?
|
It has come to bother me that, in a few cases, WotC has tried to sell us some content-light glitz over crunchy stuff. A couple of recent supplements come to mind, as well as the Delve format itself -- useful, but less bang for our buck in the end.
Jack :/
Almost all the nay-sayers hate the new delve format, new stat block format, or the new MM format in MMIV because they feel they are getting less for their money. It’s like that feel ripped off. However those who are for it (and its common among all the changes wizards are making) are those who see the potential to introduce new people to the game. The “Plug and Play” mentality wizards are adopting makes it easier for people who have never DM’d before to do so without having to memorize all the rules. It also allows more casual players to get into the hobby.
After all Wizards is a profit organisation and this seems the most logical way to attract new customers and expand on overall sales.
Personally I am embracing the changes because with 3 kids under 6 years old and my own business I just don't have the time to spend on preparation as I did during my days at college.
I don't feel ripped off that I'm only getting 50 monsters in my MM instead of 150 because the detail I am getting with the 50 means I'm more likely to use all 50 instead of opening the MM and using the same 10-20 monsters over and over. I'm sure more "hardcore" DMs will not need the extra info to come up with exciting ways to use new monsters but thats not the case for the majority.
Perhaps its time for the hardcore DMs to spend more time inventing their own monsters or going to 3rd party publishers for more but they should realize that wizards holds the gateway into role-playing and their target audience will always be the new and uneducated.
|
|
I think Sebastian makes a very valuable point. The Scourge of the Howling Horde would be great for an inexperienced DM, and probably enhance the experience for DM and players. For a more experienced DM, it's superfluous. I'm curious to know how the higher level delves have panned out - I'm thinking particularly the new Ravenloft. Any comments?
I have Expedition to Castle Ravenloft and while it uses the Delve format for many encounters it includes details of non-combat encounters in the original paragraph format. more elaborate encounters (such as the tarot card reading) have entire sections detailing the encounters finer points. overall the module flows very well. the paragraph encounters appear first with the delve format encounters appearing at the back of each chapter.
There are significant changes compared to the delve format presented on the wizards website (linked above) the most noticeable is the fact that the maps only encompass a quarter of 1 page. check boxes for hit points are not used, instead the top line of the stat bar indicates current hp status in number format (eg HP: 15, 16, 14 (5 left), 21)
the outline follows a similar format throughout...
* Encounter Level
* Introduction detailing how the encounter should be approached before you start running it
* Encounter Setup with Read Aloud text
* Monsters tactics and stats
* Other Information
* Encounter aftermath
with sidebar sections detailing features of the encounter, trap details etc.
The page is formatted into 2 columns per page instead of the speech bubble presented on the wizards site. this saves space and makes for more fluid reading.
One thing that does crop to mind when using the delve format is the way encounters start and end. before you would list each room separately, if the PCs made too much noise you would have to wing it if reinforcements arrived. The delve format gives you the opportunity to include this as part of the original encounter.
Encounters also have a greater feeling of conclusion to them in general. This may be because of the way castle ravenloft is played with each encounter working like cut scenes do in movies.
|
|
I have Expedition to Castle Ravenloft and while it uses the Delve format for many encounters it includes details of non-combat encounters in the original paragraph format. more elaborate encounters (such as the tarot card reading) have entire sections detailing the encounters finer points. overall the module flows very well. the paragraph encounters appear first with the delve format encounters appearing at the back of each chapter.
There are significant changes compared to the delve format presented on the wizards website (linked above) the most noticeable is the fact that the maps only encompass a quarter of 1 page. check boxes for hit points are not used, instead the top line of the stat bar indicates current hp status in number format (eg HP: 15, 16, 14 (5 left), 21)
the outline follows a similar format throughout...
* Encounter Level
* Introduction detailing how the encounter should be approached before you start running it
* Encounter Setup with Read Aloud text
* Monsters tactics and stats
* Other Information
* Encounter aftermathwith sidebar sections detailing features of the encounter, trap details etc.
The page is formatted into 2 columns per page instead of the speech bubble presented on the wizards site. this saves space and makes for more fluid reading.
One thing that does crop to mind when using the delve format is the way encounters start and end. before you would list each room separately, if the PCs made too much noise you would have to wing it if reinforcements arrived. The delve format gives you the opportunity to include this as part of the original encounter.
Interesting - thanks. I'll have to reserve judgement until I get one of the "biggies" in the delve format. Maybe the format works better in a larger setting. Dunno - I'll have to get one of the bigger adventures and see for myself. Probably not Ravenloft - one that is less of a homage as I didn't play R'loft before and can't get excited about it now (though the main reason is funds are unexpectedly tight and I have to more choosy :-( ).
Almost all the nay-sayers hate the new delve format, new stat block format, or the new MM format in MMIV because they feel they are getting less for their money. It’s like that feel ripped off...
Actually, I like the new stat blocks & MM format -- most people seem to. The matter of the Delve format, though, seems more complex.
The “Plug and Play” mentality wizards are adopting makes it easier for people who have never DM’d before to do so without having to memorize all the rules. It also allows more casual players to get into the hobby.
I think you're absolutely right -- the Delve format is great for beginning players.
But there are good arguments indicating that the format breaks down under the demands of higher-level and larger-scope products.
...I don't feel ripped off that I'm only getting 50 monsters in my MM instead of 150 because the detail I am getting with the 50 means I'm more likely to use all 50 instead of opening the MM and using the same 10-20 monsters over and over.
Many will feel ripped off -- and reasonably so. It would be very hard to argue that a 50-monster MM is worth the same price of a 150-monster MM.
I think this will be great for beginning players, but will decrease the value of WotC products for experienced players (the ones that are going to be moving past the core books).
My two cents (and probably not worth it) :)
Jack
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The “Plug and Play” mentality wizards are adopting makes it easier for people who have never DM’d before to do so without having to memorize all the rules. It also allows more casual players to get into the hobby.I think you're absolutely right -- the Delve format is great for beginning players.
But there are good arguments indicating that the format breaks down under the demands of higher-level and larger-scope products.
Don't forget - the "plug and play" type products are also great for DM's with a minimal amount of time to devote to game prep. Thus, I do think there is a need for higher-level delve-type format adventures (though, considering the requirements of high level play, there is certainly room for innovation in the format) for those DM's.
...I don't feel ripped off that I'm only getting 50 monsters in my MM instead of 150 because the detail I am getting with the 50 means I'm more likely to use all 50 instead of opening the MM and using the same 10-20 monsters over and over.Many will feel ripped off -- and reasonably so. It would be very hard to argue that a 50-monster MM is worth the same price of a 150-monster MM.
I think this will be great for beginning players, but will decrease the value of WotC products for experienced players (the ones that are going to be moving past the core books).
I think it depends on the way the book is pitched. Arguably, Lords of Madness, the Draconomican, and the other books in that series are large books with a lot of information about a very small number of monsters. The biggest flaw of MMIV was not in the number of monsters, it was in the title. People have come to expect that the MM volumes will contain a large number of new creatures and little else. MMIV defied that expectation and created ill will as a result. If they had titled Lords of Madness MMIV and formatted it to have huge ecology sections for the mindflayer, beholder, and other featured monsters, it would have received a similar reaction.
As for the whole beginning player v. experienced player argument, I believe that is an incorrect analytical framework. WotC designs different products for different audiences. The Book of Nine Swords and the Tome of Magic are both complex, deeply mechanical books that require a high degree of experience to use and understand. They were released at the same time as the MMIV. Clearly WotC has not abandoned experienced players.
The elephant in the room is the assumption that all books are for all consumers. This is a particularly large elephant considering that gamers are more likely to be obsessive collectors than audiences for other products. Most of us want to own all the D&D books because that way we have a complete collection and it's upsetting when there is a book that we feel obliged to collect that doesn't have the content we want. My advice - let go of your inner collector or recognize the desire for what it is. If a book is not in your sweet spot, you don't have to buy it.
This is another situation where an analogy to magic works. WotC has created profiles of the various types of people that play the game. Some are obsessed with winning, some are obsessed with making cool combos, and some just like really splashy cards that seem cool. Now, granted, there are a lot more magic cards than D&D products, so wizards has a lot more room to create different cards for each of these three types of player. However, the idea applies to D&D products as well. Some D&D books are pitched to "powergamers" (the various complete books), some to "roleplayers" (setting books), and some to architects (Tome of Magic). There is overlap within a product for a particular group (setting books include crunchy stuff for powergamers and sets of mechanics for architects, etc.), but as I've said, not all products can be all things to all people.
I think it depends on the way the book is pitched. Arguably, Lords of Madness, the Draconomican, and the other books in that series are large books with a lot of information about a very small number of monsters. The biggest flaw of MMIV was not in the number of monsters, it was in the title. People have come to expect that the MM volumes will contain a large number of new creatures and little else. MMIV defied that expectation and created ill will as a result. If they had titled Lords of Madness MMIV and formatted it to have huge ecology sections...
Bingo! Right on the money there. MMIV should have been called "101 Play-Ready Humanoids" or something, to eliminate the confusion. This would probably have resulted in substantially increased sales to the "I have 142 kids and 6 jobs and no time" people. To call it a "Monster Manual" really presented it as something that it is not.
I think it depends on the way the book is pitched. Arguably, Lords of Madness, the Draconomican, and the other books in that series are large books with a lot of information about a very small number of monsters. The biggest flaw of MMIV was not in the number of monsters, it was in the title. People have come to expect that the MM volumes will contain a large number of new creatures and little else.
I agree completely.
But there will always be a need and demand for traditional references providing lots of choices -- what MM volumes have given us until recently.
My fear is that not only will the Delve format sabotage such products, but that WotC is deliberately doing just that, tricking us into paying more per monster (or encounter, or whatever) than we have historically. If it works, it would be good business :/
Jack
There are approprate places
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.
Hear, hear.
Everyone agrees putting the confusion table in an encounter with Umber Hulks is a good thing, why not do it?
I don't agree. Give me a page number maybe but otherwise I'd rather the space be used on material I can't just look up.
I think Sebastian makes a very valuable point.You mean me, right?
No. From now on if you make a good point it will automatically be attributed to Sebastian.