|
Spoilerized to condensify:
While it might seem elementary, let's first examine what we mean by terrain. Terrain is not just what litters the field in an encounter; terrain also forms the dimensions and tactile experience of the encounter itself. Knowing that, there are some things about 4th Edition D&D design that you should keep in mind when building encounters.
First and foremost, not only does the standard 4th Edition encounter tend to have more combatants than in 3rd Edition, both PCs and monsters are more maneuverable as well. This means that the 10-foot by 10-foot rooms of yore have gone the way of the dinosaur (actually that happened in 3E, but that's not relevant to this discussion). Likewise have the 20 by 20 room and even the 30 by 30 room as the sole encounter areas. In fact, the minimum amount of space you typically want to have for a standard encounter is one of those large 10-square by 8-square dungeon tiles! That's 50-feet by 40-feet for all you still counting in feet. Just hold on before you start chucking all those 2-by-2 square dungeon tiles in the garbage -- you'll still need them!
Any DM worth her salt knows that dynamic and interactive stories are more satisfying than railroading narratives. The same is true for battle areas. Larger spaces with interesting terrain that both the PCs and their enemies can take advantage of -- or be foiled by -- is infinitely more fun than a small and relatively empty room that constrains combatant choice to a small set of dreary moves.
But here's the rub -- large areas of interconnecting chambers, complete with alcoves, galleries, and antechambers, are far more exciting than just plopping down a 10 by 8 tile and sprinkling it with rubble. Creating a network of interconnected areas creates numerous avenues of conflict and creates the possibilities for a series of evolving fronts that metamorphoses same-old encounters into tactical puzzles that'll sing like legend to a gaming group. See, you're going to need all those smaller pieces!
Then, once you have the main layout done, populate it with furniture, shrines, rubble, pillars, or maybe even the occasional lightning column or patch of doomspore where needed (and where appropriate), and you've got yourself a pretty vibrant encounter area for your combatants to interact with.
Oh, here's a bit of sound advice that'll keep you out of trouble. Be careful with pits and other steep inclines, and leave 100-foot (or endless) chasms for paragon- or epic-level play. Some of that increased maneuverability of the combatants in 4th Edition comes from attacks that can move foes against their will -- which is all fun and games until someone loses a character!
That aside, D&D is more than just a tactical skirmish game; it's also a game of storytelling and heroic adventure. When designing adventures, you're doing more than just placing interesting terrain pieces for the battle that (let's admit it) will most likely occur; you are also setting the stage of your story. A canny eye toward terrain set up can also help you communicate story elements to your players quickly and without the need to say a single word. Just put down some sarcophagi, and the players will know it's a crypt. Put down an altar, and you've just communicated that it's a temple. Put down piles and piles of bones in front of a yawning cavern, and the players will know their characters are likely in a world of trouble … or you've seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail one too many times.
by Stephen Radney-MacFarland
Edit: My comments.
I've already been doing exactly this in designing my own encounters, so its really nothing new. I suppose It goes in the "plus" category for 4E if they are explicitly making terrain "more" a part of encounter design.
However, from a design perspective, I am not so sure there is a need for "increased" movement and the associated "expansion" of the encounter space into 50 foot square rooms (for example) seems a bit overdone for folk who prefer more verisimilitude. Imagine a peasant farmhouse encounter with some undead farmers. Seems like they are saying the "living room" should be something like 50X50 and that's outrageous to me. Throw in furniture etc and you have a "tactical puzzle".
If they mean, the whole farmhouse is now considered an encounter "unit" that is 50X50, then nothing really has changed in this design.
I'll have to ponder the merits of moving in the other direction. Slower movement to fit the current encounter space paradigm, perhaps with less attack "power" (ie no iteritive attacks, spells with less punch) could probably do the same thing.
The WoW comparison comes to mind, although in a good way IMO. In WoW the encounter spaces are "HUGE" when you stop and look at them in a real world perspective. owever, the game plays as if the "farmhouse" is actually a realistic size. I am thinking that even though you may draw out a "huge" farmhouse, once you put in beds, chairs, tables, etc, and some space to manuever in-between, tactically it will "feel" like a normal farmhouse. Its only when you start counting feet does belief falter.
Cool.
I'm a wargamer from way back. This sounds like it's exactly what I am looking for.
Ummm...I don't get it. So how does this even relate to terrain or 4e or anything. It sounds like: the right way to play D&D is in HUGE rooms, but you shouldn't have chasms or lava or anything until you're epic level because you might lose a character *gasp*.
Oh and sarcophagi are rich with story because they say *duh-duh-duuum* you're in a tomb!
What?
Come on...
I must be really missing something because I feel like this might have been the most pointless thing I've ever read.
I've been reading thru Expedition to Castle Ravenloft and this sounds kind of like how the encounters in there are setup. Each encounter has a fairly large layout because it also includes the surrounding areas.
Example: For the ruins of a hill-top tower, the entire area along with a generous portion of the outside ground level is mapped out as a single area rather than being broken down into small rooms. A sidebar on the page then calls out the terrain features (light rubble, tree, heavy undergrowth, etc.) and cite the effects they have on game mechanics.
Using the farmhouse example then, it sounds like using the whole game mat to draw out the house along with perhaps an adjacent shed or silo. In that way, the fight can more easily spill over into other areas and combatants have room to maneuver and setup attacks.
|
Then, once you have the main layout done, populate it with furniture, shrines, rubble, pillars, or maybe even the...
Right here I had the distinct feeling that the article was discussing a tutorial about level designing with the Aurora toolset.
I understand that the new edition and the online columns are geared towards a younger and inexperienced generation of players (and DMs), but they're also regularly pissing off the older audience, who finds close-to-zero useful/inspiring/innovative content.
At least put a "this is for rookies" sign at the top, so I don't have to waste time reading the stuff.
I welcome added mobility to the game.
And I really don't see the problem of WotC writing for people who have less or no experience, nor do I see the reason for getting upset about people who are doing so. There are many things that I have been learning for 20 years or more and I often hear others discussing the fundamentals I learned decades ago--instead of criticizing it for being simplistic, why don't you add to it and show you expertise that way?
Of course WotC has pissed me off, too, but all the complaining is really getting me down.
|
This was something that appealed to me as well.
Using the farmhouse example then, it sounds like using the whole game mat to draw out the house along with perhaps an adjacent shed or silo. In that way, the fight can more easily spill over into other areas and combatants have room to maneuver and setup attacks.
I think you have it right here.
I've been reading thru Expedition to Castle Ravenloft and this sounds kind of like how the encounters in there are setup. Each encounter has a fairly large layout because it also includes the surrounding areas.
Example: For the ruins of a hill-top tower, the entire area along with a generous portion of the outside ground level is mapped out as a single area rather than being broken down into small rooms. A sidebar on the page then calls out the terrain features (light rubble, tree, heavy undergrowth, etc.) and cite the effects they have on game mechanics.
I have some issues with the Delve Format but it was this aspect of the format that I really liked. Grouping rooms or areas together is a good way to depict an encounter area. I am happy to hear some of the these design considerations will be utilized in the future.
It sounds like: the right way to play D&D is in HUGE rooms, but you shouldn't have chasms or lava or anything until you're epic level because you might lose a character *gasp*.
I really think they mean groupings of rooms more than just huge rooms, though I am sure that will happen as well. I would need to hunt it down but Mike Mearls touched on this earlier and he seemed to indicate areas of rooms versus large open spaces would be the norm.
I like the idea of increasing the scale and adding more combatants to the mix. I want fewer combats and I want them to be bigger. And it is my hope 4e will help facilitate that kind of play.