|
Oddly, I have found that the quality and coherence of the scenario is extremely important to understanding a delve-format adventure. Because it divorces the background from the actual encounters, often with key information that you need to understand what is going on scattered between different sections of the book, I find that (1) a really good story is essential (so you actually can be bothered to tie it all together) and (2) it needs to be properly related back to the encounters and well-referenced. Also oddly (not), the only two delve-format adventures I ever really liked were Eyes of the Lich Queen and Expedition to The Ruins of Greyhawk, both written (at least partly) by Paizo people.
I can't speak for the 4e delve format - how is it now different?
|
Oddly, I have found that the quality and coherence of the scenario is extremely important to understanding a delve-format adventure. Because it divorces the background from the actual encounters, often with key information that you need to understand what is going on scattered between different sections of the book, I find that (1) a really good story is essential (so you actually can be bothered to tie it all together) and (2) it needs to be properly related back to the encounters and well-referenced. Also oddly (not), the only two delve-format adventures I ever really liked were Eyes of the Lich Queen and Expedition to The Ruins of Greyhawk, both written (at least partly) by Paizo people.
I can't speak for the 4e delve format - how is it now different?
I can see the point; I have RoG and it works on a sourcebook level for me as well as an adventure.
I don't care for it; it's pretty much a pain in the ass.
|
I've seen examples of it, but not a whole product that used it; so I would have to say, it depends on how often it is used in an adventure, and whether each use is justified.
There will be occasions when a more detailed view is required, such as if there are a lot of furnishings, traps, multiple levels, or if complex tactics are described. You don't need it for every 30' square guard room with four orcs.
The deal-breaker for me would be; is this tool being used to genuinely improve the clarity and playability of a complex encounter, or is it being egregiously over-used on simple speed-bump rooms, in a cynical attempt to pad the page-count?
I haven't bought or really examined any recent WotC adventures to be able to answer that last question.
I feel like I am paying for a lot of uneccessary pages. These pages could be filled with better ways to expand the adventure or eliminate the extra pages all together and reduce the cost of the module. I find to benefit no it (other than padding the adventure to inflate the cost, which benefits someone else and not me). So NO I do not like it.
I feel like I am paying for a lot of uneccessary pages. These pages could be filled with better ways to expand the adventure or eliminate the extra pages all together and reduce the cost of the module... NO I do not like it.
I hate it.
Words can't describe my revulsion. I loathe it. I abhor it. I induces in me projectile vomiting. I'd use it as toilet paper, but I fear what it may do to my butt. It is nauseating, revolting, and brings into doubt the existence of a benevolent God.
So no, I don't like it.
I feel like I am paying for a lot of uneccessary pages. These pages could be filled with better ways to expand the adventure or eliminate the extra pages all together and reduce the cost of the module... NO I do not like it.I hate it.
Words can't describe my revulsion. I loathe it. I abhor it. I induces in me projectile vomiting. I'd use it as toilet paper, but I fear what it may do to my butt. It is nauseating, revolting, and brings into doubt the existence of a benevolent God.
So no, I don't like it.
Perhaps we should start a support group for Delve Format haters.
BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG!
This meeting shall now come to order. Tatterdemalion, tell us, why don't you like it and how long have you felt this way? Were here for you, open up us. Were all in the same boat.
It's the crooked maps isn't it?
I don't mind the Delve format. It has its bad points but, having finally used a module with it, I gotta say I like having a map and detailed description of each room all in one place. Yes, page flipping is a pain but I was doing that before anyways anytime I needed to look at the maps.
|
Everyone I know personally dislikes it. However, one of my gaming buddies knows of two DMs (from RPGA local cons) that "don't mind" it. Those two are the only I've heard of that like it. Of course, I've never actually met anyone that likes it...
-W. E. Ray
It's interesting that you mention two DMs from RPGA local cons don't mind it. I think from a demo/gameday/con perspective, the Delve format works well due to preparation and time limitations. A GM can be pulled in at short notice if more players than expected turn up to an event, and run a session without any prior preparation. If I recall, Worldwide D&D Game Day modules were presented in a Delve format, and I found they ran well, as the encounters were predictable (dungeon crawls) with few variables.
However, in a longer running campaign, such as Paizo's adventure paths, I think Paizo's approach works a lot better - provide a lot of background, so the GM can wing it any way he wants. Conditions can change unexpectedly, such as approaching by day or by night, approaching with stealth versus setting off alarms, creating a diversion such as setting the outhouse on fire, factors such as these can alter the starting locations of inhabitants considerably, rendering a Delve format less than useful.
|
It's interesting that you mention two DMs from RPGA local cons don't mind it. I think from a demo/gameday/con perspective, the Delve format works well due to preparation and time limitations. A GM can be pulled in at short notice if more players than expected turn up to an event, and run a session without any prior preparation. If I recall, Worldwide D&D Game Day modules were presented in a Delve format, and I found they ran well, as the encounters were predictable (dungeon crawls) with few variables.However, in a longer running campaign, such as Paizo's adventure paths, I think Paizo's approach works a lot better - provide a lot of background, so the GM can wing it any way he wants. Conditions can change unexpectedly, such as approaching by day or by night, approaching with stealth versus setting off alarms, creating a diversion such as setting the outhouse on fire, factors such as these can alter the starting locations of inhabitants considerably, rendering a Delve format less than useful.
You've made a couple very good points here, both of which I really agree with, so I wanted to give you props.
It's clear from the info so far that 4E takes less preparation, especially if you use these delve formats. This can be very handy for in store or convention type events. They can also be handy for folks who want to DM but just don't plain have the time (real life, kids, etc.) to put the amount of effort into the game that 3.5 requires. Maybe they just want to pick up KotS and just play without having too much planning ahead of time. I want a dungeon crawl - boom, here it is.
I can really see it helping the younger (far younger - 10, 11, 12yo, etc.) DM. I know when I started at that age back in the day I fouled up a number of encounters because I missed pieces/parts that were buried in the text. (this was before there were even "read this text box aloud" boxes...)
As well, I agree wholeheartedly that Paizo's AP's are more in-depth. I wouldn't want that delve format used there, it's a waste of pages. Paizo's AP's are for people who have already been to the rodeo previously. That's a long arc with a heavy duty amount of background and threads to track over a long campaign.
I like the delve for what it is, nothing more, nothing less. It is what it is, as they say. I can certainly see it being in an introductory module like KotS and some of the follow-on's because for many that will be their intro to DnD and the extra guidance will be useful.
There are choices. And choice is always good.
If Delve is done well, I like it.
Too bad it really, really sucks when it's not done well. And it's done poorly more often than not.
I like it.
My first time using it (in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft), I'll admit I was po'ed at the page flipping and the maps that didn't line up. But in adventures since then I think it has come together nicely. I like knowing all the tactical info and the delve format puts it all out there. It's way better than a small box of descriptive text and a reference page in the MM.
I'm not a delve fan - I prepare fast and just don't need it.
If someone roped me into running an event game, I'm sure I'd love it.
|
I like the delve format and have actually been converting most of my pathfinder campaign to it.
I can understand peoples dislike about it as its been presented in various versions (and I understand Paizo's decision to save on page space for their products) but the truth is the delve format does have a lot of advantages for me when I run a game.
When I run a campaign I copy all the combat information out of the book (or PDF) and distribute each room/encounter to a single page (or double page spread if its particularly large). I like to add in additional information to encounters such as terrain modifiers, details of spells (modified by the casters specifics), to knowledge DCs for identifying creatures or DC results for detect magic, etc. all this information would take ages to track down (and probably longer if I didn't use RPGXplorer) and slow the game down to a crawl in fact other DM's I've played with generally ignore the finer points of combat (such as terrain) which has lead to some rather boring encounters that could prove a far greater challenge.
I generally leave maps OFF my delve format unless creature set up is specifically necessary and simply create an A5 map book that keeps them together for quick reference and transferring to the battlemat.
|
|
I do not like it's limitations it puts on the design of an encounter. You cannot have many different factions or NPC's duking it out in the delve format without resorting to multiple page flippings. It also limits design on a room specific encounter with a specific setup starting positions and so on.
What I like is, if you have everything for an ecounter, room, or whatever in one place. Handouts for the players, item cards for the treasure, Stat blocks for ALL monsters, NPC's. I use a signature folder to have everything in place for the specific rooms in a dungeon I run (last example D0: Hollows Last Hope, PDF's rule). It is similar to the Delve format, but it has EVERYTHING about that room/event/encounter in that one place.
never realy cared for it myself.
While the tactical maps are useful when running the game the format makes reading the adventure disjointed and unpleasurable. As a DM I find a buy and read far more adventures than I run so its definitely a net loss.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I really can't stand it.
At first, I figured it was just because it was new to me. But I've bought several "delve" products and I think the quality of the work suffers due to the format. Maybe it's good for tournament play, but I don't buy WotC adventures now because I find the delve format frustrating and unappealing.
I find that the Delve format makes it virtually impossible for me to sit down and "read" an adventure and enjoy it. My initial enjoyment of an adventure plays a huge role in whether I'm going to run it, and naturally then, whether I'm going to buy it.
I have had my first experience of the delve format in Expedition to the Demonweb Pits. The game is drawing to a close after several sessions so I have had lots of opportunity to play with it.
Overall, I don't care for it. It took me some time to lay out the encounters and events in the logical order they would occur. Most adventures offer things in a logical, story based, order and thus I was able to see the likely flow of events and arrange things to taste. However, the delve format, does not lend itself to such logical reading and required considerably more preparation time as I had to arrange everything in my notes and add lots of bridging material to fill in the gaps.
In the end I didn't care for it. It allowed more customization of the printed material but the prep time was prohibitive. The decoupled encounters were nice and easy to move around but I did this anyway so that didn't really make a difference to me in the long run.
Creative Director
|
I've said it before... a LARGE number of people do indeed simply read adventures for entertainment; they never run them (or if they DO run them, they might do so months or years or even decades later). As a result, keeping adventures fun to read is something that I'm trying to maintain for Paizo's adventures. Which is why we'll not be switching our adventure format anytime soon.
I've said it before... a LARGE number of people do indeed simply read adventures for entertainment; they never run them (or if they DO run them, they might do so months or years or even decades later).
So far my only exposure to delve formats is in the new Keep on the Shadowfell and in Logue's St. Demain finale in the online-Dungeon. Maybe it's my limited exposure, but I'm not sure I'm following your point.
I'm just as much a reader as the next guy (if not more so) and I found these delve formats to be very conducive to "reading the story". In effect, the storyline was presented first and then the gritty crunch of each room later. Because I always skip the grit on my first "pleasure" read anyways, this fit my reading style perfectly.
Do the rest of you, when reading modules, stop to pace out each encounter in your mind?
I've said it before... a LARGE number of people do indeed simply read adventures for entertainment; they never run them (or if they DO run them, they might do so months or years or even decades later). As a result, keeping adventures fun to read is something that I'm trying to maintain for Paizo's adventures. Which is why we'll not be switching our adventure format anytime soon.
Excellent!
|
|
I've said it before... a LARGE number of people do indeed simply read adventures for entertainment; they never run them (or if they DO run them, they might do so months or years or even decades later). As a result, keeping adventures fun to read is something that I'm trying to maintain for Paizo's adventures. Which is why we'll not be switching our adventure format anytime soon.
I wouldn't dream of asking you (again) if you planned on changing the layout of your products. not only is it counter productive and restrictive, its also very much a personal preference. I believe their is no perfect design format for adventure writing, you simply choose what's right for you and stick with it.
One request I would have though is that when copying stat blocks from Paizo PDF's there seems to be an incompatibility problem which turns all numeric entries into underscores when copy/pasted into word. It does make it rather time consuming to export information. Any chance this could be looked into?
I don't mind the delve format too much and I like the idea behind it; but I have to admit, in 3.5e it was executed with varying degrees of success. Personally, I think that it worked best in the DD1-3 series, the FR trilogy, and in the new Dungeon (it was less successful in the Expedition Series IMO). I had to write an adventure using that format and while it was sometimes challenging, I found that it forced me to think a lot more about terrain than I'm used to (I really wanted to keep each encounter area varied).
That said, I do like how WoTC is moving towards a more integrated delve format in 4e (at least based on Keep on the Shadowfell).
I feel like I am paying for a lot of uneccessary pages. These pages could be filled with better ways to expand the adventure (SNIP)
Exactly how I feel. Delve format = not a good thing at all.
Peace,
tfad
I feel like I am paying for a lot of uneccessary pages. These pages could be filled with better ways to expand the adventure (SNIP)Exactly how I feel. Delve format = not a good thing at all.
Peace,
tfad
Ever since they announced it, I have felt that the Delve format for encounter presentation would be a fine "web enhancement" for the DDI, rather than taking up actual pages in an adventure product.
As a GM I've ran a couple of adventures with the Delve Format and still cannot stand it. I preferred the previous format.
Like the delve format?
Nope, can't say I do.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
Hate it.
I don't like reading through it, it kills the story and it puts me off the adventure. I still end up flicking between pages, but now it feels illogical too. Yucko.
Plus, I think it limits what you get in the encounters - one good, complicated monster and you can forget too much interesting action besides that one thing. I often wonder what the writers could have done if they werent constrained. I get the idea that a lot of potentially memorable encounters are now just "fights".
There are not words to describe how much I hate Delve format. I've run three Modules in it. All three I ended up chopping up the module. When I got done, I was left with a module that was smaller than any one from Dungeon, and of inferior quality (The three I ran was the three module FR arc.) Delve is just alot of wasted space, redundant maps, reprinted stat blocks, all crammed together to make you feel better about shelling out $30 on a hard bound book. I do get that if you've never DMed before and have never seen a game played, that Delve format would be a great training system, but not so great for those who know how to DM.
|
|
Let me again detail my love/hate relation with the Delve Format:
Let's say I'm prepping for an adventure from Dungeon Adventures magazine. I read through it and make notes of the monsters. Either they are in there or in the MM. I scan the monsters and lay them out in two columns in MS Publisher. I print it out and put it in my 3-hole punched campaign book. I scribble notes for spell descriptions, a spark or two of tactical ideas, and room hazards. When I come to the room in the module, I open to my cheat sheet and run the battle.
The Delve Format IS this. It does all that work for me and saves me a little bit of time. I have no issue flipping pages here and there, it's worked OK so far. It's fine.
BUT I have come to realize I cannot stand the fact that it eats up so much space. Egads! And there are, sometimes, very strange editorial decisions made as to what goes in the main text and what is in the room needed for combat and I have to hunt for info between the two, defeating the purpose of ease of use at times.
So in general, when I encounter it I use it and it gives my no real grief, but I am glad I am no longer buying WotC items because I seriously think it's a page waster. I would much rather pay less or pay more but get more adventure not cheat sheets.
-DM Jeff
I don't actually hate it, but I can't say that I'm very fond of it. It's fairly convient for running online, play-by-post games where you might spend weeks on a single combat and well away from the rest of the integrated module text.
But for table-top playing, I found it a bit more cumbersome. Flipping back and forth from section to section may be OK for pbp games, but at the table, it's no fun.
I would prefer a pull-out book (like the map booklet in Shackled City) for certain particularly complex encounters to the format they're using now.
I was just thinking a separate appendix might make me like the Delve format better, rather than smack in the middle. As it stands, I dislike it.
|
|
I agree with KnightErrant. I already make delve-like encounter sheets for my Savage Tide game, and it would be awesome if I could just download them. It helps me keep track of what is going on in the encounter. But having them included in the page count of the adventure is a lot of wasted space.
Also, if a publisher wanted to make modules for multiple systems, they could have the rules-neutral story elements in the main body, and the encounter pages for whatever system. Instead of paying $10 for a module, you could pay $5 for the story and $5 for the encounters. Then you could run the same adventure for your Wed. night group that plays Pathfinder and your Sat. afternoon group that plays 4E.
Some people buy modules only to rape the encounter ideas and don't use the story bits, some people only use the bare story and design encounters to fit their group. This approach could make it simpler and cheaper for these people. It would also allow for a company to support any number of rules systems with out worrying about one of them becoming obsolete.
However, I have to say I like my Pathinder just the way it is.
The help the Delve format provides in running an encounter, which I will grant that it does; does not offset the wasted space that is lost on it. Given the option, I'd pass on it.
|
|
the flipping back and forth just from a reading standpoint really sucks.
Strange thing is, I thought the concept of the Delve format was to present everything the GM required to run that encounter on the one page - eg, to eliminate the need to flip pages.
However, from what people have been reporting, the Delve format seems to have exacerbated page flipping?
|
|
I've said it before... a LARGE number of people do indeed simply read adventures for entertainment; they never run them (or if they DO run them, they might do so months or years or even decades later).So far my only exposure to delve formats is in the new Keep on the Shadowfell and in Logue's St. Demain finale in the online-Dungeon. Maybe it's my limited exposure, but I'm not sure I'm following your point.
I'm just as much a reader as the next guy (if not more so) and I found these delve formats to be very conducive to "reading the story". In effect, the storyline was presented first and then the gritty crunch of each room later. Because I always skip the grit on my first "pleasure" read anyways, this fit my reading style perfectly.
Do the rest of you, when reading modules, stop to pace out each encounter in your mind?
I think it depends on how well written it is. I have seen some Delve format stuff (Ravenloft springs to mind, perhaps unfairly) where it goes through the rooms twice - once for developments (often first, which is a bit odd) and then, later in the book, the actual combat set-up. However, some information that is pertinent to developments, and some pertinent to the combat, is in the other section. Or the development section didn't even bother to say what was the nature of the encounter in the combat section, just that there was one. So you have flip about, and it makes it hard and painful to read.
But I had no real problem with, and enjoyed, Ruins of Greyhawk. It was a cool adventure, of course, but it was much, much easier to follow, even in delve format, than others in the series. So it the writer is cognisant of the fact that a reader might just, y'know, want to read, they can structure the adventure accordingly.
|
|
Do I pace the encounters in my mind? No, not normally. In a multi-room dungeon, I often get lost as to where the rooms are and relate to one another on a quick skim. Pacing the dungeon still requires flipping between the text and the map. But in a non-Delve adventure, that is normally only a couple of pages, not dozens in an unwieldy hardback book which is tough to manipulate on the train.
Others have mentioned the waste of space. This irritates the hell out of me and is my main gripe with Delve. The Howling Horde was the first Delve-format adventure I got and, compared with the 32 page WotC adventures they put out in the late 90's/early 2000s, the actual content was risibly miniscule in comparison - barely more than a sidetrek. Not a bad adventure in and of itself (and they didn't do trhe separate development and encounter pages in it either, from memory) but blown up out of all proportion in terms of page count.
I think the near-overwhelming reaction is interesting.
And I have an interesting thought about this (and some of my thoughts come from the ongoing 4e debate). Is it possible WotC's market research is based mostly (or entirely) on convention play?
- Delve is good for tournament play -- clear setup for an encounter that will only go in a limited number of directions (tournament play tends to be very linear); it also helps DMs that only have a limited time to familiarize themselves with a module.
- 4e character generation is more standardized and linear -- again, good things at a convention.
- Level progression is more in line with the pace of Living Campaigns -- perhaps coincidentally (IMO)
I can think of a couple of others. Am I way off-base?
Quick opinions, please -- I have no desire to spark another "4e is flawed" debate, not the stomach for it. Delve is clearly unpopular (with most), so I'm trying to fathom WotC's motivations.
|
One request I would have though is that when copying stat blocks from Paizo PDF's there seems to be an incompatibility problem which turns all numeric entries into underscores when copy/pasted into word. It does make it rather time consuming to export information. Any chance this could be looked into?
What PDF viewer and what version of the viewer are you using? Using Adobe 8 I don't have this problem
Not a big fan of the format myself. I only own three adventures in this format but I was seriously unimpressed with all three of them. The first was Ravenloft module. I didn't find there was enough flavour. The format seemed to have fluff at the beginning and then the rest of it was just room descriptions and tactical details. The story seem to take a back seat to the encounters with ther exceptions of the Stradh encounters. It felt like it missed out a lot on the story which was the coolest part.
The story felt similiarly unimportant in expedition to the demonweb pits and the Cormyr adventure. In Cormyr I felt the encounters often felt disconnected.
Also I found the lack of content really hamstringed the adventures. The worst for this was expedition to the demonweb pits. The adventure really lacked any that feeling of epic that an adventure that long should have. Despite all the cool location you visited it just felt mundane. Also in demonweb pits the throne room encounter just worked horribly in the delve format. I think it ended up with the map of one room being repeated five or six times.
|
|
And I have an interesting thought about this (and some of my thoughts come from the ongoing 4e debate). Is it possible WotC's market research is based mostly (or entirely) on convention play?
- Delve is good for tournament play -- clear setup for an encounter that will only go in a limited number of directions (tournament play tends to be very linear); it also helps DMs that only have a limited time to familiarize themselves with a module.
- 4e character generation is more standardized and linear -- again, good things at a convention.
- Level progression is more in line with the pace of Living Campaigns -- perhaps coincidentally (IMO)
I can think of a couple of others. Am I way off-base?
Delve certainly emerged from convention play. Dave Noonan wrote a series of articles a few years ago about Design and Development and in one of those he unveiled the notion of the proto-Delve, before the first Delve format adventure came out (which was the Howling Horde). And it was run at a convention to test it - indeed it was intended for convention play (or so I believe - my memory has failed me in the past). While it would not be something they would make a big song and dance about, I very much got the feeling from the article (maybe falsely) that Delve was not really subject to broader market research, but instead done because the guys in Design and Development thought it was a good idea (certain, Noonan gave the impression it was the best thing since sliced bread) and done "for our own good" (a bit like 4e itself, perhaps). (Though I find it hard to believe that the fact that it makes fairly short adventures into hardback behemoths hundreds of pages long didn't make the Accounts and Marketing people's eyes light up.)