Darkjoy RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16 |
Mr Baron |
Here are my thoughts:
1) In general it feels like it eats up a lot of space that could be better used. I do not need delve format for every encounter.
2) I do not like the delve for simple encounters. For the climax encounter or for a complex encounter which there is a large fold out map included, I think that is fine.
3) For tournament play, I can see how the delve format could work to create standardization of play.
4) For play testing encounters, I can also see how this can lead to standardized feedback.
5) In the large super large hard cover modules, I definitely do not want to see a delve encounter for all the encounters. I want more fluff n' crunch. I will say that the delve format was ok in Ravenloft, but was terrible in the other hard cover books.
6) I liked the format in Red Hand of Doom.
Derek Poppink |
My only exposure to Delve was in the post-Paizo digital Dungeons. That said, the only conclusion after that limited exposure: hate it.
I hated the delve format in 3.5 books (especially the Expeditions and the online Dungeon adventures).
On the other hand, the way they used the delve format in Keep on the Shadowfell is quite good. Monster stat blocks are more condensed, everything about each location is included in the two-page spread, and the encounters are spread throughout the book rather than bunched at the end. I was easily able to read through the adventure once for enjoyment and then run the first four encounters without flipping of pages.
I hope future uses of the delve format in 4e turn out as well.
Mosaic |
On the other hand, the way they used the delve format in Keep on the Shadowfell is quite good. Monster stat blocks are more condensed, everything about each location is included in the two-page spread, and the encounters are spread throughout the book rather than bunched at the end. I was easily able to read through the adventure once for enjoyment and then run the first four encounters without flipping of pages.
I've only read through the adventure and not DM'ed it, but I agree with Derek. The new Delve format seems pretty workable. There's an overview piece for each level of the dungeon and then rooms are chunked into blocks of maybe 3-5 rooms that interact (i.e., monsters from one room will run into another room, etc.), all of which is explained. Conditions for the chunk of rooms are too. I like it. It makes for more dynamic encounters and doesn't force the DM to figure out what happens if the PCs leave a door open between rooms. It is less likely that they'll just go from room to room clearing a dungeon with the monsters in one room waiting cluelessly to be slaughtered.
I'd really like it if they made blank, mini-scale player maps available for download.
Jal Dorak |
I like one thing about the delve format: important features of the room are easy to find, and usually keyed to the map and monsters have quick-read tactics. In other words, they are easy to do on-the-fly.
But other than that, I hate the fiddly things (echoing some others):
1) Too much page flipping, especially for treasure/generic features.
2) Sometimes maps are hard to place in the larger area map.
and my number one complaint
3) Monsters act like idiots just to fit the confines of the adventure.
Case in point for The Sinister Spire:
The areas are broken up for no good reason, and worst of all a DM that "errs" and runs all four encounters at once risks putting a level 6 party up againt 4 x CR 5 creatures. That has the makings of a TPK.
Unless...the DM prepares the encounter assuming every monster will be active, and that the players can take steps to engage them all intentionally, rather than "oh, you stumbled into the next room".
Basically, like most things from Wizards these days, too simplistic.
Fenrat |
I agree with the folks that said its not necessary for simple encounters .... I don't need the delve format for a small room with two gnolls in it.
But when its a large room with multiple features, different levels, unusual terrain that may impact the battle, and loads of enemies, it is definitely warranted.
I also hate it when the features (hardness, opened DC) are repeated for a typical door or wall over and over.