| Delve Format: What do you think? |
| It is the perfect format for my DM style |
|
17% |
[ 5 ] |
| It is ok, but I don't want to wait longer just for that |
|
21% |
[ 6 ] |
| I can take it or leave it, really. |
|
60% |
[ 17 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 28 |
|
| Author |
Message
|
| Wolfgang |
 Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject: Delve Format from Wrath and Elsewhere |
 |
|
Kobold Overlord
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 4986
Location: The Mines
|
So one of the reasons that Wrath of the River King was delayed is that the Delve format turns out to require more time during design, during editing, and during layout than a traditional format does.
That may be fine, actually, as that time makes encounters into 2-page nuggets that are easy to use at the table. Or it may be a problem, as not all encounter fit all that neatly into the format.
What's your experience with Delve-style adventures? What do you like or hate about them? Are you willing to wait a little longer for an Open Design project written in that format?
I'm curious.
_________________
Wolfgang Baur
Publisher, Kobold Press |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| terraleon |
| Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Contributor
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 2013
Location: upstate NY
|
Meh? I'm of the mind that you use the format that suits the encounter best. If the delve is perfect for one encounter and totally improper for the next, well, then you use what you need to use. Just because one publisher likes it doesn't mean we all need to use it-- consider the stat blocks. I much prefer Paizo's to WOTCs for 3.5 monsters.
-Ben.
_________________
progressio sine timore aut praejudica - Spectemur agendo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Aberzanzorax |
| Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 276
|
I voted for the "it's ok, but I don't want to wait longer for it".
Mainly I voted that way because there was not an "I'd prefer it go the way of the Dodo".
I don't like it at all. I actually find it to cause more page flipping, not less. I prefer stat blocks within the actual adventure....not compiled at the end. Some WotC books (exemplars of evil) for example even make the mistake of having a delve format but having the stats for the BBEG somewhere in the adventure. You go to the delve pages and they say the name and hp of the bad guy and none of the stats (but refer you back to the page in the adventure where the stats are)!
I'd rather that the delve stuff be eliminated if that took more time and was easier. Since it seems the opposite (that adding something unwanted to me takes longer) I DEFINITELY vote against it.
-Aberzanzorax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| deinol |
| Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 27 Aug 2008
Posts: 380
|
I haven't voted because I'm still unsure. I won't really have a fair opinion until I've run Wrath. In the past, I've had Aberzanzorax's experience with Delve. I think WotC isn't very good at using the format yet. The adventure I ran using it had a section describing the rooms and flow of the adventure with all the encounters in the back in delve format. There were a number of times crucial information about an area was in the first section.
On the other hand, Wrath looks very good. There are a few parts where it felt a little odd. I know on my first read through I skipped to the chapter of Fey Roads and was surprised to just find delve encounters. I was expecting an introduction on how they worked or something. It took me a while to find the ritual was listed in the Fair chapter. Due to the open nature of the adventure, sometimes it seemed harder to determine when a particular encounter was best used. Part of that seems to stem from this not being a dungeon, so wilderness encounters happen when and where the GM wants them.
In concept I am not opposed to having 2 page encounter spreads. I do think certain types of encounters or areas, like the courtly politics section, don't fit the delve format well. Overall I say go with what is best for the adventure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| varianor |
| Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 602
|
| Aberzanzorax, have you seen Wrath? The format there used all the stat blocks right in the two-page (or sometimes 1 or 3 page) spread. However, the issue from my perspective as editor was shoehorning text down into that size. Steve had a really neat look earlier in the process that had to get a little more mainstreamed and smaller due to Delve format. We've seen many comments from folks who miss the "linking bits", the text that stitches together parts of the adventure. Hence the poll. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| richgreen01 |
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 774
Location: London, UK
|
| varianor wrote: |
| Aberzanzorax, have you seen Wrath? The format there used all the stat blocks right in the two-page (or sometimes 1 or 3 page) spread. However, the issue from my perspective as editor was shoehorning text down into that size. Steve had a really neat look earlier in the process that had to get a little more mainstreamed and smaller due to Delve format. We've seen many comments from folks who miss the "linking bits", the text that stitches together parts of the adventure. Hence the poll. |
The lack of linking bits is what I found most confusing about reading through Wrath. I actually like the delve format for encounters but I think maybe each chapter should have an overview of the encounters in it and how they link together.
Cheers
Richard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Aberzanzorax |
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 276
|
To Varianor:
You're right. I hadn't really looked at Wrath yet. While I am a patron, I don't really get to enjoying the products until the paper version comes out. I HATE reading pdfs on the computer (all through grad school I printed every article....musta used a whole tree...but that's how much of a difference print versus screen makes to me).
But I checked it out. It doesn't seem to fit with Wolfgang's description of "two page nuggets" from the original post.
To all:
I'm not a fan of the "two page nuggets" that I've seen from WotC. I like the way Wrath did it (on a cursory glance) which doesn't seem very "delve like" but rather "stat bloc" like IMO. I really hate the WotC style of putting all the encounters at the end of the book and the sometimes necessity of crossreferencing despite this.
For example, if a BBEG is likely/supposed to survive an encounter, I've seen this tackled with multiple delve encounters having either a reprint of their stats each time, a print of their stats once in a delve and a reference from the other, and a print of their stats somewhere else (in the adventure or in the appendix) with reference from the delve encounters. While I like sources that do put BBEG stats in an appendix overall, stats are different than the actual "linking bits" such as why the encounter is happening, strategies, who else might be there including noncombatants, etc.
Overall, my reaction to the "delve" as Wolfgang first described it, was and is to the WotC version (the only non-Wrath version I've ever seen). I find it to disturb the flow of reading and (somewhat) of playing the adventure, making it less immersive and more piecemeal.
As far as a new, improved delve, I don't even know if I consider Wrath (again, with a cursory view...when I have a printed copy I'll be more informed) to BE delve format at this point. Am I missing something?
One final "disclaimer" I also consider Wrath to be my introduction to 4e in a sense...the first product I've bought for it. As such, much of my "delve format" objections are to 3rd edition delve format which came out toward the end of the 3rd edition run, in my memory. Even in Elder Evils (where the delves were only a few pages away from the meat of the chapter) I found it disruptive.
If this is limited to the 4e "statblocks" as I see it, I guess it doesn't bother me. It's when the combats are taken out of the adventure and placed in their own sections that starts to get under my skin.
So there's my opinion with full disclaimers as to exactly how "well" informed I am.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| terraleon |
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Contributor
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 2013
Location: upstate NY
|
| varianor wrote: |
| We've seen many comments from folks who miss the "linking bits", the text that stitches together parts of the adventure. Hence the poll. |
I took part of this to be the sandbox style, allowing the GM to place the encounters as necessary and, while requiring a little more work for the GM, intentional.
Personally? I would prefer more linking bits, just smooth the preparation process and to give me ideas on how to shuffle things.
So in that sense? More linky bits, please!
-Ben.
_________________
progressio sine timore aut praejudica - Spectemur agendo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Christian Lindke |
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 1
|
I am a big fan of the Delve format, particularly when running adventures from a pdf document. It allows me to run adventures with minimal clutter on the table, which allows more room for the design and set up.
I do think that the format works best in concert with an "area map." Take for example Nicolas Logue's excellent adventure Carnival of Tears, which isn't written in Delve format (but should have been). You have a map detailing the carnival locations on a large map. Given each location, most of which contain a scripted encounter, a Delve format spread would have helped the module immensely.
It takes more space, certainly, but it also prevents the need to flip pages -- if a stat block or encounter gets cut in half, as happens often in the older layouts -- or for the DM to create "creature sheets" in order to compensate for the layout flaws of the older layouts. When running my Rise of the Runelords campaign, I use a lot of paper just to have the monster stats in a ready and easy to use format, the Delve format solves for this issue.
More time on your end on layout, means less time on my end prepping.
The Delve format isn't a make or break format for me, and I'm glad that they transitioned to a mixed delve format (where the encounters of a section are printed within that section), but I do like it.
Christian Lindke (formerly Johnson) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Eyebite |
| Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 128
|
I'm edition neutral as far as the new OD project Halls of the Mountain King is concerned. (Though I still prefer 3.5 to 4e, but whateva.)
My only request is that *IF* halls is commissioned as a 4e project, that we do it in more of a storybook/paizo module format, instead of using the delve format.
I might be edition neutral, but I hatez (with a "z" even) the delve format. It has gotten noticeably better for use in 4e, but I still hatez it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| The_Livewire |
| Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2008
Posts: 9
|
Add me to the 'hate the delve format'
Maybe it's age. *laugh* but I prefer the modules as done in the old fashioned days. Especially since with a print/PDF format, I can print out the main map as needed, blow it up/shrink it etc, and improvise. I prefer the 'traditional' method from ODD/ADD/OGL.
Death to the Delve!
Disclaimer: I've not been in on WotRK so I don't know that format. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Arawn76 |
| Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 03 Oct 2008
Posts: 19
|
| Yeah I hate the delve format, really interferes in the flow of a story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Krell1 |
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 20
|
| The delve format makes reading the adventure very un fun as the DM, with info strewn in descriptive text in another part of the book and other details in elsewhere. Really don't like it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| pat512 |
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 24 May 2008
Posts: 4
|
I like the Delve format, personally, in the two adventures I've run with it (Wrath and KotS), but I still marked that I'm not willing to wait for it.
Most of my GMing is in play-by-post style, where a combat takes days between "story elements," and I run multiple games, so having the combat info all nicely laid out is a definite advantage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Alzrius |
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 04 Apr 2008
Posts: 44
|
| I wish there was an "I don't like it" poll option, as others have expressed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
