|
4 years ago ::
Apr 19, 2009 - 2:30PM
#31
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Alas that such a critical product is only supported by a fan product that is now 12 months and 3 products out of date.
You can get all the latest files... there's a dungeon tiles yahoo group that has them for download.
There are still problems with Dungeon Tiles as a restrcition - try making a map that looks like it is a ship with Dungeon Tiles (Hint there are 2 tiles for wooden floor.) so yes I'd like that waived.
I've done it online and it's worked just fine - in real life, though, it's not happening cause there's no way I have enough wooden tiles. That said, I do have a map that has ships on one side of it...
The DM Rewards will soon be giving out a dungeon tile ship, judging from a recent interview so that'll be nice 
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 19, 2009 - 4:05PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I've often thought about the 3-hr time limit that Keithric suggests. It is really hard to do with the current format.
A basic problem is that an actual adventure typically requires about 10-15 encounters, not 4.
Sure, you can do a dungeon crawl or short side mission in 3-4 encounters, but to do an actual story with a beginning, middle and end requires significantly more.
In addition, each time you change an adventure's setting, you typically need about 1-2 encounters' worth of time to establish the location's flavor and NPCs, deal with the adventure hook and wrap up the adventure. You can cut this time in half by cutting out the first part, at the expense of substantially harming player immersion and connection to the campaign.
Past campaigns dealt with this issue by having modules interrelate. Each module wasn't a standalone, but merely a chapter in a larger narrative. Sometimes this meant a direct sequel to a previous adventure; sometimes it meant that the module took place against a larger backdrop (a war, struggle or calamity of some kind); sometimes it just meant that you were dealing with the same NPCs or organizations, or just that your character woke up in the same location he went to sleep in the last module.
Deciding to do a campaign of stand-alone short adventures in which PCs wildly careen around the Realms is not doing the campaign any favors.
My hope is that regional modules are essentially phased out as we get into the Paragon tier. This accomplishes several things:
- If regions are only putting out Heroic modules, that means that we'll start getting to a point where a new player can go through the first ten levels focusing on just one (or a few) regions, allowing for greater immersion;
- If Paragon modules are primarily core, that allows for nine months' worth of modules focused on a small number of storylines, where each adventure can be a part of a larger whole instead of having to carry a whole story by itself.
Heroic modules can get away with being "Go kill a few rats and bring me some seashells" adventures; I hope to see more from Paragon, and the only way we can do that is to get away from the short stand-alone "It's Tuesday, so this must be Aglarond" style.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 20, 2009 - 1:09AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
Sure, you can do a dungeon crawl or short side mission in 3-4 encounters, but to do an actual story with a beginning, middle and end requires significantly more.
While I agree with your concerns about Paragon and Epic tier modules and their apparent scope, I disagree that a module cannot have 3 Acts and function appropriately as a story.
In fact 3-4 Encounters just about sets itself up for Act 1 - 2 Scenes, Act 2 2 Scenes Act 3 2 Scenes. You then have space for 3 fights, 1 or 2 skill challenges and some general RP no problems.
You can get all the latest files... there's a dungeon tiles yahoo group that has them for download.
And where is the RPGA providing this information in the writer's guidelines etc?
I shouldn't need a secret handshake to get a module started and neither should anyone else.
I suspect that this will be less and less of a problem as characters increase in levels--or perhaps I should say, this will frequently be less of a problem as characters increase in levels.*snip well reasoned arguments*
Conversely we have this problem:
Level 1-2 Mod: 1875 xp available, 1500xp for 3x level 1 encounters, 1875xp for 3x level 2 encounters. Complexity 1 Level 2 Skill Challenge: 125xp
Level 3-4 Mod: 2625 xp available, 2250xp for 3x level 3 encounters, 2625xp for 3x level 4 encounters. Complexity 1 Level 4 Skill Challenge:175xp
Level 4-5 Mod: 3000 xp available, 2625xp for 3x level 3 encounters, 3000xp for 3x level 2 encounters. Complexity 1 Level 5 Skill Challenge: 200xp
Do you see a pattern?
The Writer's Guidelines expressly remove 1 monster of level from an encounter for every point of complexity. So the typical Complexity 3 Skill Challenge even at module level removes 1/5 of the xp available for monsters from each encounter. 4E Encounters are intended to have 1 monster per PC, and now you have 0.8 monsters per PC on direct XP conversion (it gets worse if you want to use higher level monsters).
Challenging 4E encounters typically have an XP budget 1-2 levels above the PCs level and uses monsters +/- 2 on the PCs level.
So taking a Level 4-5 module you are looking at - Complexity 2 Skill Challenge (400xp) + 2 Encounters (2600xp - or 1300xp each) - to have the flexibility to make encounters that are challenging and level appropriate.
The fact Skill Challenges are eating up 1/5 to 1/4 of the xp and being combined with 3 encounters is why a balanced party of level 4 characters can play high. We are seeing 6-7 modules being written with XP budgets for their encounters of 1125-1500 xp each - well within the reach of 4th level characters depending on the monsters that are involved.
Your points about "character specialisation" are larely mitigated by players making sure the fill roles. It doesn't matter if table one manages to pull of the Warlord turns of Doom, and table 2 doesn't. As long as table 2 has at least 1 of the 4 basic roles (thanks Invokers and Druids). At Paragon Tier and above the extra abilities of characters beyond the basics of their powers will start mattering, and will smooth out that problem you are worried about.
As long as no one is entering the Campaign at Paragon tier the potential problems you mention are not the concern that a lack of xp to build encounters with is for making a challenging encounter.
There is the scope for up to 20% more xp budget in the guidelines already - that budget needs to be embraced, used, and awarded imo.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 20, 2009 - 7:26AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2007
|
• Treasure-bundle variety, such as that offered at the end of CORE1-8.
• Skill checks (during challenges?) that are more than "who has the highest bonus?" (i.e. At some point, everyone needs to make a Skill X check.)
Dan Anderson
@EpicUthrac
Living Forgotten Realms Calimshan Writing Director
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
Meet me at TotalConfusion:
http://www.totalcon.com/RolePlaying.html
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 20, 2009 - 5:06PM
#35
|
- Dragon Slayer
- If only he would apply himself
- Dammit Jim, this is Star Trek, not D&D!
Date Joined:
Jan 31, 2006
|
While I agree with your concerns about Paragon and Epic tier modules and their apparent scope, I disagree that a module cannot have 3 Acts and function appropriately as a story.
Reading Cailte's and Brian's thoughts made me happy. I think we need more of this type of conversation (assuming more people are listening, and I'm pretty sure they are!).
I agree with Cailte that the LFR format's number of encounters still allows for story. You can have non-combat encounters (the Player's Intro is essentially one of these). They will greatly help introduce story. You can also have story elements before and after the 'meat' of a combat encounter. There seems to be a lot of flexibility to writers as to what to put in a non-combat encounter or in Setup or End the Encounter areas. That's good, as long as the playtests and reviewers make sure the overall effect is sound.
I do see, along the lines of what Brian is saying and combined with Cailte's XP analysis, that most authors will naturally want to use 3 combat encounters and at least one skill challenge to tell a story. It feels right. Part of it is our LG upbringing (compare to Legend of the Five Rings, which may have one combat, or Shadowrun Missions or Spycraft... all living campaigns that don't use this 3-combat formula). Part of it is that it does work well in the 4E style to have three combats.
When you use 2 combats, the monsters have higher levels and HPs and the grind can set in and the challenge can be too high. (Yes, authors can compensate, though that takes work). 4 combats makes each combat a bit too easy. 2 combats and a skill challenge are ok if the skill challenge is high complexity, but otherwise the combats still can suffer. 3 combats and a skill challenge ends up being a bit too easy.
So, I do see a problem where the XP amount, which is set based on how fast we should level, makes it hard to appropriately challenge PCs. If we ran with the Dungeon format, or even look at Adaptables, you end up with longer mods that can more easily give the author freedom to have hard combats where they want them but still easily have the easy combats and the skill challenges where they make sense.
What's the solution?
- Well, at the author and admin level, I think everyone there needs to be knowledgeable of the issue - they should understand the difference between DMG suggested difficulty levels and what you can provide in the LFR format. Being informed you can aim for the best with what you have.
- As Cailte said, you can as an author ask for the up to 20% greater XP to make a mod more challenging. Admins can also suggest this when reviewing a mod. I will note that a small XP nudge can make the right difference. And, authors and admins should aim for NOT having an entire mod be hard and to give relief points. If I look at SPEC1-2 and BALD1-2, for example, both mods would be better with a re-organization of where each hard/easy/mid battle lies. (Just my humble .02, and it will of course play out differently at different tables).
- With skill challenges, you can increase the penalty of failure. Depending on the type of challenge, these could make combat encounters (or an ensuing second skill challenge) much more challenging.
- Encourage better player introductions and conclusions and better use of non-combat encounters when merited.
- Watch monster roles and HPs so as to keep mod time as reasonable as possible. This is getting harder. We are starting to see mods (SPEC1-2, some others) where the HPs and conditionals are using up 2 hours on one fight. That's hard for a DM to make up without severely impacting story/RP.
- I like how Paragon received a 1-level boost in difficulty. I would like to see the same at the next level. This gives more XP for authors and more of a challenge across the board.
- Based on playtests, you can adjust XP for encounters in a non-constant manner. For example, you could have the high-tier of one encounter gain a high XP monster, then have the easy encounter gain a smaller XP monster. Low and high end up doing their jobs better. (As opposed to the blanket guiding rule of just aiming for the logical same difficulty level at both tiers... sometimes playtests will show an encounter plays fine at low but too easy/hard at high, so you adjust.).
- When steps are taken to make things very difficult (such as using the +20% XP, or when there are fewer combats or no skill challenges) provide options so DMs can tone things down for groups that are weaker. Some players will reach paragon playing sporadically. Giving DMs options can ensure fun.
- When Scaling the Encounter includes adding/subtracting a level, go ahead and explain how to do that. Too many DMs don't know. (At least explain it at low level).
Separately, I will note that I think it is easier to challenge players at high levels. High level monsters have more powers/auras/etc. and thus you can build for monster synergies that have huge effects. Throw in a -2 to attacks aura on top of some ridiculously high-defense soldiers... throw some lockdown auras on top of lockdown creatures, then top with some AoE at-will monsters... take traps that bog you down and throw in brutes that are unaffected and top off with foes (controllers, artillery) that have 15 to 20 ranges...
It is much harder to pull that off at low levels.
Personally, I like the idea of levels 1-4 being fairly mellow. Every DM should know how to adjust levels to give players a challenge if they want it.
Follow my blog and Twitter feed with Dark Sun campaign design and DM tips! Dark Sun's Ashes of Athas Campaign is now available for home play (PM me with your e-mail to order the campaign adventures).
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 21, 2009 - 8:47AM
#36
|
|
|
What do players want more of?
Answer: "A life"
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 21, 2009 - 10:40AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2007
|
One of the things that really gets me about LFR is that encounters are corralled into either a combat challenge or a skill challenge.
To me, one of the best things about D&D is the lack of "corrals", as it were. When the party is faced with a sentient, highly intelligent opponent the situation does not always have to devolve into swords & shields - bribery, flattery (beholders just LOVE flattery), and straight-up negotiation can occur at just the right moment!
I know I would love to see more encounters in the LFR adventures that can be either combat or a skill challenge. It would incorporate more pages into the download packet but I think this would allow for more options in terms of storylines, award bundles, and player fulfillment. Some of the adventures out there can be easily worked this way, but DME isn't supposed to be handled in such a manner - and yet, the skill challenge can sometimes take just as long and be as dangerous as the combat. Ask the members of The Pack about my table of SPEC1-2 during DDXP... more specifically, ask about the football scene. They'll tell you; it was quite humorous but also potentially the most dangerous thing they did all day.
Thoughts?
Writing Director, Abolethic Sovereignty storyline Spoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 21, 2009 - 11:35AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Dec 16, 2005
|
I think it is a mistake to assume that any character with a class assigned to one of the four WotC roles is equally effective in combination with another character filling another role. For instance: leader/defender Tactical warlord plus great weapon battlerager=excellent synergy Tactical warlord plus charisma paladin=minimal synergy Battle cleric+tempest fighter=excellent synergy leader/striker Tactical warlord+Avenger w/melee training=excellent synergy Tactical warlord+artful dodger rogue=no synergy Bravura warlord+artful dodger=minimal synergy battle cleric+TWF ranger=excellent synergy leader/controller battle cleric+wizard=minimal synergy Bravura warlord+druid=frequently no synergy at all. (The last three druids I've played with did not have any basic attacks--either beast form or ranged). resourceful warlord+wizard=excellent synergy You can have a party that fills every WotC approved role, but if there is no synergy there, it will not be nearly as effective as a party where the characters work well together by design. (For an example of this, yesterday I played my inspiring warlord in a party consisting of two warlocks, a shaman, an archery focused ranger, and an artful dodger rogue. One of my at-will powers (Commander's strike) and one of my two encounter powers (hammer and anvil) were next-to useless. On the other hand, trade the rogue for a barbarian and our characters would work in tandem much more effectively). I expect the transition to paragon to exacerbate rather than mitigate these problems. A tactical warlord/battle captain brings vastly different things to the table than, for instance, a strength focused cleric/kensai. Both parties have a leader, but expecting the battle captain to hold the line or kill enemies personally is probably overly optimistic. On the other hand, the battle captain will grant bonuses to ranged characters much more effectively and has more opportunities to act as a force multiplier for the party. At level 16, the difference in what they bring to the table is much more pronounced than it was at level 1.
Your points about "character specialisation" are larely mitigated by players making sure the fill roles. It doesn't matter if table one manages to pull of the Warlord turns of Doom, and table 2 doesn't. As long as table 2 has at least 1 of the 4 basic roles (thanks Invokers and Druids). At Paragon Tier and above the extra abilities of characters beyond the basics of their powers will start mattering, and will smooth out that problem you are worried about.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 2:26AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Nov 10, 2003
|
So to summarise, players want:
More skill challenges
Fewer skill challenges
Longer skill challenges
Shorter skill challenges
More challenging combats
More interesting encounters
Better RP opportunities
More plot hooks and ongoing stories/characters
And the whole mod to wrap up in 3 hours.
Good luck, writers!
Seriously, the wide variety of opinion here suggests that while you can't please all the people all the time, you can please most of the people most of the time, and the writers are currently doing a pretty good job, and it's getting better. I'm certainly enjoying the ongoing stories that are starting to emerge, and I hope to see more.
I notice that the thread has descended into another "LFR is too easy" thread. This discussion has been done to death already, and we know why the challenge level is low (a number of reasons). The desire for LFR to cater to all types of player and the strict module XP budgets mean that it's not likely that this aspect will change anytime soon, and I'd argue that neither it should (but that's a discussion for the 'LFR is too easy' thread).
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 2:32AM
#40
|
|
|
I know I would love to see more encounters in the LFR adventures that can be either combat or a skill challenge. It would incorporate more pages into the download packet but I think this would allow for more options in terms of storylines, award bundles, and player fulfillment. Some of the adventures out there can be easily worked this way, but DME isn't supposed to be handled in such a manner - and yet, the skill challenge can sometimes take just as long and be as dangerous as the combat.
Actually, DME is exactly supposed to be handled in this manner. You are not changing the adventure. You are changing how it is run to make things more fun for the players. One thing though, before you decide to allow a skill challenge to replace a fight, make sure the majority (preferably all) players like it and also take a good look at the impact the change is going to have on the pacing of the adventure.
One thing I have observed is that on many occassions players seem to suggest talking and offering the NPCs to give up at the start of the fight, but once combat has started they completely forget that option. Once the dice start rolling, the players do not stop until the last enemy is down. Even though at the start of the fight, the NPCs might very well feel superior, while halfway it quickly becomes clear the PCs are stronger.
|
|
|
