http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070827a&authentic=true

I mean, old Dungeons did this all the time. And it´s toally possible with 3.5. (see Fortress of Badabaskor for superb experience).
EDIT: (and the cited Moathouse was even more deadly in the original rules than it is if ported directly to 3.5)
You just have to design a Dungeon rather than an encounter string.

But whait? Who brought us the delve format and encounters like beads on a string?

WotC!

I´m not getting it.

Everything is "per encounter", and they make the encounters free floating old-school style?
That doesn´t go together.
Especially with the delve format.

Interesting, contradictory times.

Gwuh. I thought it would be something about... well... something about not stating the bloody obvious.

(In before someone suggests this is just a plot to sell more miniatures. )

Here´s my new theory:

WotC ORDERS it´s designers to produce DDI content, and they don´t actually feel too good about it. That´s why we get those strange excuses for articles.

Thusly, all the bad things in 4e can be attributed to the DDI.

I like the conscious return to the dynamic encounter model. It may be obvious to us old gits, but to a new player it may come as a reveltation. Let's also not forget that many of the old Basic D&D modules were essentially clumps of static rooms waiting for their doors to be kicked in. Hopefully we'll also see the inclusion of zones and suchlike that appeared in Iron Heroes.

The correspondence between monsters numbers and characters is also appealing too. And minions. D&D is going to have minion rules! About time.

a) I don't think that this is all that obvious for all young gamers you are getting into the game on their own.  I can recall the first time (I was 13) that I made the leap between running a static dungeon with monsters that waited patiently behind doors (like a CRPG) to a living environment with intelligent, mobile foes who acted in concert to beat-up the PCs.  I'd been playing for 5 years at that point and it just never ocured to me, or my friends.  It was a paradigm shift of sorts.

b) I don't see how the "delve format" conflicts with Mearls' stated intentions.  The examples of the format from WoTC old pages are not the best examples that could be referenced.  Look at any of the "Expedition to..." adventures for examples of complex encounters featuring intelligently interacting opponents and action spilling through areas on a map.

What I forsee is that the sample map (the infamous "Dungeon of the Fire Opal") would be divided into "encounter zones" rather than individually keyed rooms.  In the current format, you'd have to maintain an awareness of what is in each of the keyed areas.  In the delve format, all of that information would be presented together on a single page (or facing pages), with details about how the denizens of each room interact in the event of PC intrusion.

I see the delve format fitting into exactly the model that Mearls describes.

Oh my!

The reason free floating encounters are great is because you extrapolate them from info based on the aims and goals of the dungeon´s inhabitants.

In the delve format, there is nothing left to be extrapolated.

BTW, Basic D&D dungeons are the EPITOME of free floating situational modules.
Keep on the Borderlands
Isle of Dread

Need I cite more?

Then maybe we're talking at cross purposes here. Looking at my copies of KotB and Palace of the Silver Princess I'm seeing a lot of static, non-situational stuff. Of course there's advice on evolving the dungeon post-clearence, and some of the encounters are more dynamic than others, but in the main they're fairly inert.

This goes doubly for modules like The Lost City and Horror on the Hill.

Huh?
Really, KotB was explicetly cited by Mearls.

Lost City?
It´s THE classic module offering free floating gaming. You have lots of parties, lots of space, lots of options. You can even join the different factions, let them wage war or do whatever else you fancy.


Silver Princess is basically static, but that´s on purpose.

His citation of KotB was pertinent to the number of monsters appearing in a given encounter, nothing else.

And I consider the Lost City to be very static. Monsters hemmed into rooms they never leave, very little interaction between the NPC factions, each level as discrete entity unto itself etc..

Anyway, I like the direction Mearls is taking the game in.

OMG! He is not taking the game into any direction...:rolleyes:

Has DM skill and reading comprehension really detoriated that much?

And if so, it was WOTC and PAIZO who raised a generation of spoiled encounter-delvanistas.

I can only shake my head at the irony.

Quote from: SettembriniOMG! He is not taking the game into any direction...:rolleyes:

Has DM skill and reading comprehension really detoriated that much?

And if so, it was WOTC and PAIZO who raised a generation of spoiled encounter-delvanistas.

I can only shake my head at the irony.

Panic in the Disco!

today's new vocabulary word, "delvanistas"! :haw:

and to think the knee-jerking reactions to every little announcement will just get worse as may approaches :rolleyes:

It's one thing to be teaching the new generation of DMs how things work, but sometimes I get the impression that the folks at Wizards are re-inventing the wheel.  Of course the orcs' pignosed pals in the next room over will come see what all the clangy noise is about.  Of course the fire trap explosion in room 3c will attract the attention of the evil wizard in 3d.  That's how dungeons have always worked!  Dungeons have always been dynamic.  I don't have my copy handy, but I swear to Grodd that the Caves of Chaos were chock full of advice on how the monsters in various areas interacted.

Quote from: jrientsI don't have my copy handy, but I swear to Grodd that the Caves of Chaos were chock full of advice on how the monsters in various areas interacted.

They absolutely were -- the book gives suggestions for how the entire Orc tribe (for example) will fight, where they'll make a stand or attack with archers, and what the leader will do if the battle turns against them.  Lots of notes on guards notifying monsters in other areas, etc.

This is all good stuff, but it's hardly something NEW being introduced to D&D.

QuoteWhen I went back and used this map to design a 4th Edition adventure, I combined all three rooms into one encounter area. Area 9 was a torture chamber staffed by four goblin minions. Area 8 was a guard room manned by two hobgoblin warriors, while the bugbear torturer lounged in his private chamber, area 7. In play, the party walked south toward area 9, ignoring the door to area 7 for the moment. The rogue and ranger tried to sneak up on the hobgoblins in area 8, but the monsters spotted them and attacked. When the hobgoblins yelled for help, the goblins charged from area 9 and the bugbear emerged from his chamber to attack the party's wizard from behind.

I am struck at the banality of this advice. This is like DM 101.  Is the typical 3.5 WoTC dungeon that wedded to the EL versus party level concept that there are gamer reacting against?

I do have one "real" criticism of the article and that is the stupidity of the torture area. We have a bugbear torturer with goblin minions, with hobgoblin guards. Granted a dungeon could be crafted to make this hang together. But when this happens it is a sign of what I call "Monster-o-rama" where a DM tries to stuff as many different types of monster in as small of space as possible.

I would write it up as follows

7 - Torturer's Bedroom

Garnark is the sub chief in charge of King Algash's torture chamber. He rules his underlings with an iron fist. The least bit of defiance or disobedience will result in the goblin's death. Garnark is not just a brute but cunningly uses fear  to make his minions eager to torture the King's prisoners.

If Garnark hears a party coming down the hall outside his room he will hide until they pass. At the sound of fighting he will attempt to attack the party in the rear. If the fighting begins by the party entering through Room 7 or 9 he will take a 1 round look and then run back up the hallway to gain help.

 Garnark (3rd level Fighter/1st lvl Expert, goblin) {stats}

8- Guardpost
This is the main entrance to the torture chambers. Here is a 10' by 10' iron cage {stats} used to hold prisoners before they are interrogated by Garnark. The room is guarded Ronark and Pok, two of Garnark's toughest minions. They continually dice against each other often leading to vicious brawls that have to be broken up by Garnarak. Roll a d6 1-4 The two in a midst of a dice game, 5-6 they are in the middle of a brawl between the two with 1 -2 goblins from Room 9 watching on and betting.

If they encounter the party while dicing they will yell for help and charge in. They will try to gang up on one party member with one using grappling to bring that person down. If fighting each other they will be surprised for at least 1 round before doing the above.

Ronark, Pok (2nd level Warrior, goblin) {stats}

9 - Torture Chamber

This is room is filled with crude instruments and chains used by Garnark in introgating the King's prisoners. Currently engaging in various repairs are four goblins. They live in fear of death for failing Garnark and will eagerly take out their frustration on any prisoners in here.

On encountering the party they will grab whatever implements are handy and rush the party. Attempting to grab, bite, or gouge anybody they can.

Goblins (4) {stats}

This covers both the hack-n-slash and the role-playing angles.

Rob Conley