The delve format is like programming the DM from Seattle.

Quote from: HaffrungI can certainly manage all that stuff on the fly. But then again, I handle tactical combat on the fly also (no mechanics for tumbles, flanking attacks, or attacks of opportunity in my D&D). I don't see why offering some explicit guidance in managing the game at the dungeon scale is any more 'dumbing down' than the ever more explicit mechanics governing combat and social encounters.

It's certainly not "dumbing down" from my perspective, and that's not what I was trying to say.  My response was to the words in your post about the Lost City module not having explicit guidelines to run the factions.  The module gave you the factions, and you were expected to fit them together; I'm just not sure why you'd need more than that to make the whole thing work.

Quote from: SettembriniThe delve format is like programming the DM from Seattle.

I've felt this way for a while now.  As the amount of explanatory text for every single encounter grows, the amount of room for me to play with those monsters seems to shrink.

Quote from: KenHRAgain, though, DMs were constantly told to play the PCs' opposition intelligently.  You were expected to look over the maps and encounters and formulate a plan of action on your own.  Just about every one of the old modules was explicit about the DM having to read the adventure thoroughly, flesh out areas on his or her own, and think through how the place would react to the PCs' actions.  They weren't just meant to be pulled out and used on the spur of the moment.

I'm not disputing any of this.

I think where the disconnect lies is in my assertion that much of early D&D was fairly static by nature, at least when viewed in the context of Mearls article, where encounter zones seem to be the method. I'm not denying that similar things existed, or that there was advice aimed at helping the GM play monsters intelligently. What I am saying is that this stuff was pretty sparse, and there are many cases where it hardly appeared at all. Again, look at B3, B4, B5, X2 etc. They have wildly varying levels of interactive particpation.

Quote from: KenHRAgain, though, DMs were constantly told to play the PCs' opposition intelligently.  You were expected to look over the maps and encounters and formulate a plan of action on your own.  Just about every one of the old modules was explicit about the DM having to read the adventure thoroughly, flesh out areas on his or her own, and think through how the place would react to the PCs' actions.  They weren't just meant to be pulled out and used on the spur of the moment.

True. But that is how the people I knew played it back in the day - kick in doors and bash out static encounters. It took us several years of playing (until we were in our mid-teens) to plan or improvise dynamic dungeon response.

We need to keep in mind the principle that D&D adventures are not written for experienced, proficient DMs with lots of time on their hands; they're written primarily for new, inexperienced, or time-scarce DMs. As one of the latter, I appreciate a format for managing dynamic dungeons. Sure, I could sit down and work out various movements and responses to PC incursions. But if someone wants to give some sound and explicit options right in the adventure, then I'll happily use them.

Quote from: DrewI'm not disputing any of this.

I think where the disconnect lies is in my assertion that much of early D&D was fairly static by nature, at least when viewed in the context of Mearls article, where encounter zones seem to be the method. I'm not denying that similar things existed, or that there was advice aimed at helping the GM play monsters intelligently. What I am saying is that this stuff was pretty sparse, and there are many cases where it hardly appeared at all. Again, look at B3, B4, B5, X2 etc. They have wildly varying levels of interactive particpation.

I understand what you're saying, I think, but it always seemed to be a given to our group that if monsters or NPCs were in close proximity to one another, they'd have to interact on some level.  And we had to make that interaction happen...and occasionally figure out how they were able to exist so close together in the first place (which was a big part of the fun of being DM for me).

Drew,

It´s all about which experiences you made. The actual text is not nearly as important as who received the text in which condition and surrounding, in regards to DMing style.
A case could be made though that the basic modules and 1e modules seemingly did a splendid job in teaching the DM to run it free floating and dungeon strategy style.

But there might have been assumptions and tacit knowledge that not everybody picked up, either because of age, ignorance or the presentation form. This would be an interesting thing to research, and my impressions from internet debates, research and old Dragon magazines is such that most DMs "got it", until Dragonlance came around.

Quote from: HaffrungWe need to keep in mind the principle that D&D adventures are not written for experienced, proficient DMs with lots of time on their hands; they're written primarily for new, inexperienced, or time-scarce DMs. As one of the latter, I appreciate a format for managing dynamic dungeons. Sure, I could sit down and work out various movements and responses to PC incursions. But if someone wants to give some sound and explicit options right in the adventure, then I'll happily use them.

I see where you're coming from, especially the time-scarce bit.

If I'm going to be reading a module through before playing it, however, I'm going to be noting where monsters and encounters are placed.  As I read further, I'm going to start connecting them in my head and get a sense of how the place is run, where reinforcements are in case they are needed, etc..  This would take me just as long as reading an explicit plan and referencing how it would work with the map, etc.

And of course, no set of plans will ever survive first contact with a PC party, so you're gonna be improvising in play anyway.

Quote from: KenHRI understand what you're saying, I think, but it always seemed to be a given to our group that if monsters or NPCs were in close proximity to one another, they'd have to interact on some level.  And we had to make that interaction happen...and occasionally figure out how they were able to exist so close together in the first place (which was a big part of the fun of being DM for me).

Indeed. I can certainly agree that early D&D was a far more interpretative experience than what came later. One of the emergent properties of bizarro dungeon ecologies was DM-rationalization. It was great fun, too.

Quote from: SettembriniIt´s all about which experiences you made. The actual text is not nearly as important as who received the text in which condition and surrounding, in regards to DMing style.

Of course.

QuoteA case could be made though that the basic modules and 1e modules seemingly did a splendid job in teaching the DM to run it free floating and dungeon strategy style.

Agreed. Part of gaming culture in my groups at the time was essentially joining the dots, figuring out ways that disparate monster groups would tactically interact and so on. The advice sections certainly laid the foundations for this, sparse as they were.

The one downside I'm seeing here is that they respond to the complaint that D&D 3.5 is too difficult and time consuming to GM by making it normal for the GM to have to manage a lot more monsters?

Huh?

I think part of the idea is that simplifying the rules for monsters will make it more viable for the GM to manage more monsters.

Quote from: WarthurI think part of the idea is that simplifying the rules for monsters will make it more viable for the GM to manage more monsters.

Indeed.

Quote from: WarthurI think part of the idea is that simplifying the rules for monsters will make it more viable for the GM to manage more monsters.

Sure, but isn't that like buying a faster computer with more memory, only to install a new operating system and software that use more memory and CPU, which winds up offsetting all of the benefits of having the faster computer in the first place?

Quote from: John MorrowSure, but isn't that like buying a faster computer with more memory, only to install a new operating system and software that use more memory and CPU, which winds up offsetting all of the benefits of having the faster computer in the first place?

I think this why they're introducing the tactical roles for monsters. Couple them with reduced stat blocks and they'll hopefully cut down on both prep and play time whilst also handling significantly larger combats.

At least that's how it's being advertised.

Quote from: John MorrowThe one downside I'm seeing here is that they respond to the complaint that D&D 3.5 is too difficult and time consuming to GM by making it normal for the GM to have to manage a lot more monsters?

Huh?

I think that the compliant is that 3.5 is hard to GM at higher levels with too many options.

They are going to fix this by re-doing abilities, feats, etc so that each monsters at each level has the same amount of things for a GM to use. I believe this will somehow relate to the Design article on the wizard site where they talk about designing monsters so that have unique things to do in the first five rounds. Five rounds being the amount of time a party takes to kill a monster of equal level. In that article, the author goes to talk, with disdain, that giving lists upon list of abilities, spell-like abilities and spells makes it way to complicated for a DM to manage. Hence the five rounds of abilities.

In short it may be a thing of having fewer abilities that are more powerful or abilities that combined into powerful tactical options.

The general compliant is that there is too much prep time involved which is a separate.

From working on three D20 modules (Badabaskor, Citadel of Fire, and Dark Tower) I can say fucking-a there too much prep involved. From looking over Star Wars Saga, the monster stat block are way shorter compared to the character stat blocks.

I suggest looking over the MM V, Nine Swords, and SW Saga for a sense of where this is all going.