4E, Ashen Crown, and Dungeon Crawls

[fuzzlewump]

(EDIT: fuzzlewump casts Thread Necromancy! Spell fizzles. Spell fizzles. Spell fizzles. Success!: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ashen-crown-dungeon-crawls-2.html#post5108435.)

I was looking around for a decent review to the Eberron 4e product "Seekers of the Ashen Crown," and saw a review on amazon.com that interested me. It makes an assertion that I didn't think about until I read it, and it really made a lot of sense to me. Here's the snippet that contains the assertion in question:

The other issue is dungeon crawling. While there thankfully isn't one mega-dungeon the PCs are expected to hack through, the module instead substitutes a number of smaller ones. It's a step forward in the right direction, but it isn't enough. The big problem is that Fourth Edition really is not about dungeon crawling - period. Older editions of D&D had PCs hack their way from room to room in a series of small skirmishes, killing an orc here, a troll there, and hustling through even a large dungeon in a single night. 4E fights are meant to be big tactical setpieces, life-or-death struggles large and significant enough that a single fight is intended to take characters a tenth of the way to the next level. Filling a dungeon with ten of those epic setpiece battles, one after the other, is a recipe for the most extreme boredom. I like 4E's combat, but since it represents both a large investment of time and a large reward for the PCs, I make sure that every fight feels significant and is set up with a lot of story and characterization and avoid back-to-back encounters. The module designers still haven't fully come to grips with this new form of pacing, unfortunately, so Seekers of the Ashen Crown has a couple of spots where it can begin to feel like a grind. Thankfully much of this can be painlessly shortened, to everyone's benefit.

Basically, he says that 4E isn't made for dungeon crawling and should really only have "big tactical setpieces." My attempt at a dungeon crawl turned out okay, basically it was just an encounter strung out over a few rooms. But monsters which would have had interesting synergies no longer did since they were spread out.

So, I have a couple questions. Does anyone who has run or is running Ashen Crown have a similar criticism?

Do you agree 4E shouldn't have dungeon crawls? Is it a good or bad thing if the system supports one way or the other?

Other comments?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't know about Seekers of the Ashen Crown - another DM is running it for us, but we haven't gotten very far yet.

But I think he might point things out correctly - a long dungeon crawl doesn't work so well in 4E. Combats are big, complex, long, exciting, challenging, but 5 in a row before anything new happens story-wise is not a good idea.

A "dungeon crawl" that works might be best replicated by having one or two encounters span an entire dungeon - to keep it challenging, the PCs do not get any short or extended rests. This way, the PCs fight individual enemies (the occassional Oger or Troll) or small groups of enemies in skirmishes, moving on to the next.

A typical "extended encounter" might consist of
- 4 Minions and one regular monster (guard post at the dungeon entrance?)
- 2 regular monsters (monster patrol)
- 1 Trap or Hazard
- 1 Elite monster (A troll or Ogre perhaps, in his own lair or guarding an important area)
- 2 regular monsters with 4 minions. (A local "underboss")
This would be the equivalent of fighting 10 standard monsters and probably be a very challenging encounter (party level +5) if they were all met at the same time, but if you stretch out their appeareances (without granting benefits of a short or extended rest), the action economy will make it a lot easier. If you build a dungeon crawl out of 2-3 such encounters, it will probably feel a little like it used to in the "good ol' dungeon crawling fools day".

But if you build your dungeon with 6-8 normal encounters, it will feel more like a combat game.

 

[vagabundo]

I think Wizards should develop a method for zooming-out (term robbed from someone on these boards, possibly RC ..).

I like the idea of using the very tactical 4e nuts and bolts combat for big set piece combats, maybe one or two per session and using the zoomed-out, mini-less rules for minor skirmishes, dungeon crawling and very minor fights.

It is doable now, but some official, well developed dungeon articles would be a blessing.

 

[Snoweel]

Do you agree 4E shouldn't have dungeon crawls? Is it a good or bad thing if the system supports one way or the other?

The main reason I love 4e is that I love interesting combat but loathe dungeons.

The whole idea of a hole in the ground filled with any kind of encounter rubs me the wrong way. I just don't see anything worth fighting (or fighting over) ending up in a hole in the ground. It's all about real estate.

That's why my ideal session consists of one or two big fights amongst mostly mystery and intrigue (not to be confused with deep-immersion roleplaying either, which I can't stand - getting deep into in-character RP in no way has anything to do with the kind of complicated stories I like).

And all our fights tend to take place in temples, courtyards and back alleys. I just don't see the need for holes in the ground other than the odd tomb or 2-3 room cave 'complex' (really nothing complex about it).

Even a humanoid tribe lairing in some pointless abandoned underground 'dungeon' should rush to the entrance to fight the PCs as soon as they engage the sentries, rather than waiting in small groups interspersed throughout.

 

[ashockney]

I agree completely with the reviewer's assertion about 4e. I've even gone so far as to introduce a number of "home-game" elements into my 4e campaign to speed things up. Here is an excerpt from my 4e blog here on ENWorld with regards to pacing in 4e:

Session 11

Tonight's session was a test of the pacing of 4e. I made it clear to the players coming into the evening that I had prepared at least six encounters for us to get through. No skill challenges, limited RP, which fit with the theme of the adventure. I did a 10 min recap at the beginning and we were off on a dark dwarf hunt! I wanted to see how many encounters we could play through, if really focused and engaged, in three hours. My hopes going into this experiment was that we would complete from four to six encounters, and optimally five or six (completing an encounter in an average of around 30 minutes).

In three hours, we were able to complete...three encounters. Almost exactly. For a fifth level party, these were an EL 6, EL 6, and EL5. The battles were pitched, and provided an "appropriate" level of threat, without being overwhelming. They required consistent use of encounter powers, action points, and a couple of daily powers. I have to admit, I was a little disappointed. One of my players pointed out, however, that the pacing of the action in 4e is different. It rarely if ever feels like you're waiting "a long time" for your next turn, and that the action is consistent and well paced. Each encounter typically lasted for 6 or more rounds, so that's averaging a round about every ten minutes, with six players and five to eleven villains all taking turns. In conclusion, the pacing is very different than previous editions of the game, and there are few, if any, quick combats or quick encounters. With the limited actions, reduced damage/attack, and the elimination of "insta-kill", most encounters will need to be played out fully for five or more rounds to determine the outcome.

For more on the topic you can check out my blog here:
EN World D&D / RPG News - ashockney

 

[Jhaelen]

So, I have a couple questions. Does anyone who has run or is running Ashen Crown have a similar criticism?

Do you agree 4E shouldn't have dungeon crawls? Is it a good or bad thing if the system supports one way or the other?

Well, I've run the first part of the module and I guess the criticism is justified. However, I think it's an excellent module. I'm not a fan of large dungeons, and since the module doesn't have any, it's golden in that regard. Its dungeons have exactly the right size for my taste.

I think, 4e works well with dungeon crawls (i.e. a sequence of relatively small, enclosed areas). Imho that's mostly because it's intended to work well within the limited size of battle-mats. The module also has a couple of outdoor encounters using some of the best encounter maps I've seen yet.

It's true that the encounters feel like set pieces, but they're exciting, so that's good! The encounters also (mostly) make sense, which is something that cannot be said of many of the classic modules.

There also a lot of roleplaying opportunities throughout the adventure. The story takes some interesting (though sometimes foreseeable) turns and has several memorable npcs. I especially liked that you eventually return to where the adventure started off.

Finally, the party gets to collect artifacts (or rather artifact pieces) which is more fun than finding standard magic items.

All in all, I think it's definitely one of the best 4e modules to date and it also serves to highlight the special elements of an Eberron campaign quite well.

 

[Dausuul]

So, I have a couple questions. Does anyone who has run or is running Ashen Crown have a similar criticism?

Do you agree 4E shouldn't have dungeon crawls? Is it a good or bad thing if the system supports one way or the other?

Well, I haven't run or played in Ashen Crown, so I can't say anything about that. But to your second question:

4E does support dungeon crawling, but it's a different style of dungeon crawling. In 4E, it is absolutely vital to intersperse puzzles, exploration scenarios, skill challenges, social encounters, and nonstandard combats with the set-piece battles. You should NEVER have more than two full-scale combat encounters in a row. Combat in 4E is far too grueling* for the "gauntlet" style of dungeon.

Things you can use to break up the dungeon:

• "Detective scenes," where the PCs come across clues about the nature of the dungeon and are encouraged to theorize about them and put them together. Traditionally, a detective scene offers hints about what the final boss fight of the dungeon will be, and/or how to win it, while also ratcheting up the tension. An excellent example is the Balin's Tomb scene in Moria.
• Puzzles that the PCs have to solve or pay a penalty. (Failure to solve the puzzle should NOT halt the party's progress, but it should make their lives harder in some way.) The classic puzzle is the riddle which opens a door or disarms a trap. Just be sure you have a way for the adventure to proceed if the PCs completely fail to solve the riddle.
• Social encounters with creatures that are not instantly hostile. Prisoners, random dungeon denizens, and ghosts of the dungeon's original inhabitants are all candidates for this sort of encounter. It's also common for the final boss fight to be preceded by a social encounter; bosses are often chatty fellows who engage the PCs in some verbal skirmishing before the actual battle commences.
• Encounters with sentries, who must be taken out instantly to avoid triggering a larger fight. 4E supports this nicely with the minion rules. A handful of minions is no threat to the PCs - but can the party take them all out in the first round of combat, before they have a chance to raise the alarm?
• Elaborate traps that take more than a simple Thievery check to disarm. This is a good place for a skill challenge.
• A useful tool from 1E/2E to shorten combat encounters is the monster morale check. Most monsters are not particularly interested in fighting to the death. If they see they're going to lose - or if they think they're going to lose - the monsters should break and run. Savvy PCs may try to game the system a bit, bluffing the monsters into submission. This is a good thing and should be encouraged. Of course, some monsters have higher morale than others.
• Social encounters that take place during combat! This is a technique that is often forgotten by DMs and movie directors alike, but it works wonders to keep a fight scene from bogging down. Watch the battles between Luke and Vader in "Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi." Both fights follow a pattern. The duelists stalk each other, trading taunts and challenges, trying to gain a psychological advantage. Then there's a clash and a flurry of lightsabers. After a couple of rounds, one combatant breaks contact and the stalking resumes. You can do this in D&D by pitting the PCs against a lurker-type monster with an ability that lets it break contact with the enemy, e.g., by turning invisible and teleporting a short distance. Or just take advantage of the "talking is a free action" rule.

[SIZE=-2]*In this context, "grueling" can be good or bad. It can mean a combat which leaves the players feeling like they've just been through the wringer and won a dramatic, hard-fought victory. Or it can mean a combat which leaves the players feeling like they just gnawed down trees with their teeth.[/SIZE]

 

[fuzzlewump]

I think it's very interesting, that 4E is meant to have less combats, but have each combat last longer. I think it's definitely a bane to a dungeon crawl style of game. Speaking of which, does anyone have any suggestions for a game system that supports a dungeon crawl well? It would need to be very deadly at lower levels, combats should be quick and happen often, to the point where leveling could be very possible over the course of say, an hour. Also, as an optional thing, something that can easily be DMless? Essentially, randomly rolling encounters and rooms?

I've tried 3.5E for this, but is this the best option? Seems overly complex when you expect your characters will die soon enough.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think it's very interesting, that 4E is meant to have less combats, but have each combat last longer. I think it's definitely a bane to a dungeon crawl style of game. Speaking of which, does anyone have any suggestions for a game system that supports a dungeon crawl well? It would need to be very deadly at lower levels, combats should be quick and happen often, to the point where leveling could be very possible over the course of say, an hour. Also, as an optional thing, something that can easily be DMless? Essentially, randomly rolling encounters and rooms?

I've tried 3.5E for this, but is this the best option? Seems overly complex when you expect your characters will die soon enough.

OD&D? Dragon Warriors? I don't know the first, but the latter certainly works for that. You have basically no choices to make for character creation except your class...

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

OD&D is good for fast combat and fast rolling up new characters when the others die, as happens with enjoyable regularity. Not so much for leveling up - depending on which version of the rules you use (original three books = faster, Greyhawk supplement = slower), how much treasure you place, and how often PCs die you're looking at somewhere between "slow" and "glacial". My players routinely cry out for adding more house-rules for faster leveling to the ones I use already.

Good points, Dasuul!

Jhaelen, "a sequence of relatively small, enclosed areas" is what is called "lairs" when folks talk about megadungeons. The idea of a megadungeon is that it is an all-encompassing environment; the central activities are surviving in this hostile territory (avoiding wandering monsters, finding safe places to rest, avoiding traps and areas of overwhelming danger) and exploring it (mapping, finding ways in and out, navigating from one place to another, finding treasure and hauling it to the surface).

From Philotomy's excellent article on the related topic of dungeon as mystic underworld:

It's big, and has many levels; in fact, it may be endless
It follows its own ecological and physical rules
It is not static; the inhabitants and even the layout may grow or change over time
It is not linear; there are many possible paths and interconnections
There are many ways to move up and down through the levels
Its purpose is mysterious or shrouded in legend
It's inimical to those exploring it
Deeper or farther levels are more dangerous
It's a (the?) central feature of the campaign

The games that were first associated with this style of dungeon play don't distinguish between combat encounters and everything else the way 4E does. Running from a fast and furious fight into another encounter which you sealed into a room with a web spell and then desperately searched for secret doors to escape before the web wore off an hour later was all part of the flow of gameplay, and meant that there wasn't the kind of separation between "encounter area" and "corridors connecting the lairs" that (IMO) 4E mechanics like "until end of encounter" create.