Reexamining the Reexamining

Rob Schwalb has a really interesting blog called Reexamining the Dungeon. Go read it. I’ll wait.

For those of you who were too lazy to click, the long and short of his blog is that Rob is waxing nostalgic about older D&D editions’ structures of dungeon delving and questioning the primacy of the current tactical encounter format. It’s no surprise to me that Rob brings up some excellent points in the column and puts forward a solution. What did surprise me is that I really didn’t agree with it.

Now I don’t say this to bust Rob’s chops. In fact I have a lot of geek love and a bit of a man crush on Rob. When I was a developer at Wizards, he was always a dream to work with. His design work is inventive and legion. Rob Schwalb is a RPG machine belched forth from the dread gravity of the Abyss fueled on cheap beer and the souls of evil men. And that’s a good thing. That churns out an astonishing word count that is consistently good. There are two gods of productivity in my pantheon: Dan Abnett one and the other is Rob Schwalb. On the off-chance you don’t know who Rob is, just take a look at your RPG collection. If you don’t have at least one product that Rob’s worked on you have a very small, old, or “eclectic” (read: strange) collection. You may not know his name, but you’ve played his work.

I have a lot of nostalgia for B2 Keep on the Borderlands. Its iconic map was intoxicating with possibilities. These days, it seems cheesy and cartoonish, but I think there is some wisdom to be found in its pages still.

Needless to say, I don’t look for reasons to disagree with Rob, but sometimes they do fall into my lap. And that is scary. I know that if I cross him, he could cut me the next time we meet. And if he does, he’ll cut me bad.

Okay, pleasantries out of the way, let’s get on with it. Rob’s culprit for reexamining is the slog.

The slog, as it has been come to be known is one of those things that 4e haters (and even 4e proponents) point out a problem with the edition. 4e combats can take a while. Usually lasting at least five rounds, a group of 6 players (5 playing characters and the DM) a highly efficient group is lucky to get through 5 rounds of a typical 4e encounter in an hour. Things are a little faster at lower level, a bit slower at paragon and epic. In the D&D Championship, where time is of the essence, I struggled to finish my turn under a minute, and I was only successful about 30% of the time.

But this isn’t new to 4e. This was true in 3e as well, especially among RPGA tables. You see there is this continuum of RPGers in general and D&D players in specific. At one fringe of that spectrum are groups that use rules as a framework to be entertained by their DM’s stories. Players have a recollection of the rules, but they are often surprised, frustrated, and sometimes just downright bored when they come across so-called “rules lawyers” and events like the D&D Championship. At a nearly opposite end of that spectrum are the folks who typically treat the game as series of loosely connected skirmishes. They believe D&D is a means to “crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the women.” Somewhere in the evasive middle is the “perfect game of D&D.” An El Dorado that is the D&D equivalent of the Coen Brothers doing an action epic (or porn).

To be honest 4e embraces that second group more than it ever did in the past. A tighter rules system that D&D has seen in the past, there are very few things designed for use outside of the combat encounter. Those that are designed for outside the combat encounter are relegated to under-developed rules items that even the designs seem to be avoiding with more and more frequency (rituals :::cough::: rituals). Worse still, it has become obvious that most of the rules for combat are fine tuned for the 8 x 8 default with the number of monsters equal to the number of character, often to such an extreme that any kind of deviation from that basic structure can seem like sailing off the edge of the world, at least for new DMs. For that reason, more often than not, we see the warband vs. warband slog Rob talks about.

Rob’s solution is to do away with or at least modify the rest mechanic, and instead create dungeon sectors where a mix of small, medium, and large encounters can occur all strung together with a goals or goals represented as a minor or a group of minor quests. Only when the characters complete the goal, can they take a short rest.

I actually fooled around with a similar format back in my organized play days at Wizards of the Coast. That format eventually became the RPGA Delve format that was unleashed in 2006 and still goes on with a good amount of tinkering today. My original format, which was called Delve, was a fast paced event that granted healing, some amount of power regeneration, and the ability to move forward in the event when certain goals were achieved within a 20-minute time period. It was fun, but the playtesters found it to be too artificial. It seemed too much like a game and not enough like D&D.

Now you get one person tell you that, it’s easy to ignore. You get that response again, and again, and again, you kind have to listen. Delve in its original form died a horrible death. Its later incarnation was much less gamist, or at least was very careful on where it put the more gamist mechanics. That shit works in video games, by with an RPG you have to work harder. You have to put the design through more lenses, as Jesse Schell might say.

I think the reason why resting works is that it fits with the actual narrative of D&D. Between spates of activity, resting is a way to rejuvenate and prepare for the next hurdle. 4e gets a good amount of hell because players who want good narrative (or at least the narrative they are used to) trip over new and obviously “gamist” mechanics–things that get them out of the narrative of the game. I don’t think creating a new and seemingly artificial trigger with sectors is the answer (but I’m a little intrigued by the ideas of sectors). Hell, fighters and rogues lost daily powers in the Essentials line because some D&D players have a hard time wrapping their minds around heroic daily powers. That’s kind of a word to wise when it comes to D&D design.

I’m a fan of simplicity in rules, but RPGs should be about making the rules fit the narrative. When any game falls down, more often than not it’s because someone screams “bullshit!” in this regard. Getting resources back for achieving goals seems artificial and disjointed.

Worse still, I actually think by putting the quest recharge in play you make it harder to design adventures and encounters. Placement become crucial, and a group is unlucky or finds a quest to hard to gain, they are back to the 5-minute adventuring day all over again, because they will fall back on extended rests.

I don’t think the problem with the slog, the tactical encounter, and its lack of ability to create old-school dungeon delving has anything to do with the rest mechanic. I think they have more to do with an often anemic set of adventure design tools. But I’ll get to that on Thursday.

Be Sociable, Share!

6 Comments

  1. I kind of think you missed the mark on this one. For starters, changing the rest mechanic was only a part of Rob’s suggestion. The other part was to design around “sectors” rather than encounters. That part seemed pretty major to me, and more interesting than changes to the rest mechanic (which I agree are not strictly necessary).

    I’m a fan of simplicity in rules, but RPGs should be about making the rules fit the narrative. … Getting resources back for achieving goals seems artificial and disjointed.

    Dangerous words, because “fit the narrative” and “seems artificial” are so subjective. In fact in your previous sentence you mention the loss of Martial dailies because they felt artificial to some players. Encounter/daily martial powers ARE artificial, and yet they work because they “fit the narrative” of dramatic action we are used to in films and novels; the story doesn’t call for spamming out the same +15/+10/+5 attack sequence every round, it calls for the fighter to Steel Serpent Strike when the time is right. I would contend that recovering these artificial resources by an abstract event (“sector goal completion”) fits the narrative flow of the source material better than a sudden, perfectly safe 5-minute rest.

    Maybe all we really need is a standard set of acceptable reasons why a 5-minute rest might not always be available. Standing around for 5 minutes in the enemy headquarters seems foolish; perhaps resting in an uncleared sector automatically draws all the aggro, and with a penalty on any Notice checks to avoid surprise? Maybe bring back Wandering Monsters, so every time you rest you are risking attack (and it would need to be a risk, not just some bonus XP or a speedbump encounter). Maybe bonus Action Points for not resting after an encounter. For me, the goal is to remove the huge distinction between “combat time” and “non-combat time,” which is presently demarcated by rolling initiative and taking a short rest, because that clear division feels VERY artificial to me.

    • Come on, there’s no dangerous words in D&D!

      Yes, “fit the narrative” and “seems artificial” but that was my point with the Delve experiment. I didn’t hear that point about Delve, I heard it multiple times. Not from everyone, but enough (well more than half) where it became a concern.

      Sectors are an interesting design concept. It’s actually something I want to talk about in the second part of this blog. But I see it more as a DM design principle rather than something that players interact with.

      I’ve also used a thing called a Rallying Rest in my home campaign. If the characters are between encounters, but have a minute of less, they can regain either an encounter power or spend a healing surge. If they have multiple minutes, they can spend this multiple times. I’ve only used it during certain combats, but I’m thinking about opening it up as a constant option.

  2. The volumes of comments on this issue speak to the way Rob’s post resonated with many of us. Encounter building is awesome until you realize the rest of the game is lacking. While pro RPers can add in any desired amount of story and RP because they can RP being a paper bag (mine is an old Macy’s Big Brown paper bag, yet really down to earth…), the reality is that the 4E system ends up influencing the game such that you have less story and RP time. Things like Skill Challenges and Quests should trigger and encourage RP but instead supplant it and subvert it. The game details how to build encounters so well… can it not have RP and story and PC development as part of the budget? Is that possible? The idea of zones is great – it really can work – but is just one solution to a part of the problem (that around a large dungeon where having discrete compartments of adventures can seem artifical). We need a much larger solution to a much larger problem. (And I love me the 4E, if it isn’t clear).

    • Wow, that’s a bigger problem. I think the rest of the game has a bit of combat p0rn envy. The combat game works so well, we expect a rigorous and rewarding construct for story and PCs development. That stuff actually needs more workshops, more examples, more basic structures that a fledgling DM can latch on to. Unfortunately those products rarely sell well, so they don’t get made. It may be because few have been made well. I don’t think Robin’s Laws of Good Gamemastering sold poorly.

      • That’s why looking at recent Indie design can help push for new useful story/RP toolkits. My piece on mixing the Front/Threats elements of Apocalypse World to re-create gygaxian faction was such an idea. The tools in AW are so damn simple and straightforward it’s almost stupid.

        And you have Robin’s Hamlet’s HP who seems to be a parallel system for story and tension in games. It’s worth exploring.

        • I had not seen HHP. That looks pretty cool, thanks!

          Yeah, agreed, SRM. It is a bigger problem. But I think it is all connected. Rob’s latest post, where he talks about letting story slip… it’s all over the 4E landscape. Again, I’m a big 4E fan. I just finished an awesome RP-rich Dark Sun session last night, but I worked hard to make that happen (as did the players). It takes deliberate action these days. I see great RPers not RPing at LFR tables. I see really good authors writing what should be awesome stories and end up being so-so stories and 80% of the time in combat. What can restore the balance?

Leave a Reply