Pages

Thursday, 12 April 2012

Dungeon Crawling in 4th Ed

My problem

I love playing and running D&D 4th edition, but one thing that's never quite felt right for me is a lengthy, ongoing dungeon.  Explore a corridor, or a room or two, avoid/disable a couple of traps, then have a fight. Rinse/repeat as needed until you get to the bottom, top, far end, centre as desired.

If those fights are a standard, on level encounter they'll last about 5 or 6 rounds most of the time. That's only 30 seconds of real world time, but as anyone who's played 4e knows, it can grind to a halt at a table for up to an hour.  Generally after an on level encounter, the inevitable short rest is needed so that players can spend some surges and get their encounter powers back. That means that after a 30 second fight, they're stopping for 5 minutes. To keep things working as presented in the core books, that's 5 minutes of undisturbed rest - an occasional interrupted rest of probably fine if they're taking them in dangerous territory, but for the sake of player/DM trust, I don't feel you want to be doing that too much.  Usually, running standard encounters, parties will manage maybe 5 or 6 encounters in a good day before they need their extended rest.

That leaves you with an age old problem - during that 5 minute rest, what are the other monsters in the dungeon doing?  Didn't anyone else hear 30 seconds of weapon clashes, screaming and grunting?  How do you balance the common sense approach that things would come and investigate what was happening, or come ambush the party?  Assuming there are more than 5 or 6 groups of monsters in your dungeon, where are the party going to sleep? If it's inside the dungeon, why are there no patrols? If it's outside, why are the early dungeon rooms still empty the next day?

The plan

So, what do you change?  I set up a dungeon over the last few sessions for my players, and wanted to get a more flowing feel, more reminiscent of Pathfinder dungeons I've played through.  The dungeon was set up as a few floors of an ancient Dragonborn temple, each floor being reasonably compact -  2 or 3 large rooms, half a dozen smaller rooms and the corridors between - and I wanted the players to be able to clear a floor between each short rest if that's what they wanted to do.  Planning a bit in advance, I figured I could make it feel like they were fighting through groups of enemies all the way through, but spread the threat enough to  reduce the need for lots of healing (figuring that running out of ways to trigger healing surges would probably be the sign of when the party wanted to rest up).

This formed into a rough plan:
  • Many fights, with less threat in each - give the party lots of small encounters, rather than a couple of big ones. These fights are really designed to not challenge the party individually; the aim is that they'll use their normal encounter resources gradually over the course of a few small fights.
  • The same number of monsters, but less HP each - to make a fight seem even remotely threatening, the group needs to be fighting at least 3-4 enemies at a time.  Two enemies are easy to lock down, more starts to feel like they've got something to manage.  The difference between a quick fight like what we're looking for and a standard 4th Ed fight is hit points - I gave the enemies enough hit points to take roughly 3 average hits from the heroes.  I found about 30 hit points to be a good number at level 4-5.  A good solid damage roll does enough to bloody the enemy, and they can be one shotted with a critical hit (especially on an encounter power).  I didn't want to go with minions all the way through, but threw a few in here and there to keep the variety up.
  • 1 standard enemy makes a decent little sergeant to go with 2 or 3 lower hit point mooks.  2 mook soldiers or brutes along with 1 standard artillery mage made an interesting fight for a few rounds.  Otherwise 4 fairly straight forward brute or soldier mooks makes for a straight up brawl in a corridor.
  • Each little group like this might make up about 1/2 the XP budget of a standard encounter, but you can probably throw 3-4 of these groups at them before the party will feel like they're really pushing it.  Spreading out the threat means they should manage to get through more between rests.

Results?

Putting this into practice, the first session contained 2 groups of 4 enemies of 30 hit points each, then a more standard 4E fight in one of the larger rooms.  The party got through the whole floor, blasting through the small groups in 3-4 rounds, and only taking a rest at the end of the final group, but they started the final fight a bit down on resources which made for a different feel.  It was interesting seeing how they managed their resources, especially on the first floor - players went back to hoarding encounter powers, thinking "We might need this more later on" (probably a good decision in this case, as they still had most of their bit hitters when the came to the final fight of the floor against the full strength monsters).  That was pretty much as I expected, and I was happy that things ran mostly as planned.  The whole floor felt like one ongoing exporation, rather than a few seperated encounters, which was great - exactly the feel I was hoping for.

One thing I hadn't banked on was a difference in player perception on how much they had done - in a 3 hour session, we're used to getting 2 standard combat encounters plus a bit of background RP, exposition and background exploration, or maybe 3 fights if they're pretty much back to back.  The players felt like they had got more done in exploring this floor than they normally did in their few hours of play.  That was a pleasant surprise, and definitely something I hadn't thought of in advance.

With the first floor out of the way, and the experience under my belt, I went on to planning the next level and refined my design a little.  More on that later.

9 comments:

  1. I remember a similar set up from a designer's blog, can't remember who, should have bookmarked it. But he was a 4th ed designer, maybe one who's also a Next designer. The idea was exactly this: "not making the encounter end between fights", and have a more dynamic dungeon crawl, where opponents come out in small, but sometimes overlapping waves.
    My final consideration is that adding realism (as in, monsters that take less hits, monsters that react to nearby fights), will enhance the experience, because players get more engaged. It becomes much more important to "secure some areas" to use them for resting, and even more important to do so in a way that doesn't alert more monsters/enemies. Basically, make resting to get Encounter resources as hard as resting for the day, and make resting for the day even more difficult.
    I'm going to bookmark this blog, nice job! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guessed I wouldn't be the first DM that tried to do something similar - I do so it as one of the bigger issues with 4th Ed since that kind of dungeon crawl is THE iconic D&D play session. Luckily, it doesn't seem too hard to do.

      And thanks for the kind words :)

      Delete
  2. @R-RAF: I don't know if you're talking about me (I'm not a professional designer), but I wrote an article to deal with this problem. It's here: http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/214-How-to-Build-a-Dungeon-Crawl-for-Heroic-and-Paragon-Tiers . I suggest downloading the PDF (link at the top of the article) if you're interested. It's well over 10,000 words, so it's quite a read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 10,000 words is quite a read - but I'll have a look. Thanks for the heads up!

      Delete
  3. Resource management is a huge topic across all editions of D&D, and is very tricky. A lot of important decisions are made for you by the design of the game, but as you so elegantly show, tweaks to that design can make big changes. Great job with this! As DM, it's better if you change the rules for monsters than if you change the rules for PCs.

    I'm curious to find out how daily power use goes in your modified system. It seems like with all the many combats, the chances of randomly needing to pull off a big effect go up. How does that affect player perception of the session, their characters, etc.?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree - I prefer to stay away with tinkering with the rules for the PC, or the core rules of the game. The base of 4E is so solid, changing up encounter design can do a hell of a lot on it's own.

      Daily powers were pretty rare during the smaller fights so far, at least as far as the big 3W damage ones went - again, players seemed to want to hold out for the bigger fights. One nice use of a Daily was from our Fey Warlock, who used Hunger of Hadar to drop a LoS blocking 3x3 cloud to seperate two of the guards from their artillery buddies hanging out at the back, further down the corridor.

      I'll be curious to see how this changes if we do more sessions structured like this (well, when really - it went down well enough that I'm sure to do it again for the next dungeon). The small fights we've done so far have been fairly controlled, as I've been gradually building things up to make sure I don't misjudge things. If the party suddenly got bushwhacked by a couple of wandering patrols and that little fight changed into a big one, I can imagine some players pulling out the dailies to quickly clear some room.

      One consideration as the DM because of the lower hit points is it's much harder to justify the risk/reward of sucking up a Defender's punishment to go and do something else - our Cavalier Paladin only burns them for 5 damage if they move out of the aura etc, but that's much more significant to a 30HP mob than it is when they have 80HP to play with.

      Delete
  4. @Frylock no, I was talking about one of the famous guys at Wizards. I remember Mike Mearls commenting on his blog telling him it was a nice job, and there was talk of modifying the whole adventure structure of 4e, at least for some future products. Don't know if they did it because I don't buy adventure modules, but I guess they're saving it for D&D Next after all.

    ReplyDelete
  5. One of EmbraDM's players here. That floor felt like a swashbucklering obstacle. You could picture in your head sway of territory, getting from A to B rather than murdering things. The encounter had momentum and it was the players task to keep up pressure on the enemy waves.

    ReplyDelete
  6. One concept I've always used when designing dungeons is the movie Aliens. Although the aliens are largely a mob, they keep the pressure up incessantly upon the Marines. Imminent peril works well - sod CR - if the players are resting the monsters are banging on the door with a battering ram... or they're waiting for the Cave Troll or Balrog.
    In most Dungeons the monsters have a leader/controller or someone that understands basic tactics (often staying behind their minions as cover): they know how to use cover and the terrain - even Orcs. You could split the fights into smaller skirmishes: missile combats whose combatants retreat to more fortified positions.
    In 4e, as you know, the players often spend a lot of time planning how each of their powers can work. You can always push them to be quick - they have a short window to declare their actions. Rather than have them roll their actions, they declare them: once the group have decided their actions, they make their rolls in Initiative order.

    ReplyDelete