Are "Pretty" Dungeons Better?

OnlineDM · Sep 12, 2011

If you're building a full-on dungeon that the players will explore room by room and map and see all of, then yes, you'll want some nods to "realism".

The other approach is to build a dungeon that only exists as a framework for interesting encounters (whether combat or otherwise) where the PCs will not be spending days or weeks, but rather hours. In that case, you can ignore details like garbage pits and kitchens as something that exists somewhere in the dungeon, but not in the parts that the adventurers are visiting.

prosfilaes · Sep 12, 2011

LostSoul said:
I have a story from a recent (3.5) game that illustrates this point.

I botched a Teleport spell when we were very low on resources, ending up in an unfamiliar dungeon. We found a large iron stove, large enough for the party to fit in, and slept there. As we slept, the member on watch noticed some of the denizens of the dungeon - drow - heading to a small chamber off to the side every few hours.

We realized this was a bathroom and decided to ambush them when they were taking their breaks. Worked out well - they didn't get a chance to act before we killed them.

I tend to go with the fiction that in a dungeon, like the Enterprise, no one needs to go to the bathroom. Because otherwise, I start wondering, where did your characters go to the bathroom? Not where you slept, so you had to get out of that room. Did you leave a visual or olfactory sign that would show the drow that invaders were there, or even lead them back to you? I don't want to deal with it.

LostSoul · Sep 13, 2011

prosfilaes said:
I tend to go with the fiction that in a dungeon, like the Enterprise, no one needs to go to the bathroom. Because otherwise, I start wondering, where did your characters go to the bathroom? Not where you slept, so you had to get out of that room. Did you leave a visual or olfactory sign that would show the drow that invaders were there, or even lead them back to you? I don't want to deal with it.

We used our Well of Many Worlds. After we slept I cast Prestidigitation to get rid of the stink we had. We used flight to cross the floor so we wouldn't leave any tracks.

I like dealing with that sort of thing in this game.

Dausuul · Sep 13, 2011

Aeolius said:
I have too much fun, for people.

Yeah, that's another point that bears mentioning. If you have fun working all this stuff out, then have at it! Your dungeon won't be any worse for having a well-thought-out ecosystem. Just don't shove it in the players' faces if it's not their thing.

Jhaelen · Sep 13, 2011

Mallus said:
I think that dungeons, considered as a whole, are primarily illogical gamist constructs (conventions) designed to offer the players a particular set of rewards (gold, magic items, plot-critical dinguses) and obstacles (monsters, traps, trap-like monsters). That said, I do believe there should be a little logic behind these inherently illogical locations. A few nods to realism/verisimilitude, especially in places where they relate to meaningful play choice and puzzle-solving.

Dungeon realism for dungeon realism's sake is unnecessary, a waste of the designer's time and/or hilarious (too much logic applied to a nonsensical premise results in... well... Lewis Carroll).

OnlineDM said:
The other approach is to build a dungeon that only exists as a framework for interesting encounters (whether combat or otherwise) where the PCs will not be spending days or weeks, but rather hours. In that case, you can ignore details like garbage pits and kitchens as something that exists somewhere in the dungeon, but not in the parts that the adventurers are visiting.

I agree with both sentiments.

I have to admit I never liked dungeons, at least the big kind ('megadungeons'). I prefer 'lairs' which don't have more than, say, five areas (of interest). And the reason I say 'areas' is because I don't like dungeon 'rooms'. Imho, most 'dungeons' should be little more than natural caves that have been minimally modified by their current inhabitants. The idea that a dungeon should have bathrooms or toilets strikes me as anachronistic, i.e. the exact opposite of what I'd consider 'realistic'.

These days I think it's more important that a dungeon area is 'fun', i.e. it has stuff for characters to examine, fool around with and make use of if combat ensues.

Dausuul · Sep 13, 2011

Jhaelen said:
I agree with both sentiments.

I have to admit I never liked dungeons, at least the big kind ('megadungeons'). I prefer 'lairs' which don't have more than, say, five areas (of interest). And the reason I say 'areas' is because I don't like dungeon 'rooms'. Imho, most 'dungeons' should be little more than natural caves that have been minimally modified by their current inhabitants. The idea that a dungeon should have bathrooms or toilets strikes me as anachronistic, i.e. the exact opposite of what I'd consider 'realistic'.

Not a porcelain one with a flush lever, but not to put too fine a point on it, if you've got stuff living there, there has to be someplace it goes to do its business. It could be just a hole in the ground--it probably is just a hole in the ground--but it's there. (Of course, in a lair near the surface of the earth, it might just go outside. But an Underdark dungeon won't have that option.)

Hand of Evil · Sep 13, 2011

I try to make them fun for my players but also try and keep some architecture in the planning. Large rooms have columns and arches, bathrooms are behind curtains or off in a corner, hidden rooms effect size. Stuff like that.

But it should be noted is how did the dungeon come to be? Was it planned? Burried? Following a vein of gold? I think that could be important to how a dungeon looks too.

Example I always use: Wieliczka Salt Mine

Gronin · Sep 13, 2011

For myself, both as a player and a GM, I like my dungeons to be as realistic as is reasonable possible. I like there to be a reason that things are where they are. I'm not usually too worried about the engineering involved, although if I think a bridge, for example, is too flimsy to walk across then I am going to treat it as dangerous.

I find that if the architecture of a dungeon makes sense it is easier for me to act in a way my character would -- the character would have certain expectations given archetechtural clues.

howandwhy99 · Sep 13, 2011

Kaodi said:
SNIP
By that I do not necessarily man colour or fancy drawing, but rather architectural versimilitude. But good architectural sense make a dungeon better? Or are randomly assembled rooms from 10' by 10' to 60' by 60' sufficient for a good story?

And as much as possible I do not mean this to be a situational question. Obviously a non-sensical dungeon run by a great DM is going to be a better game than one base on the Cathedral of Notre Dame run by a terrible DM. This is more a question of whether pretty dungeons are, generally speaking, better underpinnings for a game.

I think that better depends upon the objective of the game. If you're playing Pac Man, the design of the board space matters as to how difficult it is to maneuver around and get all the pellets before the ghosts get you. If you are playing Win, Lose, or Draw the drawings are all about communicating within the games limited means of expressing to your fellow players the answer they are attempt to guess.

Neither of those is really about aesthetic beauty, but if the objective of your game is to create aesthetic beauty, then a pretty dungeon is prettier than an ugly one. Architectural verisimilitude is typically used in simulation games where the rules stand for an underlying physics. In these cases the architectural aspects are whether or not the dungeon follows the rules as designed. Whether those rules are similar or not to our own world is subjective, but the verisimilitude allows a coherence of comprehensibility within its own.

So yeah, it's pretty much about the objective of the game and what the player are looking for from it.

Hussar · Sep 13, 2011

Dausuul said:
Not a porcelain one with a flush lever, but not to put too fine a point on it, if you've got stuff living there, there has to be someplace it goes to do its business. It could be just a hole in the ground--it probably is just a hole in the ground--but it's there. (Of course, in a lair near the surface of the earth, it might just go outside. But an Underdark dungeon won't have that option.)

Chamber pots?

And, honestly, if the creature is fairly unintelligent, it's not unheard of for beasties to just poop in the corner. Take a look at the den of most animals and it's not really a pretty place.

Of course, realistically speaking, any long term lair for an intelligent species would pretty much require some sort of flowing water to pass through. Which nicely takes care of most waste issues as well.

Are "Pretty" Dungeons Better?

OnlineDM

Adventurer

prosfilaes

Adventurer

LostSoul

Adventurer

Dausuul

Legend

Jhaelen

First Post

Dausuul

Legend

Hand of Evil

Hero

Gronin

Explorer

howandwhy99

Adventurer

Hussar

Legend

Similar Threads