D&D General (+) What Should Go in a D&D Book About Dungeons?

[UngainlyTitan]

Sure. Of you want the players to worry about light, for example, you have to talk to them.and come up with some table rules that get it done. That's generally easier, in my experience, if the official books offer those options. There's a strange psychology of "officialness" at work there that I don't fully understand but have seen time and again.

Light is probably the hardest one because of cantrips and I think people overestimate what darkvision can do.

Not allowing the players to shortcut the fiction via calls for ability checks seems to me to be perfectly legit within the rules as written.

 

[Reynard]

Light is probably the hardest one because of cantrips and I think people overestimate what darkvision can do.

Definitely.

Not allowing the players to shortcut the fiction via calls for ability checks seems to me to be perfectly legit within the rules as written.

In the rules as written, the DM calls for rolls and decides which ability to roll and if a proficiency applies. Full stop. It looks like from the most recent playtest packet that 1D&D is rolling it back a little toward 3.x with hard mandates on checks and DCs, which turn those calls into player facing rules.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Definitely.

In the rules as written, the DM calls for rolls and decides which ability to roll and if a proficiency applies. Full stop. It looks like from the most recent playtest packet that 1D&D is rolling it back a little toward 3.x with hard mandates on checks and DCs, which turn those calls into player facing rules.

I think that this reflects the culture of play than anything intrinsic in the rules.

This is why I really wish that the new DMG addresses playstyles and play cultures with specific call out to old school play.
I would hope it addresses more than that. But advice on how to drift and mod the game would be a worthwhile inclusion.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It isn't about compelling and powerful. It is abount being sensical. If the dungeon makes sense, you tend to try to make sense out of the elements you see. If it is random and doesn't make sense, there is no reason to try. That takes away a powerful tool for storybuilding, and a significant element of the game.

And if you think that details in a story make it boring, you're overlooking a lot of fiction from the past several centuries that contradicts the theory. There are so many positive elements of the game and storytelling in general that are reinforced by having a world that makes sense, including suspension of disbelief.

Yes, you can run a game where you throw random stuff together and players look at only the short term issue of what is right in front of them - and that can be a blast. However, there is a huge benefit to using tools that support long term storytelling more comprehensively.Yes. The one that is most fun for you and your players.

That being said, I'm describing what benefits you get from having a dungeon that makes sense. I am not saying you have to play this way or I'm taking away your dice. I'm saying that having your world make sense provides you with a very strong tool.

There are costs to it as well - the DM has to put in the time to think things through, and regardless of how good you are, you're going to overlook some things which leave you with a need to patch over the accidental error. However, there is a huge benefit to having a world in which the players have reason to consider the things around their PCs that do not appear to make sense at first. Do the benefits exceed the costs? You have to anaswer that question for yourself - there is a considerable benefit and you have to figure out how big of a cost you consider the time it takes to think things through and learn how to build sensical environments.The view is not universally shared, but the underlying logic is not loose opinion. A lot of people do not know how a rainbow 'works', but that doesn't change whether you'll see one or not.

I've played with a lot of DMs, and I've run for a lot of players. When the world makes sense, the players strongly tend to expect it to make sense. When it doesn't make sense, players do not look for it to make sense in the same way. If you want to label that as an opinion, you can do so - but it is based upon a lot of factual observations over decades of play. Experience, not opinion, backs it up.

There are, of course, exceptions. Some players don't pay attention to the world at all, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. If that is your entire group, then you won't reap the rewards without some effort. And other players work really hard to make sense out of a world that just dosn't make sense (which is usually frustrating for the player in question).

However, the strong majority of players, and groups as a whole, tend to strongly fall into the trends I described: When the world makes sense, they try to make sense of the things they see. If it doesn't make sense, they don't try to find the sense in it.

Why is this such a powerful tool? When something doesn't make sense, and that is unusual, then it gives a reason to investigate and further the storyline in that direction. It gives the DM a tool to develop cascading continuity. It is a tool for building story without

Maybe people are talking past each other, and assuming the other side is taking a more extreme position than they are. There’s a lot of ground in between a dungeon with random monsters locked in rooms next to each other, and one in which even the most discerning skeptic couldn't find logical inconsistencies.

Take bathrooms. If the latrine contains a secret (if smelly) escape tunnel, and there's an Otyugh living in it, and there are hints elsewhere in the dungeon that if you throw the rotting fish in the barrel into the latrine the Otyugh will let you pass....then cool. I agree that tying the story to elements of realism is effective.

But if the latrine is just a latrine, and is included only for the sake of realism (you DID measure rise over run to make sure the pipes would drain correctly, didn't you?) then many of us don't really care whether or not it's there. Maybe, for some people, its absence would be a glaring inconsistency, but I think being bothered by things like that is a choice.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I keep thinking about @Reynard's distinction between "fortress" and "dungeon". I don't know if that's the right nomenclature, and certainly there's a lot of gray area in between, but I do think there's a distinction to be made. Just because something is made of stone, or even underground, doesn't necessarily make it a "dungeon" of the sort that I most love. I'd rather delve into a barrow with nothing but a sealed door, a dusty tunnel covered with murals and (maybe?) some traps, and a burial chamber with something terrifying, than fight or sneak my way through a massive, living 'fortress'. The latter is just an indoor adventure location, not a 'dungeon'.

(Unless, of course, there's something under the fortress that the denizens know nothing about.)

I'm not sure I can specify exactly what the differences are, and whatever I suggested would be rife with exceptions anyway. But there's a difference.

 

[Reynard]

I keep thinking about @Reynard's distinction between "fortress" and "dungeon". I don't know if that's the right nomenclature, and certainly there's a lot of gray area in between, but I do think there's a distinction to be made. Just because something is made of stone, or even underground, doesn't necessarily make it a "dungeon" of the sort that I most love. I'd rather delve into a barrow with nothing but a sealed door, a dusty tunnel covered with murals and (maybe?) some traps, and a burial chamber with something terrifying, than fight or sneak my way through a massive, living 'fortress'. The latter is just an indoor adventure location, not a 'dungeon'.

(Unless, of course, there's something under the fortress that the denizens know nothing about.)

I'm not sure I can specify exactly what the differences are, and whatever I suggested would be rife with exceptions anyway. But there's a difference.

Yeah, I'm not happy with the way I laid out the terminology either. There's got to be decent language to describe the difference between (and I am just using these for short hand) Skyrim's bandit hideouts, draugr tombs, troll caves and dwarf ruins.

 

[Lanefan]

Of course, it's easy enough to say a fortress is a kind of dungeon with a specific purpose. That's fine and you can certainly have a chapter about dungeon taxonomy. But to me, the king's vault and the villain's tower would get a different classification than "dungeon" just to create a clear distinction.

Ah. This is a distinction I don't make - they're all dungeons to me.

Right now I'm running a dungeon where everything is sort-of organized - well, as organized as a bunch of chaotic creatures ever get, anyway. A colony of Orcs are the crumple zone i.e. expendable and easily replaced, behind them are some seemingly-random creatures that have been carefully trained by the bosses to stay where they are as guards and deterrents, and behind that are the real threats. But player-side it might, on the surface, look pretty gonzo for a while.

 

[Lanefan]

@Minigiant - excellent list in post 86. Only one thing to add: under Hazards, a 5th bullet point for "Environment" to cover gas leaks, lava, temperature extremes, etc.

 

[CreamCloud0]

dungeons to me aren't some specific type of building or structure with a certain type of inhabitants but a location that functions as a self contained puzzle(sometimes with the need to leave to aquire a tool or knowledge from outside and come back but), sometimes the puzzle is just 'can you murderise and loot everything inside without dying yourself' and other times it's 'solve the seven great riddles of the ancient wizard king' other times it's 'figure out how to manipulate the dynamics of the location to open the path through'

needing to count torches or some other resource, while providing tension, is not the 'core point' of a dungeon IMO

 

[Reynard]

Ah. This is a distinction I don't make - they're all dungeons to me.

Right now I'm running a dungeon where everything is sort-of organized - well, as organized as a bunch of chaotic creatures ever get, anyway. A colony of Orcs are the crumple zone i.e. expendable and easily replaced, behind them are some seemingly-random creatures that have been carefully trained by the bosses to stay where they are as guards and deterrents, and behind that are the real threats. But player-side it might, on the surface, look pretty gonzo for a while.

So my desire for terminology is rooted in the why of the place. So you have this weird collection of creatures hanging out in this place with all the politicking that might go one there. But why is it there? Do the bad guys just live there? Are they some BBEG's troops waiting for orders? Are they guardians for something specific?

In the first case, I'd call it a dungeon (if a bit of a busy one). But in the middle case I would call it a fortress. I'm not sure exactly what I would call it (a vault?) in the final case.

Again, I just like have distinct categories for things because I find them informative. You would assault a fortress in a different way than you would break into a vault or you would explore a dungeon.