Are "Pretty" Dungeons Better?

[HandofMystra]

I'm a huge fan of verisimilitude, the to point that I simply can't design a dungeon (or castle, town, etc.) without its backstory and original function very much in mind. And as a player I find a sense of verisimilitude really helps me get into the game.

But that said, when I look back at my favorite dungeon experiences over 30 years of gaming, there is no correlation to how "realistic" the dungeon is. In the end, I think the verisimilitude helps the campaign, but has little effect on the individual adventure.

I wanted to run The Idylls of the Rat King (DCC #1) but when I looked at the map of the abandoned silver mine it was all five foot straight corridors and rectangular rooms - I could not bring myself to run it. I even posted in ENWorld years ago to try to find a decent silver mine map that I could use. That led me to looking online for ancient and medieval silver mines - to little avail.

 

[Aeolius]

That led me to looking online for ancient and medieval silver mines - to little avail.

Google is your friend:

an excerpt

 

[Mark CMG]

A sylvan adventure where the adventurers are forest animals.

Are they wet or at least moist?

 

[Skyscraper]

As a player and DM, I tend to dislike flat ground maps with rooms all having 20-foot high ceilings. I much better like areas with weird (read: pretty) layouts that include large rooms that span more than one floor, balconies with views over other areas of the dungeons or castle, and a construction that adapts to a natural environment (e.g. the castle that is built on a steep mountain face with different levels that step up along said mountainface).

An old Al Quadim adventure - I believe it was City of Delights - had a fully mapped castle called Krak Al Niran (IIRC) - that was such a great map that I used it in three different games.

 

[Hussar]

To be fair, this is one of my favorite maps for a dungeon:

 

[Ariosto]

The old-old-old-style '''mega"dungeon (a la the description in the original D&D booklets) is more than just a conventional edifice. Its function is more like the Enterprise in Star Trek or the gate in Stargate: a way to bring in whatever elements -- whatever worlds of adventure -- may be entertaining.

Thus, the internal consistency of its parts is more important than having a single "theory of everything" on the order that would be appropriate to a structure such as a cave complex or actual dungeons beneath a castle (which might well be among the parts).

Locations and their inhabitants should indeed make some sort of sense. However, random selection of elements appropriate to a portion can be (as suggested in The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures) a time saver in populating the secondary areas of a large level. It can also be a spur to the creative imagination (as in generating Planetary Profiles in Traveller).

 

[CharlesRyan]

If you're talking about published dungeons, I agree, so why is that? [. . .] Many gamers don't bring those kinds of experiences to the table, which makes the lack of effort at adding interesting terrain to professional produced and published materials all the more puzzling.

I think you've answered your own question there. Also, these sorts of spaces can be very hard to describe, even visually through maps on paper--especially to readers who don't have an experiential basis for visualizing the scene.

That said, I always try to get this stuff into the dungeons I design, even for publication. I've done a bunch of work for Dungeon A Day in recent months, and I've tried to incorporate this sort of thing. So much so that for one of my levels, they put together a 3D walk-through video to help show off the design.

 

[CharlesRyan]

To be fair, this is one of my favorite maps for a dungeon:

I really like that map! Great to look at, and gives the designer the ability to create more three-dimensional spaces. Does the product also have a standard, top-down map, though? Because I think you'd need the utility of that as well.

Doing illustrative maps like that adds real cost to a product, but I think it adds real value as well. Both in terms of design quality for the adventure (because it adds the ability for the designer to work in three dimensions) and the production value.

 

[Aeolius]

To be fair, this is one of my favorite maps for a dungeon

I am reminded of the Snaggletooth Caverns 3D model from DAZ3D:

 

[The Shaman]

I think you've answered your own question there.

Over the years I've talked many times with professional writers doing background for stories; I wouldn't expect game designers to do less research than other writers.

Also, these sorts of spaces can be very hard to describe, even visually through maps on paper--especially to readers who don't have an experiential basis for visualizing the scene.

But isn't that what a professional writer is supposed to be good at? Setting a scene in your head?

And adventure modules can add a third element - artwork - for complicated presentations.

Yes, it adds cost, but I have to imagine writing modules that not one buys or runs because they're boring crapfests is an even worse business model.