Dungeon layout, map flow and old school game design

[Psion]

It helps when, with experience, you get good at disguising linearity a bit. Bending, twisting, the third dimension, etc. can help, as can the occasional branch or self-contained loop.

I think the thing to keep in mind about linear versus branching or looping design is this: with linear design, the flow of play is predictable (which has upsides and downsides.) The less linear you are, the more randomized the number and nature of the encounters is, and you get things like two different groups reporting entirely different experiences. Non-linearity essentially randomizes the number of encounters in the game.

This can be important if you are trying to manage your time. Nobody wants to be stuck in the middle of a dungeon on the last game before a vacation. On the other hand, I have no problems pulling out a nice branching/looping dungeon like Rappan Athuk or Undermountain if I am just interested in running a few encounters and kicking back with some friends, and am not really concerned about reaching a goal at the end.

THAT SAID, I use Undermountain in a fairly linear goal-oriented fashion fairly frequently, simply by providing maps and guides. So sometimes, the wall and corridons don't tell the whole story.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Shouldn't parties that are good at finding treasure find more than parties that suck at it? Isn't that what the search skill is for?

Ken

As far as secret doors goes, well, we run into the idea that adventures should be loaded up with two or three times as much treasure because the PC's will only find half of it. Unfortunately, that assumption shouldn't be made by game designers. If I assume that the party will only find half the treasure and your adventuring party finds 90% of it, then my module has just taken a nice big doo doo in the middle of your campaign.

 

[Hussar]

Shouldn't parties that are good at finding treasure find more than parties that suck at it? Isn't that what the search skill is for?

Ken

I dunno, I use search for all sorts of things - finding traps, maps, non-coin kinds of stuff.

If a module contains three times the wealth that is appropriate for the level, but assumes that the party will only find a third of it, I would say that that's a poor design. Those additional rooms are either filler for parties that don't enjoy going over everything with a fine tooth comb or they pretty much consign a game to the halls of Monty if the party does.

I would say that adventures that take a big dump in the middle of my campaign are poorly designed regardless of the maps that generated them.

 

[Mark]

As far as secret doors goes, well, we run into the idea that adventures should be loaded up with two or three times as much treasure because the PC's will only find half of it.

I don't think that's the assumption. Treasure needs to be spread around, IMO, near where a challenge is overcome and in appropriate measure to those challenges. If you don't get beyond a secret door, you don't face the challenges beyond that secret door, and don't glean the rewards. However, the challenges prior to a secret door need to have their own rewards. I've never been one to pile all the treasure up at the end of an adventure. Sometimes, too, it is good to dole out some specific treasure near the beginning to be sure the group has the tools and resources to overcome later challenges. Of course, it needs to be decided what incarnation or form such treasure takes but all DMs and designers are clever by birth, right?

 

[T. Foster]

If a module contains three times the wealth that is appropriate for the level, but assumes that the party will only find a third of it, I would say that that's a poor design. Those additional rooms are either filler for parties that don't enjoy going over everything with a fine tooth comb or they pretty much consign a game to the halls of Monty if the party does.

What if the dungeon contains double the wealth that is appropriate for the level but hides two thirds of it, so that a careless party that doesn't find any of the hidden treasure comes out poorer than what's appropriate, a reasonably thorough party (that recovers 1/4 of the hidden treasure) comes out even, and a very thorough (or just lucky) party that recovers half the hidden treasure comes out a bit ahead of what's appropriate? That seems pretty reasonable to me -- punishing careless play and rewarding careful play.

As for the theoretical party that is so thorough that they discover all of the hidden treasure, there are already correcting mechanisms within the rules (the OD&D and 1E rules (which are the only ones I know) at least) for this -- more time spent searching equals more wandering monster checks; encumbrance means you can only carry so much treasure now matter how much you find; experience caps mean if you get too many XP (more than enough to go up 1 level) the extra amount is wasted; the measure of challenge system means if you dawdle facing opponents that aren't your equal you get reduced XP awards. Combining all of these factors, skillful players will recognize that trying to recover every last bit of hidden treasure has a poor cost:benefit ratio and they're better off recovering just enough treasure to get to the next level and then moving on to bigger challenges (with corresponding richer rewards).

Plus, the fact that the dungeon isn't stripped totally bare makes it reusable -- unrecovered treasures remaining on the first dungeon level while the main party is busy exploring dungeon level 4 means a second group of players (or a second set of characters for the original players) can explore dungeon level 1 and find the treasure that the first party missed without the DM having to turn back the clock or "magically" restock the place. The fact that as the second group explores they'll see evidence of the first group's passage helps create the atmosphere of the "living dungeon" that is so vital to the ongoing mega-dungeon style campaign.

 

[riprock]

Monsters Moving in Loops

A loop certainly makes it more possible for creatures to move about in less predictable ways. That can make for a fun portion of an adventure -- when you loop back to what you think is an explored region to find it is newly inhabited!

I really like the original article. I feel one of the things that gives D&D a great deal of atmosphere is the fact that the aesthetics of dungeon exploration are unlike anything in history -- it combines the thrill of an archaeologist opening King Tut's tomb with the thrill of a commando killing enemies on a mission. If you are preserving that weird thrill, then dungeons with lots of exploration and loops are great. (Also passwall and divination spells are powerful!)

The original article reminded me a lot of Deus Ex's level design -- the original Deus Ex was designed so that there would be at least three ways to get to any interesting detail. That way, there is a stealthy way, a gun bunny way, etc. Even if a player is bad at one game skill, he can probably have a fair chance to find the neat stuff.

Also, the original article made me recall my first criticism of dungeons is that living things don't like to live in holes with just one entrance. Rabbits, dogs, humans -- all of us are smart enough to make sure we have a back door to run out in case the front door is blocked. Many linear modules put in escape routes, but they cheat because they don't have exits labelled on the map. You could comb the wilderness and never find the escape route exit.

If dungeons have multiple entrance/exits, then maneuver becomes more realistic and more fun.

Getting to Eric Noah's quote above, moving monsters do indeed move in loops. Consider the way humans use a fairly large suburban house. They have a front door, a garage door, a back door, and they use them at different times for different purposes.

If I have one "lesson learned" from D&D maps, it's that it can be hard to balance challenge with survivability.

E.g. if the dungeon is fairly realistic and the monsters have an alarm system (e.g. a gong or drum as suggested in the AD&D books) then it's usually easy for a group of monsters to surround invaders and crush them with overwhelming force.

My own history with D&D is that I tended to start with dungeon exploration and move on to more outdoor adventures with a large maneuver warfare element, where cavalry tactics became very prominent. However, as I progressed, I lost the characteristic thrill of D&D -- I lost the "archaeologist" thrill and only got the "commando" thrill.

I am a very big fan of immersion in RPGs. Immersion is easily lost in wargames and combat simulations. D&D's weird thrill -- combining the archaeologist, the commando, etc. -- often was rooted in very atmospheric modules which really produced a "sense of place" in the reader.

 

[Ourph]

If I assume that the party will only find half the treasure and your adventuring party finds 90% of it, then my module has just taken a nice big doo doo in the middle of your campaign.

So many people have commented about having to strip much of the treasure out of those old modules because they were so overloaded. I don't think that they are complaining for nothing.

Well DUH!!! What do you think Rust Monsters are for? (kidding )

 

[Melan]

If a module contains three times the wealth that is appropriate for the level, but assumes that the party will only find a third of it, I would say that that's a poor design. Those additional rooms are either filler for parties that don't enjoy going over everything with a fine tooth comb or they pretty much consign a game to the halls of Monty if the party does.

I would say that adventures that take a big dump in the middle of my campaign are poorly designed regardless of the maps that generated them.

You are still operating from the assumptions that
a) a party's wealth has to be balanced by level and player skill should not be a significant factor;
b) a dungeon will be designed for one use only, strip-mined of loot and encounters, and never revisited.
Naturally, there is no accounting for taste, but neither assumptions should be taken as evident.

riprock: good first post!

 

[Treebore]

Hussar,

You were really starting to annoy me with all your argumentative attitudes on so many posts, but then it just hit me you are one of those people who likes to argue to see if anything truly brilliant comes out if it. You'll even argue positions you don't personally agree with just to see if who your arguing with can give you an interesting new perspective.

Now I think your A OK.

You going to GenCon? I am. Lets see if we can share a drink at the Ram. Do some friendly arguing. We'll have to keep our language pretty clean, though. My daughter is coming with me.

 

[Hussar]

You are still operating from the assumptions that
a) a party's wealth has to be balanced by level and player skill should not be a significant factor;
b) a dungeon will be designed for one use only, strip-mined of loot and encounters, and never revisited.
Naturally, there is no accounting for taste, but neither assumptions should be taken as evident.

riprock: good first post!

After we've cleared out the baddies, why would we keep going back? Take Keep on the Borderlands for example. After I've gone through all the caves, why would I go back? Actually, after I've gone through a given cave, what reason would I have for going back?

As far as party's wealth being balanced by level, I would think that that's a self evident goal. Monty Haul campaigns have existed since the game started and have been universally condemned. Sure, it might be fun for my 3rd level character to be waltzing around with a Frost Brand, but, generally, that's considered a bad thing.

If playing in Module X means that every adventure that I use afterwards has to be massively adjusted upwards because Module X has far too much treasure, then, well, I would never say that Module X is well designed.

An adventure shouldn't screw over every other following adventure.