Dungeon Level = Monster Level?

[DMZ2112]

Oh, I don't know. I think it depends on the particular metaphysics of your campaign world. If monsters are exuded from the deeper darkness below (more manifestations than species) and, rather than merely being extensions of the surface world, dungeons are the spaces below the fields men know where the deeper you go the more strange and perilous things become, then the conceit works quite well.

This is one of my (unreasonable) complaints about 13th Age -- the 13th Age setting does this sort of thing, and it is so... conceptual, that I can't picture myself ever running a "serious" campaign there. It's just one of my personal hang ups -- I can't have wizards pulling orcs fully grown from the mud, I need there to be female orcs and baby orcs and orc food and orc privies because that is how living things do.

That said, I do love the humor of the writing. The bit about the tarrasque getting stepped on by the Koru behemoth is just gold.

 

[the Jester]

I wouldn't call this "advice" so much as "playstyle." Because, well, advice is for taking a better course of action, right? I'm not sure that meaner monsters, as you get further below ground level, is a better course for dungeon design.

I would argue that it is if one of the primary conceits of the game is that the players will be able to assess the level of danger they want to face, expecting better treasure (on the whole) when facing bigger dangers. The correlation between dungeon and monster level then becomes an important part of that assessment.

In early D&D (up to 1e and maybe 2e), there was a sense that wilderness adventures were more dangerous because the pcs might encounter anything, within their capabilities to defeat or otherwise, as long as it was appropriate to the area.