How do YOU design a dungeon?

[Dungeoneer]

Sorry to burst your bubble.

I don't know what bubble you think you've burst. You keep putting words in my mouth that I haven't said and moving the goalposts of what you're arguing. I'm not going to give you a more substantive response because you would probably do the same thing again.

Buh bye.

 

[Celebrim]

You keep putting words in my mouth that I haven't said

You keep saying that. Fine, was I putting words in your mouth when I accused your of arguing against a straw man?

You said: "I honestly don't like the concept of a 'dungeon' very much. The idea that a fantasy world would be populated with random holes full of arbitrary traps and monsters has always seemed silly to me." - emphasis added to highlight in line definition

Equating dungeon with "random holes full of arbitrary traps and monsters" would I think reasonably strike many readers as a straw man.

Was I putting words in your mouth when I suggested that despite your declaration that you didn't like dungeons, you seemed to utilize them? Again, quoting you:

"I tell stories. Sometimes the stories result in the players having to go to a specific location that has a lot of creatures that would like to kill them. I design those locations as the logic of the story dictates."

A specific location that has a lot of creatures that would like to kill the PCs would reasonably strike many readers as a Dungeon, and so it is reasonable I think to see your statements as self-contradiction. So, tell me again how I'm being unreasonable, so that you are justified in firing off a snide comments. You claim that pointing out that straw man and contradiction in your writing is some how me being insulting, but you seem rather disinclined to explain how I'm misinterpreting what you wrote.

And, I think it is reasonable to suggest that most published modules - to say nothing of what most people homebrew - fit more the description of "sometimes the stories result in the players having to go to a specific location that has a lot monster that would like to kill them" than they do "random holes full of arbitrary traps and monsters". This is as I said especially true of most of the material published in the last 30 years. But ok, defend the claim that most professional writers are putting out "random holes full of arbitrary traps and monsters" in place of dungeons and adventures.

And again, I was very careful in phrasing my post. Read it again, I put no words in your mouth. I described what your words put in my ear, nor have you done anything to dissuade me that I've misinterpreted you. Quoting myself:

"It doesn't sound to me like you dislike the idea of a 'dungeon' at all. Instead, you've created this straw man definition of what a 'dungeon' is, and are favorably comparing what you do against that straw man. So maybe what you don't like is a dungeon of a very particular (and in my opinion rather rare) sort, but it doesn't sound like you dislike the concept of a dungeon generally."

So if you say I've put lots of words in your mouth in that quotation, please find them. That should be an easy challenge.

and moving the goalposts of what you're arguing.

Exactly where did I move the goal posts? Can you back that up with a quote. I'm pretty sure I've focused on what I see as your self-contradiction the whole time. It's not insulting to ask someone to explain their logic when they make self-contradictory claims. I'm certainly not putting words in your mouth to examine the plain meaning of what you write, nor did your explanation seem to contradict my understanding of what you wrote. From your explanation it seems you really do think the definition of dungeon is "random hole full of arbitrary traps and monsters". From your explanation it seems you really do think that all or nearly all published modules lack story elements. After all, you did say, "Pick a module", as if any module I picked would meet your straw man definition. If I tell you that I don't think that those are defensible claims, it's not "putting words in your mouth" or "moving the goal posts", nor does your passive aggression make for a satisfying rebuttal.

 

[howandwhy99]

When you get down to it, what you describe is still jumping up and down with your hands waving in the air screaming, "Heh, players!!! Priorities and objectives this way!!! Get your priorities and objectives here!!" It's almost inevitable, especially early in the unfolding of a setting, that you will have and the players will need that sort of signpost or map or guide, telling them which roads that they can start off on.

That's like believing living in our actual universe means there are predetermined goals and paths for us. That because there is an existent exterior reality the "gods" have determined our purposes. I don't really agree, but I'll concede it's possible.

I don't construct the game board to include everything. I build to support the roles, classes, the game is designed to enable the players to play. That means I cover everything from a fighter angle, magic user one, cleric, and thief. I have plenty of other elements in support as well, but they aren't the focus of the game because they aren't within the roles being played.

 

[Celebrim]

That's like believing living in our actual universe means there are predetermined goals and paths for us. That because there is an existent exterior reality the "gods" have determined our purposes. I don't really agree, but I'll concede it's possible.

I'm not seeing how you got from what I said to this. I wasn't commenting on an actual universe. The actual universe has features the game universe doesn't have. The game universe has features the actual universe doesn't have. I would think that is fairly obvious.

There are several important differences between the game universe and the real universe that are pertinent to what I said. First, the game universe is inherently limited and incomplete compared to the real universe. Most of the game universe has never been observed, imagined, or described. It exists in a fuzzy, mutable, and often quite vague state. Secondly, whatever you think about whether this universe has a Storyteller, it's abundantly clear that the game universe has a Storyteller/GM/DM and that the game only exists in the interplay between the players. Thirdly, you are probably going to spend 70-80 years in the real universe, and the real universe seems to take no particular interest in whether any sort of literary story or adventure happens to you in that time. By contrast, the game universe has a fairly limited schedule, we only get together to play every so often and for a limited time. Most participants are eager to fill that time with a fun game of some sort rather than recreating the moment by moment realism of the real universe.

The truth is that because the game universe is an inherently thinner stream of sensation than the real universe, whatever the GM relates to the players in their narration acts as a huge flashing signpost that attracts the player's attention in ways that the real universe rarely does. We as a DM may imagine that the PC's are visiting a large metropolis of 150,000 people, and have in our minds eye what that is like. But in point of fact, the PC's aren't seeing every shop, citizen, bar, pub, pack animal, cart, pile of manure, curtained window, and cloud unless we explicitly describe them to the players. Whatever few seconds of narration we use to provoke the players to draw that scene in their mind is everything that the PC's see and becomes hugely more realized than all the rest of the vague city that may or may not have any sort of definition. Players are naturally going to grab on to whatever cues we give them, or that they think they have been given, and run with them because that is where the reality and sensation is to be found.

What I'm saying is that the GM is the exterior and interior reality of the game and he cannot help but steer the players of the game by what you choose to or choose not to narrate. The amount of exposition required to give the players a truly unfettered choice is too extensive to be gameable. The players can of course provide feedback through querying the environment, but it's really up to the DM to say, "Yes! Priorities and objectives this way! Step right up!" The image I'm appealing to here is of a crier at a market, or a barker at a carnival. The DM is always and inevitably putting a highlight on some choices. When you say some thing that sounds like an adventure hook, you might as well be draping that sentence in flashing lights: "Adventure! Suspense! Treasure! Low Prices! Come and buy (in)!"

 

[MJS]

1. Draw Map
2. Put red dragon in largest room near end. Bonus points: have exit for dragon
3. For all other rooms, improv descriptions and/or randomly flip to MM when it seems like its time for a monster
4. Whenever a PC checks for traps, place a trap
5. Order pizza
6. Watch 'em die

joking of course, I tend more towards as much internal consistency as possible, with a dash of whimsy. It's an organic process, generally built around its locale and denizens.

 

[howandwhy99]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] I don't have time to talk to you today. Needless to say I have had players stuck in your kind of thinking, always looking for what they are supposed to do, sharing with me, the referee, things they are thinking like I'm a player, jumping on the motivations of the NPCs believing they are the plots to follow, looking for a wink or nod or listening to the inflection of my voice as if I'm trying to reveal the "right" thing to do. I have no goals or paths for them. If they choose to follow a road because it's there, they may. If they choose to blaze there own, they may. It's up to them.

 

[Celebrim]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] I don't have time to talk to you today. Needless to say I have had players stuck in your kind of thinking...

Oh dear. I don't think you understand what I'm saying at all. I've been doing this for 30 years now. In that time, 90% of my gaming has been as the DM. So when you address me as a 'player', you really don't know me. Moreover, as a player, my play varies pretty radically depending on the style of the DM. My general philosophy of gaming is, "Be the DM that you would want to have if you were a player. Be the kind of player that the GM would want to have." So I'm not even sure you can peg a particular mindset on me as a player, because I'm pretty cooperative I think. If the GM expects players to hack and slash and do old school style dungeon exploration, I'll do that and be happy doing it. If the GM expects thespianism and player initiated melodrama, I'll do that and be happy doing it. If the GM is running an adventure path and wants me to ride the rails to adventure and good times, then I'll happily do that to.

That said...

, always looking for what they are supposed to do, sharing with me, the referee, things they are thinking like I'm a player, jumping on the motivations of the NPCs believing they are the plots to follow, looking for a wink or nod or listening to the inflection of my voice as if I'm trying to reveal the "right" thing to do. I have no goals or paths for them. If they choose to follow a road because it's there, they may. If they choose to blaze there own, they may. It's up to them.

The above description doesn't give me nearly enough to go on to tell me what sort of DM you are. As I said, I've been doing this 30 years and I've seen a lot of different styles at the table, different approaches to the game, and a lot of different skill levels in the DM and a lot of different skill sets that DM's exceled at. I have a pretty idea what you are trying to achieve based on that statement, or what you think you are trying to achieve, but no idea how it comes out at the table or how you go about implementing your goals. What you said is so vague, that at a very broad level I could say, "Sure. Sounds great. That's exactly what I believe and how I manage a game as well." No where in anything that I wrote did I say that there was a 'right thing to do' that I had chosen for the PC's. Although I'm not sure that my players yet realize the extent of their freedom, I can safely say that my current campaign embodies that idea par excellence. It's not merely up to the players to 'save the world'. It's up to the players to decide what 'saving the world' actually means. In this case, I can assuredly say that as the referee I'm not sure what the right thing to do is, because me as a person is uncertain what the right thing to do is. The entire campaign is filled with my own ethical dilemmas about my own world.

But if the party were to turn off any of those roads and go heading out in to the undiscovered country, they'd be free to do that too. The fact that that is true, doesn't alter the truth of what I stated above.