A Return to the Dungeon

[Reynard]

The strength and weakness of daily renewal is that it is predictable. In a traditional dungeon delve, the PCs can decide whether they need to withdraw or continue on. The problem is mostly in non-dungeon adventures when the adventure takes place over many weeks of sparsely spaced encounters (turning "daily" resources into effectively "encounter" resources).

Maybe the right answer (in 4e terms) is to make an extended rest more subjective? Sure, in a dungeon context, you can get an extended rest by holing up or going back to town. But, in a wilderness setting*, maybe a real "extended rest" is only available when you hit a town? That may be a little too gamist, but it comes closer to the right pacing.

yeah. This is an issue in every edition, and alos has the additional side effect of magnifying the power of the spellcasters over the non-casters. If the players' "know" (because of circumstances) that this fight is the only one for the day, they can unload -- but "unloading" means a world of difference between the (pre-4E) fighter and wizard.

On the upside, it means fighters and rogues shine in dungeons. Wizards and clerics have to conserve their resources, and for more than just combat. Unless, of course, they demand a "15 minute adventuring day" -- to which i usually respond with monster interuptus.

In the context of this discussion, perhaps a "per dungeon level" and "per travel period" system could be established. You only get to rest when you've cleared the level, or when you've finished the trek.

 

[Stormonu]

Beyond mere CR/level, you could create "roles" for dungeons, which affects how you have to spend your XP budget. This would also lead into an idea of how big your XP budget is to start with.

Dungeon Size:
Small - 1/4 of the XP the party needs to advance to the next level
Mid - 1/2 of the XP the party needs to advance to the next level
Large - 3/4 of the XP the party needs to advance to the next level
Huge - equal to the XP the party needs to advance to the next level
and so on.

For example, if a party of 5 adventurers needs 2,000 XP each to reach the next level and you choose a mid-sized dungeon (1/2 the XP), that means your working with an overall XP budget of (1/2 x 5 x 2000 =) 5,000 xp worth of encounters to build your dungeon.

Next, you select your dungeon's role:

1) Trap-Laden (Theme: +2 to DCs to spot traps)
----- 50% spent towards traps (2,500 xp)
----- 25% spent towards tricks (1,250 xp)
----- 25% spent towards creatures with "trick" qualities (1,250 xp)

2) Crypt (Theme: Undead are not vulnerable to radiant damage)
----- 50% spent towards undead encounters (2,500 xp)
----- 25% spent towards necrotic traps (1,250 xp)
----- 25% spent towards miscellaneous encounters (1,250 xp)

3) Elemental Node (Theme: One room shifts location after 2 encounters)
----- 50% spent towards elemental themed creatures (2,500 xp)
----- 25% spent towards environmental hazards (1,250 xp)
----- 25% spend towards elemental features/tricks (1,250 xp)

etc.

 

[Stormonu]

After going back and reading some of the threads, I think the model I made above would also help in planning PC resources.

If one were to assume, for example, that a Mid-sized dungeon was standard for the game, you could set play balance so that the group's resources are designed to last through to the end of the dungeon (1/2 the XP in encounters to get to the next level). Thus, if you were running a Huge dungeon, you know you'd need to set up some way for the party to rest about half-way through so they could complete the adventure. With a Small dungeon, you might want to break it into two parts - say the wilderness as a "dungeon", with the second half being the trek through a tower "dungeon", and feel fairly confident the party could traverse both areas before stopping to rest and recuperate.

Also, I'd like to point out the "Themes" I added to the different dungeon roles above. I think themes could go a long way to help differentiate a dungeon - to make it quite unlike experiencing the same encounters in a different dungeon. It would be an aid to help link encounters more closely and perhaps make them seem less like a collection of random, unlinked montage and more of a fluid, well-thought adventure. And they'd always be good to help any writers block a DM may have for providing interesting twists to an adventure.

 

[LostSoul]

One of the things I'm kicking around is a domain management system, something like what I've heard of Kingmaker (though at this point my version is far too much of a stupid sub-game). One of the ideas was that monster lairs would be little domains as well, and they would respond with their own actions. Goblins can Breed, Cultists have Rituals and they can infiltrate and Proselytize, etc.


The idea was to make time a strategic resource.

You could do that with dungeons - each Rest Period to refresh PC resources can trigger a Restock in the dungeon. (I prefer to think of dungeons as "living" entities of their own, as the in the often-referenced Mythic Underworld by Philotomy). A dungeon that reacts and responds as an antagonist could be interesting. It could potentially do things like spew forth monsters, blight the landscape, curse nearby villages, etc.

 

[Victim]

But there could be other ways to track this - for example the "alert state" of the dungeon. If you keep killing monsters and heading back to town to recover hit points and consumables (or to haul off loot), someone in the dungeon is bound to notice the threat by the PCs and start preparing counter-measures. On an abstract level (and still in a D&D 4 context), this could be reflected by increasing the encounter budget, for example. Ultimately, you create a death spiral - the encounters get tougher, and as they get tougher, the party has to retreat earlier. The trick is to also have a mechanic to "reset" the clock or create a safe pacing that the players can figure out.

There's a RTS computer game that works kind of like that. As you blow up important sites for the AI (usually to take over those resources for yourself, or secure a flank), the AI gains progress points that determine how big its attacks are, the size of its reinforcement pool, the tech levels of its ships, etc. But you can bypass or fight through enemy areas, ignoring the special buildings that trigger progress increases, to hit later targets. And you win by killing 2 special buildings, not by controlling the area.

However, the AI also gets points every few minutes and receives reinforcements over time. So the tension between aggression and caution is already built into the alert level system without the need for a extra Patience resource.

Interestingly, you can build one shot super weapons that have an additional cost in progress points. That might be a mechanic worth borrowing to handle some spells/special abilities/magic items. You can cast a spell to deal with problem X, but it can make all the other problems a bit worse - because enemies hear the explosion of a fireball, your magic is detected, etc. You don't use magic less because you have limited juice, and more because using it unwisely can help to dig your own grave.

 

[Lanefan]

Beyond mere CR/level, you could create "roles" for dungeons, which affects how you have to spend your XP budget. This would also lead into an idea of how big your XP budget is to start with.

Dungeon Size:
Small - 1/4 of the XP the party needs to advance to the next level
Mid - 1/2 of the XP the party needs to advance to the next level
Large - 3/4 of the XP the party needs to advance to the next level
Huge - equal to the XP the party needs to advance to the next level
and so on.

For example, if a party of 5 adventurers needs 2,000 XP each to reach the next level and you choose a mid-sized dungeon (1/2 the XP), that means your working with an overall XP budget of (1/2 x 5 x 2000 =) 5,000 xp worth of encounters to build your dungeon.

The only problem with this (but it's a deal-breaker) is that unless you're really riding the railroad you have absolutely no way of knowing which of those encounters the party will actually face; nor how many extra encounters they might go off and find on their own.

To me, despite the obvious thought put into it, this is all over-planning.

Lanefan

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

There's a RTS computer game that works kind of like that. As you blow up important sites for the AI (usually to take over those resources for yourself, or secure a flank), the AI gains progress points that determine how big its attacks are, the size of its reinforcement pool, the tech levels of its ships, etc. But you can bypass or fight through enemy areas, ignoring the special buildings that trigger progress increases, to hit later targets. And you win by killing 2 special buildings, not by controlling the area.

However, the AI also gets points every few minutes and receives reinforcements over time. So the tension between aggression and caution is already built into the alert level system without the need for a extra Patience resource.

Interestingly, you can build one shot super weapons that have an additional cost in progress points. That might be a mechanic worth borrowing to handle some spells/special abilities/magic items. You can cast a spell to deal with problem X, but it can make all the other problems a bit worse - because enemies hear the explosion of a fireball, your magic is detected, etc. You don't use magic less because you have limited juice, and more because using it unwisely can help to dig your own grave.

Interesting. Which one is that?

 

[Greg K]

While I agree, that I don't want D&D based on the encounter, I don't want a return to the dungeon as the basis. I want it based on the adventure. There was an effort by a lot people, as seen in Dragon during the 80's and 90's, to move D&D beyond the dungeon- it was, imo, one of the best things to happen to the game.

 

[LostSoul]

Dungeon Size:
Small - 1/4 of the XP the party needs to advance to the next level
Mid - 1/2 of the XP the party needs to advance to the next level
Large - 3/4 of the XP the party needs to advance to the next level
Huge - equal to the XP the party needs to advance to the next level
and so on.

We seem to be thinking along the same lines. Here are orc lairs from levels 1 through 10:

---------- Level & Population --------
# Appearing		Level	Chieftain	Allies (cumulative)
20			1	--		+1d4 gray wolves
						+1d4 guard drakes
						+1d4 spitting drakes	
25			2	eye of gruumsh	+1 dire wolf		
30			3	bloodrager	--
35			4	bloodrager	+1d6 bloodseeker drakes 
40			5	bloodrager	+1d4 dire wolves
						+1d4 half-orc hunters	
45			6	bloodrager	+1 half-orc death mage	
60			7	chieftain	+1 bloodrager
						+1 wereboar
						+1d4 dire boars
						+1d4 dire wolves
						+1d4 1/2-orc scarthanes	
120			8	chieftain	+1d4 bloodragers
						+1 oni night haunter
						+1d6 ogre savages
						+1d6 ogre skirmishers	
						+1d4 dire wolves	
						+1d4 trolls		
200			9	chieftain	+1 ogre warhulk		
						+1d4 worgs		
						+1d6 bloodragers	
						+1d6 half-orc death mages
						+1d6 1/2-orc scarthanes 
300			10	chieftain	+1 orc chieftain

The reason for the big jumps is that I start counting monsters as minions after a certain point. The numbers don't add up perfectly but close enough.

The reason this isn't a railroad is because you don't care if the PCs fight them or join them or drink tea every Tuesday at 4 PM with them. It helps because you know what they are capable of, what resources they have to draw on.

 

[jmucchiello]

In the context of this discussion, perhaps a "per dungeon level" and "per travel period" system could be established. You only get to rest when you've cleared the level, or when you've finished the trek.

This causes me to imagine a Dragon Mirth style single panel comic with a couple of adventurers on a trail coming across a wooden sign that reads "Next extended rest, 15 miles."