The Lost Art of Dungeon-Crawling

There is a certain type of adventure that in recent years seems to have fallen out of popularity: dungeons.

There is a certain type of adventure that in recent years seems to have fallen out of popularity: dungeons.

not-dead-3525140_960_720.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

"I Look Up!"

The release of several old D&D modules got me looking at some of these old original adventures, and they are quite eye-opening on the subject of dungeon design. These are the first games of D&D we played and while some are a little dated, it's easy to see why they kept us playing. While almost everything in those adventures was dangerous, there was magic and mystery in the rooms you found. There were rooms with strange orbs suspended from the ceiling; mysterious indoor gardens full of medicinal plants, poison and monsters; ghostly feasts that share a tragic history; and mysterious keys guarded with fiendish traps.

I think I know why dungeons fell out of vogue. Way back in the early 80s we discovered city adventuring. Modules then became quests or investigations across a cityscape full of NPCs and role-play opportunities with all manner of details and cultures. This new way of gaming outside a maze opened a whole new sandbox. This change in adventure design opened new vistas for adventurers, but crowded out the traditional dungeon crawl as a result.

A Return to Form

Luckily, in recent years we have seen a more interesting return to dungeons. More designers are coming back to them and trying to break the myth. Mork Borg has its share and a other ‘old school’ games have sought to blow the dust off the idea of raiding underground facilities. Its fun to dive into these lairs once again, and a simple diversion from what has become the usual kind of game. While I’m certainly more on the side of narrative play and character interaction, sometimes it is nice to know that you just need to pick a door rather than work out the villain’s plot and craft an elegant plan (that one of the players may just ignore anyway).

If you are thinking of crafting a dungeon of your own, here's a few pointers.

Give the Place A Reason

Whether it is an old ruin or an underground laboratory, make sure the dungeon has a reason to exist and some sort of history. A hole in the ground isn’t very interesting so give it a back-story, even just a small one. It might be a tomb, an old ruin creatures have taken over or a lab where magic went wrong. It need not be especially clever, just as long as you can place it in your setting.

A Dungeon Need Not Be an Actual Dungeon

What you are creating is a place full of rooms linked with doors and corridors, so it need not be underground. A house or a castle is basically the same, as is a sky city, large airship, underwater citadel or even a walled in town (put a roof on real world Venice and you have an epic dungeon).

Don’t Construct It with Only One Path

When you are making a lot of cool stuff it is very tempting to make sure none of it gets missed. But you should avoid the temptation for having only one path through the dungeon that takes in every room. If the player characters miss out rooms 34-48, you can use them in the next adventure. Nothing is wasted. But if you insist they follow one path you are ruining the fun of exploring a dungeon and taking away the agency of choice. If you offer several different paths, when they enter the room of certain death you can point out with a clear conscience that they didn’t have to open the black door with the skull on the front.

Corridors Are Rooms Too

Don’t reserve encounters just for rooms. They can happen anywhere in the dungeon, in corridors, on stairwells; anywhere the player characters don’t expect one.

Add Some Mystery Not Just Monsters

While you will need a few monsters to fight to gain some treasure, put in traps and just weird stuff too. Not everything need be deadly, just something weird to make the player characters think can be fun too, if only to cross a room (the Crystal Maze will be a big help here). With magic in the world you can put some very odd places in a dungeon. Just imagine something that would look strange and enticing when they open the door and then figure out what it does. It might be a room full of glass spheres, a garden with odd looking plants, a table set for a feast with only statues as guests. The weirder the room the more the player characters will be intrigued.

Make Sure There Are A Variety of Encounters

This relates to the above; don’t rely on one sort of encounter. Make sure you have a mixture of traps, monsters, weird rooms and role play encounters. Try to avoid having the same type of room twice in a row if you can.

Don’t Skimp on the Role-Play

Even dragons might chat; just because it is a dungeon doesn't mean there are opportunities to role play. Trapped creatures, intelligent monsters under a curse or a contract and even the odd guard might be talked to as easily as fought. You can let the player character make this decision, by who they choose to attack on sight. But remind them that they can talk their way out of situations as well.

Make Every Door Worth Opening

If you do the job right, each door the player characters come across will fill them with a mixture of fear and anticipation. What lies beyond this door, a trap, a fearful death, untold riches or wild magic? If a room or encounter doesn’t’ feel that interesting to you, cut it from your dungeon. Maybe consider it a little and use it later on when you’ve made it work better. A dungeon need not be a sprawl, and a shorter one has the advantage of potentially allowing the player characters to escape and try another one some other day.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Andrew Peregrine

Andrew Peregrine

kenada

Legend
Supporter
Read Winter’s Daughter module (available in 5e and OSE), then get back to me.
It already has that balance, and WOTC ain’t meeting it. This is by a small outfit as well, not a massive company, so I’m not giving them a break or making allowances for them relying on community good will to do the heavy lifting...
I agree, and as much as I like Necrotic Gnome’s adventures, I don’t think people would want to read them for leisure. I think it was James Jacobs who commented on the Paizo forums years ago that more people run adventures than read them. I assume the same holds true for WotC as well as Paizo adventures. I can understand why they would prioritize readers when adventures are a major source of revenue (even though it makes them more difficult to use in practice). However, even if they were better keyed, I still would not want to run Paizo or WotC adventures again. The key is the least of their problems.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You can do that. But then the PCs encounter the same stuff whatever way they go. It's not a sandbox, it a railroad in which the DM puts the rails down just ahead of the players.

Which is why you buy a product like CoS.

Thing about that map - lots of stuff on it is identical. Why would I choose to go to Ravengard rather than Sanguine? Meaningless choices are meaningless.
The way in which you use the words railroad and sandbox and meaningless choices suggest they don’t mean what you think they mean...

Those locations are not identical, nor are they meaningless. Players would want to go there based on rumours they have, or quest leads. The map is just one of the tools to express a sense of space.
 


If you haven't detailed a location before the players arrive, how can there be leads or rumours about what is there?
Because this is what you put in the prep. In the areas closer to the players, when you make a location, you might write a line. This gives you inspiration for what you want and the ability to seed rumours.
The closer you get, the more detail you flesh out.
This can also be done as hoc in play as well, the players might do or say something that gives you the opportunity to provide a hook to another place.
 

Schmoe

Adventurer
See, I was tempted earlier to mention Quasqueton from B1 in search of the unknown. I think anyone who is curious about old school dungeon crawls should read this module as I feel it is the archetypal dungeon crawl. It has everything a good dungeon should have.

Note, it’s not perfect, it does have issues, but it was designed in such a way that it has the things I labelled earlier as good practice. It has variety, it incorporates exploration , it has space, it has interactivity, environmental story telling etc...

It certainly does have all of those elements, although I'd say that there are much better examples. Quasqueton is a good introductory start for people trying to learn the mechanics of the game, but it's also very bare bones. The puzzle aspect is particularly sparse and requires a lot of DM input to create some meaning.

An earlier poster commented that there are two ways to use dungeons. In one, the dungeon is part of the adventure. In the other, the dungeon is the adventure. I really like that construction, as it leads to two very different types of games. Dungeons are great as an obstacle that stands in the way of a goal, but there's something magical about exploring and conquering a dungeon "just because"*.


* - and for loot, of course :)
 

Schmoe

Adventurer
What is a linear dungeon to people? Is Moria a linear dungeon as it is presented in LotR? After all, there is just the main entrance and the back entrance, and maybe a couple of small secret ways in and out. The Fellowship had the goal of getting from one entrance to the other, regardless of how immensely huge the interior is. Is that linear because they had a goal and a limited amount of time to get through, which prevented them from doing any side exploration?

But on the main topic, I hope that dungeons that are more like mazes, and which have no theme, with just a bunch of random things in random rooms, and random monsters with no reason to be there or ability to even get out of their rooms, die and never come back. Those were alright when I was still a teen and first playing AD&D in the 80's, but I, and most people I played with, matured past that kind of adventure as we got older. We want the dungeons to make sense and have an actual purpose for whoever, or whatever, controls them. Now, this is about small to medium-sized dungeons. Mega-dungeons are a unique animal, in that entire sections or levels can have their own theme and purpose and just be loosely connected to the overall location.

I highlighted a couple parts of your post. I'll just say that I strongly disagree with your characterization. It's fine that you've decided you don't like that type of game. However, plenty of people do, and it really has nothing to do with maturity.

Also, as transmission89 mentioned, Moria is absolutely not a linear dungeon. It's a mega-dungeon that could take a lifetime to explore. It just so happens that the company of the ring had a single-minded goal, so they had a single path through to reach their goal. That's an example of a dungeon as part of an adventure which, honestly, will tend to lead to much more linear experiences. Go in, find the target, and get out. You need space in an adventure or campaign for exploration, just as you need space in a dungeon or wilderness.
 

Because this is what you put in the prep. In the areas closer to the players, when you make a location, you might write a line. This gives you inspiration for what you want and the ability to seed rumours.
The closer you get, the more detail you flesh out.
This can also be done as hoc in play as well, the players might do or say something that gives you the opportunity to provide a hook to another place.
This is what I would call "making it up as you go along", not a sandbox.

In order for something to be a sandbox there needs so be meaningful choices. I.e. If the party decides to do A, then they are deciding not to do B and C. If B and C do not exist you cannot choose not to do them. You cannot have a sandbox without redundancy.
 

This is what I would call "making it up as you go along", not a sandbox.

In order for something to be a sandbox there needs so be meaningful choices. I.e. If the party decides to do A, then they are deciding not to do B and C. If B and C do not exist you cannot choose not to do them. You cannot have a sandbox without redundancy.
Again, your use of those words show a startling lack of understanding of those concepts for someone who has such a strong opinion on them.

1) No definition of a sandbox includes explicit mention of meaningful choices anyway. This is because of :
2) Having meaningful choices is not a feature exclusive to sandboxes.
3) B and C do exist in this scenario. Just because they are not fleshed out, does not mean they are empty.
4) Your expectations of a sandbox would preclude a campaign ever getting off the ground with the DM being required to fully detail his entire world before play could even commence.
5) Even were they to just be names on a page, that exists in the same space as in more linear campaigns, nothing really exists until the players experience it. Under your definition, even a more linear campaign would fall under heavy railroad territory because the DM has not fully fleshed everything out yet. Which means you can’t occupy this position A argument.
Position B is if, as a DM, you have already fleshed everything out fully in a more linear campaign, you have not written a campaign, you have written a story. Which means if you are position B, you have become the thing you’ve railed against.
 


Reynard

Legend
This is what I would call "making it up as you go along", not a sandbox.

In order for something to be a sandbox there needs so be meaningful choices. I.e. If the party decides to do A, then they are deciding not to do B and C. If B and C do not exist you cannot choose not to do them. You cannot have a sandbox without redundancy.
I think in this scenario, B and C exist, they just aren't necessarily fleshed out. That's the job of the improvisational GM. And maybe B and C (and all the way to Z) exist as possibilities on a random encounter chart. Just because they aren't certain doesn't mean they don't exist.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top