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.

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

It turns out there's a good preview of an example encounter key for Winter's Daughter on the Necrotic Gnome website. It's really good!
DriveThruRPG also has previews of the updated version (now in color). The other adventures (The Hole in the Oak, The Incandescent Grottoes, The Isle of the Plangent Mage, The Halls of the Blood King) also indicate where the monsters are on the maps, which is a nice way of visually depicting adversary rosters.

It actually acts on a lot of the advice I've read from Justin Alexander's blog about encounter keys.
I think that’s an OSR thing. I’ve seen a few other blog posts and some discussion on r/osr about it as well. I agree though. Justin’s advice greatly influenced how I keyed my dungeons, and Winter’s Daughter was like the answer I needed to the last few issues I was trying to iron out.

I have to see these nice keys have spoiled me. I was reading through the orange cover version of Palace of the Silver Princess this evening to see if I can use it somewhere in my hexcrawl. That was rough (but it looks like I’ll be able to after rekeying it and making some changes). 😅
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Yes, heaven forfend a DM must do more than simply read and blindly carry out what is in an adventure without thought.
If the adventure's written well enough this should be exactly what a DM can do if she wants: the adventure should more or less run itself as written, leaving the DM free to tweak things only to fit the particular campaign.

Alas, very few published adventures achieve this standard.
An Adventure is simply the barest script written in a generic way as the writer cannot account for individual party variation or every conceivable action.
Individual party variation is not in the writer's purview.

As for accounting for every conceivable action; while hitting every one isn't possible, a well-written adventure should at least try to account for some of the more obvious things, even as simple as NOT writing up the boxed text assuming the PCs will enter from one specific direction when there's four different ways into the room!
They can tell you what’s in a room, but it’s down to the DM to breathe life into his NPCs and dungeon. So no, I wouldn’t give the DM a pass here.

Now certainly, there could be an argument made that it is incumbent on the adventure to make all the necessary information as accessible as possible to make it easier for our DMs.
Agreed on both of these.
 

But you aren't paying someone to do the prep work.
Yes I am.
You are paying someone to design the adventure, the story around it, draw the maps and so on.
That is the prep work, or about 95-99% of it.
Most of those things are necessary to some degree or another for you to do the prep work, but they aren't themselves the prep work. The reason it is often more work to prep a pre-written adventure is because you don't already hold the context in your head. You have to discover the context and then prep it.
Other than slotting the adventure into your ongoing campaign (which is IME almost always somewhere between easy and trivially easy) what other prep do you need?
The best "old" adventures presented a bunch of context (background, etc...) separately, followed by a list of what was where in the adventure locale. They weren't trying to entertain the reader, they were trying to provide the GM with the information necessary in order to entertain the players.
IMO the best "old" adventures gave the absolute minimum background possible. When they did, it meant less work for me, as nearly all the written background wouldn't necessarily apply to my campaign and thus I'd have to strip it out anyway.

This was always my biggest issue with Pathfinder adventures. They did some excellent adventures, other than in a 64-page booklet there'd be 20 pages of adventure mixed in with 44 pages of useless-to-me backstory.
 

The Dungeon Crawl works best if you design it yourself; otherwise I find that "isolated" designs of the type such as my Bottle City, Garden of the Plantmaster, Beyond the Living Room, etc. are good for inclusion and use in pre-existing campaigns as they can be inserted anywhere without intruding much on the base structure of a personally crafted area and its history. So less backgrounding is needed with this approach while a little shoe-horning suffices. All three named above are actually huge, detailed set-pieces in one sense, as is Cairn of the Skeleton King where you adventure in a Royal Tomb complex to kill a King who has been necro'd back to un-life.

This is also why Castle Greyhawk, as designed by Gary and myself, may or may not have worked for some or others. It was built to playtest the rules so it grew fast (we had to playtest/view (in order to describe) level progression and alignment, the latter being one of the reasons I turned Robilar evil, as an aside). So Cs Greyhawk was thinly described in places, although P. Stormberg (Curator of the Gygax Estate as well as my estate) claims that my levels/areas were more detailed, although by today's standards they would be considered skeletal. This seminal view of personal use (wherein much was contained in our heads and/or was expanded upon as areas were engaged) worked for us and our players but not for a movement to mass use products. Fortunately I had (intuitively) ascertained that constructing a dungeon in this manner allowed for isolated areas to manifest (how could they not?) and thus started deigning thematic set pieces (Machine level, Boreal Level, Bottle City,Horsing Around (huge Grecian Mythos) et al); in fact Gary's and my last unfinished level (we usually did levels separately) is a thematic set piece we contrived for Dragons, a huge affair in our conception.

So is there a rhyme or reason here? That two mad wizards would construct such an edifice to test outlier adventurers for their own morbid amusements? Not really. It is a construct to cover for the need to playtest the game then; and out of which parts could be mined and put into a more "appropriate" context, as far as "appropriate" has any relation with the fantastic.
 

I think there is a lot less tolerance for an adventure based on a dungeon. From what I see now players want more roleplay and more story. We have been spoilt with Pathfinder APs and campaigns like Curse of Strahd. Incidentally Castle Ravenloft was the least engaging part of that campaign!

5 Room dungeons are the ideal for me going forward. For instance where possible I will break dungeons down into separate locations if I can. Undermountain is a thing of the past for me. Though I would like another go at Rappan Athak just for the street cred!
 

I think there is a lot less tolerance for an adventure based on a dungeon. From what I see now players want more roleplay and more story. We have been spoilt with Pathfinder APs and campaigns like Curse of Strahd. Incidentally Castle Ravenloft was the least engaging part of that campaign!

5 Room dungeons are the ideal for me going forward. For instance where possible I will break dungeons down into separate locations if I can. Undermountain is a thing of the past for me. Though I would like another go at Rappan Athak just for the street cred!
I think it’s more that people want a mix of play. Some combat, some exploration, some mystery, some interaction. Dungeoncrawls are kind of synonymous with all combat, all the time. There might be a few traps, there might be a few NPCs to interact with...but it’s all combat, all the time otherwise. To me, that’s about the most boring thing you could do with D&D.
 

I think it’s more that people want a mix of play. Some combat, some exploration, some mystery, some interaction. Dungeoncrawls are kind of synonymous with all combat, all the time. There might be a few traps, there might be a few NPCs to interact with...but it’s all combat, all the time otherwise. To me, that’s about the most boring thing you could do with D&D.
Well I think they include a lot of exploration as well. It’s not exploration... Dr Livingston’s style... but it’s exploration nevertheless.

The options for roleplay are just limited. Playing dungeon factions off against one another isn’t really cutting it.
 


I think it’s more that people want a mix of play. Some combat, some exploration, some mystery, some interaction. Dungeoncrawls are kind of synonymous with all combat, all the time. There might be a few traps, there might be a few NPCs to interact with...but it’s all combat, all the time otherwise. To me, that’s about the most boring thing you could do with D&D.
I think this misconception mostly arises from computer game dungeon crawlers (Diablo as well as MMO "raids"), as well as the fact that man of the early well known D&D dungeon modules were designed for tournament play and so had more combat than might otherwise have occurred. When I think of dungeon crawling, I think of exploration first. Sure, you are going to fight some monsters but that's hardly the point of the exercise. (Unless it is and that's what your table wants.)

As it relates to role-playing opportunities, I think a lot of people forget that role-playing between the players is, in fact role-playing and is just as rewarding, if not more, than chatting up the shopkeeper. Moreover, the failure to recognize this belies a problem I think is growing increasingly common and worse in the modern gaming landscape: many players seem to think that the GM is there to serve up entertainment to the players like a TV show or film, instead of facilitating fun for everyone involved. There's just a hint of entitlement in "working factions against each other isn't good enough." Now, everyone has their preferences, but I think complaints of this sort are at least partially a result of the Mercer Effect.
 

many players seem to think that the GM is there to serve up entertainment to the players like a TV show or film, instead of facilitating fun for everyone involved. There's just a hint of entitlement in "working factions against each other isn't good enough." Now, everyone has their preferences, but I think complaints of this sort are at least partially a result of the Mercer Effect.
I think the GM is there to serve up entertainment like a RPG.

That involves giving them something to get their teeth into beyond rooms filled with creatures.

Dungeons struggle to deal very well with events. As a result of being fixed places, largely waiting for Players to interact with them.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top