A Return to the Dungeon

[KidSnide]

b) re: dungeon as adventure. At its core, a dungeon is simply a group of rooms filled with monsters and treasure. It could theoretically be one long tunnel with rooms for encounters and a boss at the end. Whether a PC goes "left" or "right" in a maze becomes largely irrelevant, as most players are smart enough to "follow the wall" until they find what they're looking for. A dungeon as an adventure is little different than a wilderness adventure (in a dungeon, your choices of direction are more limited, but the end result of getting from 'A' to 'boss' is still the same), save for the actual setting itself.

It's certainly true that plenty of dungeons (and adventures) are written as you describe. But you don't have to write dungeons that way. Ultimately, a good dungeon (or adventure) will have multiple routes or methods to reach the main goal. Whether the choice is between literal routes (e.g. heading straight through the main gate to the inner sanctum vs heading through the lower caverns to come up through the drainage gate) or different strategies (e.g. fight vs negotiate), a good adventure allows the PCs to make meaningful strategic decisions regarding how they complete their goals.

Furthermore, a well written adventure doesn't force the PCs to fight their way through every possible encounter in order to maximize their reward. In a good adventure, there should be a distinction between high-value encounters and low-value encounters and the PCs should benefit (and not be penalized!) for seeking out the high-value encounters and avoiding the low-value encounters. (The WotC 4e modules and the standard xp structure are horrible violators of this second point.)

-KS

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You could describe the "restocking" abilities of the dungeon by adding specific things that have "restocking" abilities. A template added to other features.

Portal: These can bring in creatures from the other side.
Necromancer: These NPCs can raise the dead.
Allies: These NPCs can call on other allies.
Tainted: These areas taint natural creatures in their vicinity, turning them into monsters.
Trapsmith: These NPCs can build and reset traps.

etc.

The restock cycle should be tied to the PC's resources - if you're using 4E's 1-day-and-up, you'd want to go with 1 day.

I'd make the restock a random roll or maybe a level-based roll (the dungeon's level vs. the creatures it's trying to restock with).

If PCs shut down one of the features - drain the tainted pool, shut down the portal, kill the necromancer - the dungeon loses access to that ability. I think that would add a nice strategic element to play.

I like this one.

 

[Ferghis]

This thread is a pleasure to read. Thanks to all the posters. I would like a shift in focus from encounter to adventure as a core unit of character advancement. However, the encounter is still a necessity to measure expenditure of resources. It seems that the 4e milestone is the unit that should really be extinguished.

One of the posts that struck me was the blockquote that scaled the Orc community resources to the number of orcs. This evolution of the 1e MM Orc entry is most welcome. I'd love it if each monster had an extensive list of the resources it could draw on. This would both help DMs assemble the initial adventure and replenish it if the PCs make a strategic retreat to recover.

a) re: classes. Blue Rose (precursor to True20) presented three character classes: Adept, Warrior, Expert. Adepts learned magic the easiest, Warriors had the most health and learned the most weapon skills, and Experts learned skills. With the correct feats, Warriors and Experts could learn spells, Adepts and Warriors could learn new skills, and Adepts and Experts could become skilled in better weapons. It seems like every class is an amalgam of one or more (or all) of these.

I too am a big fan of fewer classes. Ideally, I'd like splatbooks to provide new powers, feats, or other tweaks for these core classes, and provide a suggested new template in which these could be used. This would allow existing characters to be able to integrate the new options without radically changing the character.

The other relevant notion that really struck me in the other thread was the necessity of non-combat roles for characters, given that combat should be somewhat de-emphasized (relative to the current state of things, not in absolute terms) as an encounter resolution method. I am particularly enamoured with the possibility of making these rolesindependent of combat roles.

 

[LostSoul]

One of the posts that struck me was the blockquote that scaled the Orc community resources to the number of orcs. This evolution of the 1e MM Orc entry is most welcome. I'd love it if each monster had an extensive list of the resources it could draw on. This would both help DMs assemble the initial adventure and replenish it if the PCs make a strategic retreat to recover.

Thanks.

At this point I have a few of those "Lairs" complete, but not that many - only what I've needed so far and some are in a half-way state because I've slightly altered my process.

What I need to do is figure out how the PCs are able to call upon the resources of a settlement and what the resource cycle for that is, then match it up with the various monster types and what they can do. I'm still wondering if it's worth it to write this whole little sub-game.

The idea is that the PCs can, if they choose, take control of a settlement (or clear some land and attract settlers). This allows me to change some of the aspects of the game I'm not too fond of. Anyway, the buildings (and special NPCs who occupy them) will have a list of actions they can choose from. A lot of it is supposed to feed back into adventuring - the Artificer can make magic items for you, the Temple can cast Rituals, you can train at the Martial College.

On the other side of the table, the monster lairs and dungeons will have their own list of actions. Necromancers can use Necromancy to create undead, goblins can Breed, Bandits Raid, etc. Some specific monsters will be able to do special things - like Rituals.

The idea is to give the players some strategic agency, a system where the choices you make at the settlement/campaign level feed into the adventuring level and back into the campaign level. Also: time pressure.

It's totally unplayable in its current state, though.

 

[Stormonu]

On the other side of the table, the monster lairs and dungeons will have their own list of actions. Necromancers can use Necromancy to create undead, goblins can Breed, Bandits Raid, etc. Some specific monsters will be able to do special things - like Rituals.

The idea is to give the players some strategic agency, a system where the choices you make at the settlement/campaign level feed into the adventuring level and back into the campaign level. Also: time pressure.

It's totally unplayable in its current state, though.

You might want to consider the use of "region points". The characters and their allies are allotted or spend a certain number of points for the activities they perform in a given time span, and the forces of opposition gain the same number to spend on actions.

For example, the characters may generate/expend 1 point to adventure (a low cost because it has a direct affect on the opposition) and afterwards they may spend 2 points on healing and another 2 points on training. Before they head to the next adventure, another 1 point is spent on gathering rumors/information about the next place they intend to take up a quest.

This leaves the DM with 7 points to spend on activities for the opposition in the region. He may, for example, spend 3 points to advance the BBEG's plot towards building his doomsday device, an act that secretly advances the in-game plot and increases the time pressure on the PCs to find and stop him. He then spends 1 point to have the local bandits raid settlements, causing prices of food and lodging to rise by 25% for the characters (as refugees flee the attacks). The DM then expends 2 points to advance a nearby orc lair, raising it from a Level X dungeon to a Level Y dungeon for a future foray by the group. Finally, he uses the last point to generate some "side encounters" and decides to send assassins after the PCs - either agents of the BBEG or perhaps survivors of their last foray who want revenge on the PCs.

 

[Ferghis]

You might want to consider the use of "region points". The characters and their allies are allotted or spend a certain number of points for the activities they perform in a given time span, and the forces of opposition gain the same number to spend on actions.

I like this idea. I'm trying to wrap my head around how I'd like to see it set up as a DM. I'm thinking that the DMG would have a core menu of choices that the DM could play out in response to player expenditures. Then the MM and adventure books could modify those choices or add new ones. It would be nice to see different monsters accrue different costs. For example, orcs and hobgoblins could garner goblin allies for cheaper than a regular reinforcement cost. Hobgoblins could reinforce their home at a cheaper cost. Kobolds might create traps at a cheaper cost, and so on, making each delve an evolving area.

 

[LostSoul]

I am planning on using something like "region points", but I plan to call it time.

I was thinking of using "seasons" (3 months) as the base cycle but that might be too long. 1 month might be better.

This is assuming other changes to extended rests (I'm thinking now that resting for a full 24-hour day will get you 1 healing surge back or a daily power). That seems to be the key - balancing PC refresh rates against dungeon/lair action rates.

 

[Danzauker]

I used to plan things sorta the way some people wrote in this thread.

It was long before I heard of the "narrativism/gamism" dichotomy. BTW, for what is worth, I was quite wary of encounter based powers when I first heard them in Bo9S, before realizing they were just putting another piece in the puzzle.

Before 4e I was just thinking in Days and Weeks. Now if I equate the game to a TV series, I have Scenes, Episodes and Plots to handle my resource and plan for.

I think the trick is trying to handle resources on all these three levels.

The 4E game is already balanced on Encounter/Scene level, we know it by now. If scenes follow close, you don't have the luxury of a short rest, the action flows, you don't get back encounter powers.

The Episode equates to the old fashioned Day. Some people here in the trhead call it Dungeon or Adventure. I used to relate it more to a "dungeon level", or Game Session, or Delve. Anyway it lasted until the heroes got back to their base town, their safe camp, or whatever, and they could have the luxury of an extended rest.

In the economy of actions, if I as a DM rule that there is no way to have a good undisturbed night of rest, characters don't get back their daily resources. In wilderness adventuring it beans that if they botch the skill challenge I almost always put to get to the place, they can not have an extended rest. Maybe they don't find a safe place and must stay awake. Or they get off-road and must hurry through the night. Or the camp is not comfortable. Anyway, that's the price of failure.

For city based/investigation encounters, I usually have the characters "use" up a daily or lose a healing surge if they fail skill challenges. The rationale is the same: encounters/scenes are part of the same day/episode. If a combat encounter goes wrong, you lose valuable daily resources, and so should be for non combat encounters.

The Plot level roughly corresponded to what in old edition was the "Week". I always found silly that some classes had powers that recharged by week. I used to change it so that characters had to go through something even more extensive than a night of sleep to get those back. Paladins, for example, had to go to their temple and meditate or pass though a ritual to get back their Cure Disease power, and such. In 4E I use this level basically only for level advancement and retraining.

Basically, one of the great innovations of 4E is, if used well, the complete relativism of time to the story. Just as an encounter begins when the DM says "roll for initiative" and ends when he says "ok, loot the bodies", so he can (and should) be able to say when a "day" starts and ends.

It requires some suspension of belief and cooperation on parts of the players, but, well, RPG is a collective game.

 

[Lanefan]

Just as an encounter begins when the DM says "roll for initiative" and ends when he says "ok, loot the bodies", ...

Nitpick: if the DM's saying "loot the bodies" it's too late as you're probably all busy rolling up new characters.

Normally, those words should only come from players.

Lan-"and I hope they're speaking in character"-efan

 

[ajanders]

I think this makes the action of the game more abstract and larger scale.

An encounter is over in less than an hour. I always think of a dungeon as being at least a day's worth of exploration.
An encounter takes place in no more than three or four rooms: a dungeon may be the size of a mountain.

That's all I have for deep thoughts right now.