Classic dungeons: What makes them great?

[haakon1]

Not really. It just makes you not care about the game. Oh, you touched a statue. you die. No save.

Next room. Oh you didnt touch the statue. You die. No save.

You open a door, the tarrasque eats you. If you'd opened the other door, the level fairy would have made yo 20th level though!

Any DM can kill characters all day long and pin them on their fridge. I'd like to think most DM's grow out of that phase, but sadly it doesnt appear to be the case. At least not on enworld, with its staunch anti player sentiment.

If you wanna feel like a tough guy and use your god powers to kill your friends' characters, no one is stopping you. It is rather busch league.

CR isnt a straightjacket. Its a guideline for how tough a monster is. Sort of like "dungeon level" monsters were in 1st edition. Remember those? Or do you want to conveniently sweep those under the rug as well....

I like a challenge on the playing and the DMing side of the screen. Without a challenge and a threat, there is no excitement. Who dares wins. Who doesn't dare didn't really win anything worth having. Gary's pithy line about Candyland is right on, as are most of his quotes.

 

[Piratecat]

Ehren37 -- do you ever post anything on these boards except anti-1e drivel?

A better question might be, "Melan, have you read the EN World rules about not making personal attacks?" Not agreeing with someone is no reason to make a personal jab. Please take a second to re-read the rules, and avoid such comments in the future.

 

[Hussar]

*snip*
Elements of the oldies:

1. Difficulty. They were tough, and your characters could die in numerous ways. If you endured and triumphed, you could rely on that meaning that you did a good job.

And this is different from current modules how? Look at the obituary posts for Shackled City or Age of Worms. My World's Largest Dungeon game averaged a PC fatality every 3 weeks. You can die in all editions of the game pretty easily.

2. No story. Most of the classics were detailed locations (one or more of dungeon, city, castle, lost island, etc.). What drew a particular group to the location was a rather open question in many cases. The emphasis tended to be on mounting an expedition and swiping the loot. The G series is an exception to this, having a more "epic mission" feel. I never played it. However, the method of approach still appears pretty open-ended.

Which classic module would you be referring to other than perhaps B2 which was actually not a 1e module? Cult of the Reptile God - very clear plot line. Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh - clear plotline. Temple of Elemental Evil - very clear plot line. A series - blindingly clear plot line. The "S" series are probably closest to what you are referring to, but, that was hardly the standard in 1e modules.

3. Non-linear. Most of the classics are not just linear progressions through a series of areas. As discussed elsewhere, an excellent dungeon generally has multiple paths to the same place and does not require or even suppose that the party will "clear" an entire level, much less the whole complex. Dungeons, as a general rule (with attendant exceptions, of course) ought to be complicated.

Depends on the module. Cult of the Reptile God is pretty linear, as is the Moathouse in Village of Homlet. White Plume Mountain is three linear paths. Tomb of Horrors couldn't be more linear if it tried. There is a pretty decent mix of linear and non-linear here. Never mind that classic 3e modules also display the same mix.

4. Rules context. OD&D, Classic and 1E share a philosophy about the rules: hard and fast rules are few, and each DM is expected to handle his game differently. Of those 3 I mentioned, Classic is the most elegant and requires the least DM intervention, but also has very few actual rules. 1E is just a toolbox of rules. OD&D is a foundation, or something. Just to completely mix metaphors. The point is, within these contexts, a given module is more free to take on a life of its own, rather than conforming to an established and consistent set of rules and standards.

That's my take on it.

1e has a plethora of rules. I've never understood the idea that 1e is somehow more rules lite than 3e. Good grief, there were rules for catching random diseases of the month! Rules for how much space your character took up depending on which weapon he used. Basic/Expert D&D I freely agree is rules light. 1e? Not so much.

And, I would point out, Rule 0 exists in every edition.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And this is different from current modules how? Look at the obituary posts for Shackled City or Age of Worms. My World's Largest Dungeon game averaged a PC fatality every 3 weeks. You can die in all editions of the game pretty easily.

I think I would agree that, in comparison to what they were fighting, 1e characters were tougher than 3e characters, at least in the low- to mid-level ranges. There is a difference, however, in dying due to player choices and dying due to bad die rolls where there is an expectation of an encounter being "balanced". IMHO, at least. When people say that older editions were more "difficult", I believe that they mean "more difficult for the players in terms of complexity of decision-making during play" not "more difficult for the characters".

I'm not sure that 1e was more complex in terms of decision-making during play. There is a lot of decision-making in 3e....too much in some cases. I do think, however, that 3e has replaced some of the "fun" decision making (should we venture into the lower levels?) with "chore" decision making (what buffs shall we stack to gain the maximum effect?). This might well be a product of 2e, thought, with its emphasis on set story modules over sandbox style play.

Which classic module would you be referring to other than perhaps B2 which was actually not a 1e module? Cult of the Reptile God - very clear plot line. Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh - clear plotline. Temple of Elemental Evil - very clear plot line. A series - blindingly clear plot line. The "S" series are probably closest to what you are referring to, but, that was hardly the standard in 1e modules.

There is a difference between 1e plotlines, which were easy to change/manipulate/ignore, and some 3e plotlines. The early 3e modules (Forge of Fury, for example) had plotlines similar to those of the old modules. A situational plotline says "Here's the bad guys, where they live, what they are doing, and some ways to get the PCs involved". In the event of a tournament module, that plotline generally starts with the PCs involved due to DM fiat. If there are "win conditions" for tournament play, that also affects how the module is played within that context. Other than that, though, the PCs are pretty much able to do whatever they like. The doors are wide open.

A more constraining plotline contains stronger railroading elements, and assumes that the PCs will take certain actions. Encounters occur in sequence, each building a "story" that forces the PCs to take certain actions or abandon the plotline. Some 1e DMs tried to run modules this same way; my worst experience in 1e as a player was in A1, where the DM didn't take kindly to my trying to circumvent some of the encounters.

These are different types of play experiences, and I tend to think that having some of each in a campaign leads to the most fun. Some of the 2e Ravenloft modules were good for this (Feast of Goblyns, if memory serves).

Depends on the module. Cult of the Reptile God is pretty linear

Not as linear as you might think. The first time I ran this, the party bypassed much of the dungeon by finding the villian's escape route, and attacked her by surprise from the secret door.

1e has a plethora of rules. I've never understood the idea that 1e is somehow more rules lite than 3e.

1e had plenty of rules, but the rules in 1e were the provence of the DM, who decided what got used, what got ignored, and under what circumstances any rule would apply. As has been pointed out more often than rabbits mate, almost no one played AD&D 1e by the RAW. As the RAW contradicted itself, this was possibly impossible. No player could know the rules in play in any given encounter, even if he memorized the DMG, which de-emphasized the rules from the players' perspective. Although 1e had a lot of rules, it didn't play or feel like it had a lot of rules.

And, I would point out, Rule 0 exists in every edition.

Yes, but while Rule 0 exists in every addition, Rule 0 was a vital principle of 1e, as Gary pointed out in his introduction to the 1e PHB.


RC

 

[gizmo33]

Which classic module would you be referring to other than perhaps B2 which was actually not a 1e module? Cult of the Reptile God - very clear plot line. Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh - clear plotline. Temple of Elemental Evil - very clear plot line. A series - blindingly clear plot line. The "S" series are probably closest to what you are referring to, but, that was hardly the standard in 1e modules.

Cult of the Reptile God is cool because it's not linear. It gives you a village with a couple of inns, describes all the characters and what they are doing, and let's the PCs wander about. A structure that forces the PCs to resolve elements in a certain order is different from a backstory that gives meaning to the actions of the various NPCs. One is a railroad, the other is just setting material.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

There are so many things wrong with this statement.

Care to explain why? A simple examination of movement rules will lead to rather obvious conclusions. Many creatures mvoe faster than the PC's slowest moving party member, which is often a dwarf, gnome, halfling, or character in medium/heavy armor. After a round or two chase, the conclusion is foregone. Unless through DM fiat, the party will be caught (unless they ditch their friend in a cowardly display).

Similarly, stealth is rarely an entire party option. The party sneaks as well as the lowest roll. A group of enemies hears as well as its best.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Care to explain why? A simple examination of movement rules will lead to rather obvious conclusions.

Shoulda looked at the PHB, then. Throwing down food for unintelligent monsters or treasure for intelligent monsters can curtail pursuit. Which means that the PCs can ditch something other than their friends.

RC

 

[Tarek]

You're also assuming that the entire party needs to sneak; there's a reason the thief or ranger was often sent to scout ahead, come back, and report.

As for fleeing, yes, it's a risk... but sometimes it's enough to draw some of the monsters after you, take a stand and kill a few, then run away some more.

Also, spells can be used to discourage pursuit... stinking cloud is a good one, so is wall of fog or in 3e obscuring mist.

There are all sorts of resources characters can use to run away 'safely'.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Shoulda looked at the PHB, then. Throwing down food for unintelligent monsters or treasure for intelligent monsters can curtail pursuit. Which means that the PCs can ditch something other than their friends.

RC

*Can*. By fiat. Its also rather unrealistic. Yeah, that griffon is really going to stop because you tossed down some tasty iron rations (after spending a move action to take em out).

 

[gizmo33]

*Can*. By fiat. Its also rather unrealistic. Yeah, that griffon is really going to stop because you tossed down some tasty iron rations (after spending a move action to take em out).

If I were running from a lion, I can't imagine holding out a lot of hope that throwing a pork chop in the grass next to me would deter pursuit. Nor would I probably try to throw a big bag of money out of the window if the cops were chasing me. That advice in 1E always seemed a little far-fetched to me, but I suppose each situation can only be judged on the particulars, and there might be circumstances where the tactic would work. However, I can see how throwing your treasure aside would at least increase your movement rate.