Classic dungeons: What makes them great?

[Ourph]

*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).

You're applying 3rd edition rules that change the tactical situation. When considering what makes "classic" dungeons great, wouldn't it be more appropriate to examine them in light of the rules they were written for?

 

[Tarek]

Everything in the adventure was put there by DM fiat. Whether the characters win or lose in any particular combat depends on the DM's judgement. Why would running away be any different, ehren?

Or are you just picking an argument in order to argue?

 

[gizmo33]

I think ehren37 has a point: running away in DnD is a pretty uncertain tactic. I really doubt that a lion chasing down a dwarf is going to react to a bag of pork chops like someone's pet dog. Also on the down side is that you're probably low on spells or out of spells if you're running. Plus you've probably just decided to run when you're down to a few hitpoints, meaning a stray arrow can probably take you out while you're fleeing. And finally, unless your character used to live in the dungeon, you're probably not the one that knows the best short-cuts out of the place.

On the pro side: wall of fog probably works pretty well since a persuer needs to see you while someone fleeing simply needs to choose an exit. Also there are rules in 1E for evasion and pursuit and movement rate is not the only factor. And most importantly: you don't have to run faster than the lion! You only have to run faster than the party dwarf. Because while a pork chop might not distract a lion, a dwarf in armor probably does (Ever try opening a can of beans without a can opener? It takes a long time.)

 

[Doug McCrae]

Retreating only became viable for us as a tactic once we had dimension door. I'm also not too sure how well the 'string of sausages' or bag o' gold tactics would've worked against a ragewalker (fey spirit of war), nightshade (undead) or charnel hound (undead), all of which we ran from at one point or another.

 

[Raven Crowking]

*Can*. By fiat.

Fair enough, but it was a suggested tactic in the PHB. And sometimes a Hoix can be distracted with a pork chop.

Realistically speaking, though, most predators are liable to go with an easy meal over a meal that fights back, even if the easy meal is less tasty...so long as it is of sufficient size. Injured predators IRL can face serious problems relating to their injuries. If you have to sacrifice your pack mule to an owlbear, that is better than sacrificing yourself. Also, as mercenary as this may sound, splitting up increases the likelihood of at least someone getting away.

Intelligent foes may ransom characters back to their party in exchange for gold, goods, etc. If the players are also willing to ransom, there might even be a prisoner exchange. I have run games in which the "enemies" ended up "allies" by virtue of a cease fire and realization that continued fighting would be a TPK for one side and a near TPK for the other.

There have been lots of stories in Dragon and other sources about adventurers running away in earlier editions. I know it happened at my table. It was encouraged in the rules.

The PHB also recommended that, if your DM consistently made calls you didn't like, that you find a new DM or start your own game.

RC

 

[Jhaelen]

QFT. There's no OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Administration) for dungeon workers in AD&D. The "kobold in one room, red dragon in the next" nature of some AD&D adventures is criticized as silly and illogical, but the basic concept of "some encounters are very easy for the heroes, some will most likely kill you" makes the game exciting on a visceral level, and keeps the players on their toes.

And that's been nerfed in the officially encouraged ways of playing 3e. Using only "appropriate" monster CR for the party, and even worse choosing the monsters so they fit the party (e.g., no undead for the party without a cleric) reduces the fun, IMHO.

I disagree. Randomness does not a challenge make. For me a challenge always involves informed decisions by the player characters. Finding a way to enter a well-defended fortress and steal a powerful magic item is a challenge. Getting ambushed by a red dragon hiding behind a door from the kobold's bed chamber isn't.

I also disagree with the (common) notion that 3e encourages 'nerfing' encounters by only choosing 'appropriate' encounters. The DMG tells a different story:
- 5% of all encounters should involve an EL of party level +5 or higher
- ~25%* of all encounters should involve an EL of party level +1 to +4

*: this includes half the percentage for encounters that may become easier if the player characters think of some kind of trick.

I don't remember reading anywhere that encounters should be customized because of the party setup. I do remember that a DM may choose to increase the XP for an encounter if it involves circumstances that make it more difficult than typical.

Players should know if their party has a weak spot and take actions to cover it in some way (by hiring npcs or buying appropriate magic items, etc.). If they don't, they certainly deserve to have a more difficult time.

 

[gizmo33]

If you have to sacrifice your pack mule to an owlbear, that is better than sacrificing yourself.

Yep, that's what I'd tell the party dwarf. Thing is, mules are actually faster than dwarves. Now Gimli claims he fast over short distances, but my money would still be on the mule unless Gimli took the time to stun or kill the mule which is precious time that I'd be spending running anyway, so I guess it's academic. Of course if the mule is loaded down with enough treasure to change his movement rate, then I guess that changes the equation somewhat - but not necessarily in the dwarf's favor, if you get my drift. This isn't something I talk about around dwarves though.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

If you have to sacrifice your pack mule to an owlbear, that is better than sacrificing yourself.

Yeah, but what if it's a 5th level Mule, and you're just a swordsman?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Why not kill two birds with one stone...throw down the friends *as* the food?

Lane-"you can always find more friends"-fan

 

[Hussar]

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.

See, I've never played in a group with only one DM. Ever. Every group I've ever played in either consisted of all of us taking turns DMing, or with players who DM groups of their own. So, the idea that you could ignore rules didn't come up so well because it was pretty much guaranteed that someone in the group would know how a particular rule should be used. Or, at least, someone would think they did.

When I talked about Cult of the Reptile God being linear, I was more referring to the dungeon at the end. Although, IIRC, don't the cultists try to nab you in your inn as well? Hey, I loved the module, but, it has been a long time so I might be misremembering details.

My point wasn't that COTRG was a bad module. Far from it. It remains one of my all time favourites. My point was that the structure of 1e modules and 3e modules are not all that different. Some are "sandbox" style and some are more linear. Given that there are about ten times more 3e modules out there, I'd say that any broad generalizations are pretty difficult.

((In case someone wants to dispute my numbers - 6 years of Dungeon=200+ modules, 50+ Goodman Games modules, numerous pdf sellers, and various other venders = somewhere in the neighbourhood of at least 500 modules for 3.x edition)