Do you use dungeons?

[XO]

Dungeons ?

The principal hurdles to ENJOYABLE dungeons have been...

1) MAPPING: resolved by just throwing the map on the table ; mature players will not metagame the contents, and it avoids endless descriptions of length, width, etc

2) GOAL ORIENTATION: you need a precise reason or a developing cascade of reasons to be there. Given objectives, players stay focused

3) CHARACTER LEVEL: dungeons are rarely a stone throw away from a usable base camp / town (you can have an exception, but such should be rare). So the PCs need to have commensurate levels to deal with travel challenges.

I'm sure I could find other issues we have resolved over the years

Dungeons are indeed a controlled environment, and a milieu filled with unknowns. Compare that to a town or city where one or more PCs have spent their entire lives (the preparation could be mind-boggling)... Either have a hand-out with a lot of detail prepped before game (at least a week) OR hope you have inventive players who can become assets in a "collective creation" mode > the player will state "I go see that fat old winebag Tharkesh, captain if the militia, in his usual hangout, The Intrepid Fey".

That method only works if the players know the style and tenor of the campaign world ("I go off to Wally Walm, Artful Crafter of Quasi Free Items" wouldn't work)

 

[Desdichado]

I use "dungeons" about as often as most fantasy novels do. Which is to say, very infrequently.

 

[CronoDekar]

Very, very rarely. The dungeons I do create tend to be short and relatively simple, with maybe a small puzzle at the end. Part of the reason for that is that I (as a DM and a player) don't tend to like long dungeon forays, and after a bit of dungeon exploring I just want to get on with it already. The other thing is that I'm not a very good dungeon designer.

Though, one of my players though loves dungeons, so I've been trying to think of an adventure recently with a dungeon but would still have features that would keep me entertained.

 

[Davelozzi]

My current campaign has been significantly more dungeon-heavy than most of my past games. Probably because I used to use published settings and homebrewed adventures, but now I'm using a homebrewed setting and frequently using published adventures (most of which seem to be dungeons). The players seem to enjoy it, and there's always been a goal, never just general exploration (except maybe the first one, after all newbies need to cut their teeth somewhere before they'll be seen as heroes worth calling on when a need arises).

A questions for those who don't like dungeons because of mapping issues -- why get hung up on it? Sure the DM needs his/her map, but unless someone has hired the PCs to map the dungeon, can't they just explore it without making a detailed map? Throw down the current room when a battle breaks out (if you're using minis), but don't worry about calling out the dimensions of every part of the dungeon to the PCs as the come through.

 

[Kalendraf]

I really dislike the term dungeon since it doesn't always mean the same thing to everyone. Some people use it as a generic term to cover all mapable structures including castles, buildings, basements, sewers, caves, tunnels, tombs, burrows and so forth. Others consider it to only cover a very specific kind of subterranean torture area. Personally, I prefer the term "mapped region".

The groups I DM for encounter mapped regions a lot, but very few of them have ever been actual dungeons. I use a large battlemap, figurines and actually enjoy writing these types of adventures. I try to mix it up by having enough unmapped outdoor, city and other kinds of encounters to keep things interesting.

 

[Agback]

I really dislike the term dungeon since it doesn't always mean the same thing to everyone. Some people use it as a generic term to cover all mapable structures including castles, buildings, basements, sewers, caves, tunnels, tombs, burrows and so forth. Others consider it to only cover a very specific kind of subterranean torture area. Personally, I prefer the term "mapped region".

Good point. Allow me to clarify.

I have drawn regional maps for some campaigns, showing the locations of rivers and cities and shorelines and so forth (like this). On two occasions I have drawn detailed relief maps (contour lines, etc.). I have done perhaps half a dozen maps of cities (like this), showing the relative locations of different suburbs and the positioning of important features such as forums, temples o the major gods, citadels, palaces, and watchtowers. I have mapped four large buildings that the PCs occupied either as owners, retainers of the owner, or paying guests: two castles, one palace, and one classy boarding-house.

But since 1981 I have not run an adventure based on exploring a mapped and keyed network of locations, and I have not therefore bothered to map or key any such network. Rather, I have devoted my effort to political, social, and cultural detail like this and this.

It is a matter of focussing my effort where it will do most good, given my preferred style of games.

 

[hong]

I really dislike the term dungeon since it doesn't always mean the same thing to everyone. Some people use it as a generic term to cover all mapable structures including castles, buildings, basements, sewers, caves, tunnels, tombs, burrows and so forth. Others consider it to only cover a very specific kind of subterranean torture area. Personally, I prefer the term "mapped region".

The groups I DM for encounter mapped regions a lot, but very few of them have ever been actual dungeons. I use a large battlemap, figurines and actually enjoy writing these types of adventures. I try to mix it up by having enough unmapped outdoor, city and other kinds of encounters to keep things interesting.

The dungeon is where the people with red circles around their feet hang out. It's the free-fire zone.

 

[T. Foster]

A questions for those who don't like dungeons because of mapping issues -- why get hung up on it? Sure the DM needs his/her map, but unless someone has hired the PCs to map the dungeon, can't they just explore it without making a detailed map? Throw down the current room when a battle breaks out (if you're using minis), but don't worry about calling out the dimensions of every part of the dungeon to the PCs as the come through.

The idea that if characters are exploring a dungeon that the players must be keeping an accurate map on graph paper is an unfortunate cultural meme carried over from the earliest rulesets which seemed to assume that players would want to do this (even though the practice was far from universal, even among the best players in Lake Geneva -- while Ernie Gygax apparently mapped obsessively, Rob Kuntz never mapped). In fact, except in very rare circumstances (e.g. characters hired to draw an accurate map (as mentioned above), characters trying to deduce locations of secret rooms, etc.), there's no reason the players should ever feel the need to make anything more than a rough 'trailing' map -- exact dimensions of rooms, widths and angles of passageways, etc. are almost always irrelevent as long as the characters can find their way back to the entrance (and/or find their way back to the last unexplored area on a return visit). The players should only be allowed to map as much as their characters do -- i.e. only if the characters are carrying appropriate equipment and taking the time to make accurate measurements, etc. Otherwise the DM should describe things only in general terms -- a narrow passage, a somewhat wider passage, a pretty large rectangular room with doors in the middle of the left and right walls -- and only give more precise descriptions if the players specifically ask for them (and their characters are able to discern and record the details).

That said, I absolutely HATE the idea of the DM simply setting the map down in front of the players, or drawing the map for them. IMO that's the worst of both worlds.

 

[Evilhalfling]

I use a fair number of dungeons.
After running 3 campaings I am taking a break and playing for a while.
considering back over which games I really enjoyed running, many of theme were responsive dungeons, usually in the form of underground humanoid run lairs. Monsters were only present if they served as guards, or were imprisoned. If the PC's had to make more than one raid, then the defenses would change, becoming either more or less organized depending on the success of the last raid.

These dungeons were midsized - no more than 20 rooms, but usually had several levels, and more than one entrance and exit. They are all logical and existed for definate reasons.

I tried running RtToEE but that was much too large and seemed endless. We got really bored, and I had it explode, (dont tell me that no one else was tempted to do it.)

The two best adventures not in dungeons were passing through gnoll charioteer territory which turned basically a random encounter to 2 sessions of wild fights and ridicoululs antics.
and an RP laden game in a town without magic, based on a small Irish Town I had spent 3 days visiting.