Do you use dungeons?

[Gundark]

I have come to the conclusion that I hate dungeons, at least big ones. After DMing DnD for some time I had an oportunity to play. The DM stuck us in this huge dungeon and after the third session I was considering having my character commit suicide. After thinking I got wondering if I have done this to my group. I know that every DM has a bad night/adventure but I think that from now on I'll use small dungeons in my games. either that Or I'll use something like the streamlined inflitration rules in the fixer/pointman book for spycraft

 

[Khayman]

It depends on how you define 'dungeon'. I use villa and building floorplans, sure; sometimes they even have basements. However, during a ten-year campaign, I can count on my hands the number of times I've used catacombs, sewers, or dungeons --- I tend to run the party above ground, roleplaying social situations or beating them senseless in the streets and holts.

 

[Davelozzi]

Well, I already posted my thoughts in the original (non-poll) version of this thread, but as far as your poll is concerned, I think that the definitions of small, medium, and huge are off. 15+ locations is easily almost any dungeon in a 32 page module. To me that's medium at best. With small being less than 15 rooms (similar to many that appear in Dungeon magazine) and huge being multi-level dungeons at least as big as Tomb of Abysthor, and including things like Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, Rappan Athuk, Undermountain, and World's Largest Dungeon.

 

[Davelozzi]

And I mostly use dungeons that would qualify as medium to me but huge to you (roughly 15-30 rooms).

 

[KB9JMQ]

I am a big fan of dungeons but I like to keep them smallish.
Or medium on your scale

 

[Alhazred]

Like Khayman, I use 'non-dungeon' dungeons for dungeons ; rarely do I send my players into catacombs or underground fortresses. Aboveground dungeons include mansions, towers, alleyways, ships, etc.

My aboveground dungeons tend toward medium or huge, and my belowground dungeons are small (using Davelozzi's definition of dungeon sizes)

 

[Kalendraf]

I used to use bigger dungeons/buildings/whatever (20 to 40 rooms), but that was probably more of a legacy of my 1e/2e roots where most of the example adventures tended to have large sprawling maps to explore.

When I began using 3e rules (and now 3.5), I found that combat takes longer due to a number of factors: empasized miniature use, positional combat tactics/feats/skills/spells/etc which meant that the number of combats we could get thru in a typical 3 to 4 hour gaming session was significantly lower than what I was used to back in those earlier versions.

I really dislike leaving a party hanging in the middle of dungeon between sessions, but with large maps that was beginning to happen too often. As a result, I began scaling back into a range of more like 10 to 20 rooms. But even that has seemed too large of late, and my most recent ones have probably been more in the 5 to 10 range.

 

[Wombat]

I base dungeons on real-world labyrinths, temples, and burial chambers, sometimes stretched out a bit for excitement. Thus they tend to be small dungeons.

They don't need to be large (or common) to be exciting.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I have run three campaigns. Early in the first, I ran a small dungeon, which the group did not enjoy. In all the years since, I have not run anything I would call a true "dungeon." To do one to me would seem quaint.

I think that dungeons are on a whole limiting and a lot of work and preparation and generally not worth it.

 

[Arnwyn]

Love dungeons, of all types and sizes, both as a DM and player. Love 'em.

(Though, like Davelozzi above, I'm not on the same wavelength as the original poster in terms of his size categories.)