Dungeon layout, map flow and old school game design

[Ourph]

And, if the players actually get said Frostbrand, the DM should automatically go into adversity mode and actively try to strip that reward from the player. So, how is the clever player being rewarded again?

I think you're misrepresenting the situation. The DM IS an adversary in the game, in that he places challenges that may very well have negative consequences for the characters. That doesn't have to mean that he's "out to get" anyone. There's a philosophical difference between a world where the PCs find some extra treasure and then thieves come out of the woodwork specifically to take it away and a world where the thieves were always present but the PCs didn't notice them before finding the Frostbrand because they had nothing particularly worthwhile to steal.

The PCs may be facing metal-corroding oozes, rust monsters and disintegration rays already (and losing mundane weapons in the process). If a PC gains a great prize like a Frostbrand, it's up to that player to take care of that weapon and keep it from suffering the same fate as those other weapons.

The point is, the player isn't being targeted because of the extra treasure, he's facing the same dangers that were there all along. He's just got something more precious to lose now and it's up to him to keep it from disappearing (like so much other treasure does) through superior play.

This is one of the main differences between old and new school style in dungeon design I think. It used to be that the assumption was that players were facing a lot of dangerous situations and would be losing equipment and treasure (magical and otherwise) all the time, so it was OK to include a lot in the game for them to find. Since destroying the PCs equipment has become more off limits as a challenge to throw at them, it's become much more essential to control the amount they receive in the first place.

I think it's failing to see the whole picture if you accuse DMs who still think that equipment and treasure loss are just normal hazards of the game of playing "Gotcha!" or approaching the game with the idea that they are out to screw the players or DMs who provide way more than the usual amount of treasure of being Monty Haul DMs, because those two styles are often used together and compensate for the effects of one another. As long as the equilibrium of loss to gain is fairly constant those games are no different than a game where equipment is found at the base level and very rarely lost. Some players and DMs find that type of game where the attitude is "I lost my Frostbrand. Oh well, I'll just search extra hard from now on until I find another cool weapon" enjoyable and more entertaining than one where equipment is sacrosanct and static.

 

[arscott]

The real question about the frostbrand is "Did that 3rd level party defeat the frost giant king to get it? or did they just find it behind a secret door?"

With the 3e treasure model, players are rewarded with wealth and equipment based on the danger they faced. Keep in mind that danger faced is not the same thing as challenges overcome--No matter how hard a secret door is to find, it's not dangerous unless it's trapped or has a monster behind it. Beating a DC 30 search check is hard for a 3rd level party to do. But because they don't risk anything by failing the check, they don't really deserve much of a reward for it. If after finding the secret door, they fight a rakshasa on the other side, then they deserve a reward.

If a party of 3rd level adventurers ends up with a frost brand, then the adventure is badly designed. A frost brand is a major magic item, and any creature that represents enough of a threat to award a major magic Item is going to wipe the floor with a 3rd level party. In fact, except for the one percent chance of an EL 10 treasure granting a major magic item, 3rd level characters don't even get normal XP from creatures of high enough CR to grant major magical treasure.

And ultimately, even if the party was able to fairly defeat the CR 10 creature with a frost brand in it's hoarde, it's still a bad design choice--Only one person can end up with the powerful sword, but the entire party helped defeat the big baddie--It'd be far better to have a range of less powerful magic items so that the entire party can split the rewards.

 

[Ourph]

That critique makes sense if the Frostbrand is an anomoly in an otherwise completely new-school philosophy, 3e magic/wealth/level guideline-inspired campaign. If, however, the campaign is operating under an entirely different paradigm, the critique doesn't apply at all. There's nothing inherently wrong with finding a powerful magic weapon at low level if the campaign is set up so that it doesn't disrupt anything (and in most campaigns I remember playing in from the late 70's to early 80's it wouldn't have disrupted a thing).

 

[arscott]

But I don't necessarily buy into the idea that the earlier campaigns were really set up in that fashion. After all, Stuff like Isle of the Ape and the rust monster essentially existed to strip out excess treasure. Earlier editions had just as many problems with treasure, party imbalance, and gear expectations. It's just that they were harder to see and quantify in earlier editions, because they didn't include easy guidelines.

If anything, Magical gear was more unbalanced in earlier editions that it is in 3rd ed--Consider how hard it was to get a bonus to attack or defense in 1e or 2e--There were fewer class abilities, no feats, and ability scores modifiers didn't kick in until you got a 16 or so. a +5 enhancement on your sword or armor means a lot more in 2e than in 3e.

 

[Ourph]

But I don't necessarily buy into the idea that the earlier campaigns were really set up in that fashion. After all, Stuff like Isle of the Ape and the rust monster essentially existed to strip out excess treasure.

Which is my point exactly. The game was operating on a different paradigm where gains were bigger and losses were more frequent. An experienced DM can easily balance those two things to keep the campaign on an even keel.

Earlier editions had just as many problems with treasure, party imbalance, and gear expectations. It's just that they were harder to see and quantify in earlier editions, because they didn't include easy guidelines.

I would agree that earlier editions have just as many problems with balancing treasure and party power as the current one, but the problems in earlier editions (and the current one) don't arise from the game system, but from the inexperience of players in handling the issue of treasure. Earlier editions handled this by making advice and techniques available for running a campaign with a certain paradigm (high reward + high attrition) whereas the current edition takes a different tack and regulates reward tightly. The point being that, yeah, if you take a slice from one and plug it into the other it's going to cause problems, but that doesn't mean either paradigm is unworkable in its own right.

To tie this point at least nominally back into the original subject, let me just say that arscott's concerns are an excellent example of how non-linear dungeons can be a boon to play, especially in 3e D&D. If you're worried about secret-doors that conceal treasure creating an imbalance of treasure in your game (either too much because the PCs find everything or too little because they don't find enough) a good answer is to simply change what the secret doors are hiding.

In a non-linear dungeon a means of getting to your goal while circumventing potential hazards (which offer no monetary or goal-oriented benefit when overcome) is a reward in itself which doesn't add to the PC's monetary assets or equipment. If your secret doors conceal, not treasure, but secret passages that allow safe travel around hazardous parts of the dungeon; you've created a reward for PCs who are diligent enough to search them out, but without the risk of imbalancing the PCs wealth-by-level if they miss it.

 

[Treebore]

The treasure balance problems in the earlier editions existed because people didn't use the rules. If they made all the items the character was wearing when they failed their save against the fireballs, lightning bolts, et al... There would be a lot fewer magic items running about, and a lot less stuff carried in bags of holding and portable holes. Use the rules, especially the ones the players hate, becaue they are the ones that are usually meant to keep things balanced.

 

[grodog]

BTW, Melan, I'm not familiar with Jaquays' Realm of the Slime God: any details you can share would be appreciated.

edit - never mind, I found some DF posts from you mentioning that it's in the Dungeoneer Companion, which I'll go pull out for a look-see

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

It's true, I think one of the wierdest things about 3E is the fact that magic items almost never get destroyed.

By the rules, I can be holding a scroll (made of paper!) in each hand, and get hit by a fireball, and take 45points of damage, and barely survive, and the scrolls are both unsinged nineteen times out of 20, and there is NEVER a time when both are destroyed.

Isn't that kind of bizarre? To me, it really breaks suspension of disbelief.

OK, that's a sidetrack of a sidetrack of an excellent thread. Sorry about that!

Ken

 

[Melan]

Right, in an attempt to return to our original subject, I will try to comment on grodog's points:

Melan, it seems that some folks find it difficult to separate the encounters from the maps, per your original intent: whether because the maps influence the encounters, they hide encounters too effectively, etc. Perhaps you need to provide some more suggestions on how the dungeon environment plays an active role in the game, rather than a passive one: <snip> Some of those interesting design recommendations include:

• use of the vertical dimension
• lots of interlevel movement; voluntarily via stairwells, trapdoors, sloping tunnels, etc., and involuntarily via pits, teleporters, chutes, sloping tunnels that are very hard to detect, etc.
• use of challenges that allow PCs to learn the dungeon environment from their successes and mistakes; some good examples of this occur in Scott Casper's Greyhawk Castle gaming fiction written @ http://kinazar.com/SouthProv/viewtopic.php?t=336&start=0 (down at the moment, but will likely be up again soon)

This is in many ways one of the initial assumptions of the thread (and elaborated upon in my second long post) - that the dungeon itself is an interesting and entertaining challenge, not merely a backdrop or "skin" to a series of encounters. Instead of considering a moderately challenging map as an inherently unfun thing keeping you away from the "good stuff" (encounters) as many people here seem to say, I consider it a part of the fun.

Moving on from philosophical points, on to application - after all, that makes theory meaningful. The three points you mention are perfect examples of spicing up dungeon design - they embody the more abstract principles I outlined in the OP. The first two are especially relevant, because using the vertical dimension is so rarely seen in most modern - and even most old - dungeons. In my experience, it is a very good tool to introduce complexity into a map without making it frustrating. A single staircase at the "end of the level" doesn't break up a linear pattern, but let us assume there are four connections - two stairs at different locations, a secret chute and a multi-level cavern room which provides access to the lower level and (if the players have their characters look up) a chimney to an upper one. This simple addition doesn't make the structure of the individual levels any more complex. However, it greatly improves the freedom of the party. They may go down one staircase, find the multi-level cavern later on and go up to a previously unexplored part of the first level. In my experience, players love this kind of thing. Maybe it is feeling smart, I don't know.

Now, let us enhance the complexity even further and introduce multiple levels, three down and two up. It could be possible that some connections will completely bypass a level and arrive at a lower one. Some levels may essentially be split up... you couldn't go from one end to the other (or you could only do so by finding a secret passage, maybe through a crawlway or a submerged passage between pools of water). There may be isolated sections also, and they may be secret - and thus provide a discovery - merely because they can only be reached from below. What we have just done is created a genuinely old school dungeon (at least in form): we did this without introducing unfun elements like unmappable mazes or endless corridors. Even if the total size of the dungeon is cca. 15-30 keyed areas to a level, the end result is a freeform environment where no two parties will have the same experience. Of course, these maps may still contain "nodes" of importance, where the DM may hide McGuffins, or which are simply visited by almost everyone for various reasons. On the other side, there may be places whose discovery will feel like an accomplishment - without resorting to secret doors.

 

[howandwhy99]

Bump

This is a great thread and kudos to Melan for all the work on that 1st post.

I was reading the Design and Development columns over at Wizards and saw an interesting article. This one is from Gnoll Limits: Adventure Design, Part 2. It discusses map linearity and some of its' benefits. It also gives one idea on map design at the end.

Map Linearity

We often say that there isn’t much difference between site-based adventures and event-based adventures. It doesn’t take great mental gymnastics to imagine that the dungeon map is actually an event flowchart, or that the flowchart is really a map. But there’s a key difference between event flowcharts and maps: The lines that connect the boxes on the flowchart are usually one-way arrows; cause leads to effect, but then you generally don’t go back to “cause.” But with a dungeon, the corridors that connect the boxes run both ways. The players perceive greater freedom of choice on a map, even if revisiting a room where you’ve already been won’t be exciting most of the time.

But whether you’re drawing a map or a flowchart, there’s a fine balancing act when it comes to junctions: How many to provide? The word “linear” is not one an adventure wants to hear, but I think it’s unfairly maligned. I know from bitter experience that a dungeon with too many choices (not linear enough) is just as unsatisfying as one that’s basically a chain of rooms (too linear).

One of the reasons that linearity is good is the rapid pace of level advancement in D&D. Let’s start with a pretty basic assumption: 12 encounters gets you a level.

Tangent Alert!: I think the real number might be more like 10 encounters nowadays, for reasons on both sides of the screen. DMs are increasingly likely to throw monsters one or two points of CR higher than the average level of the party. And players are often playing with ability scores that far outstrip the 25 point buy that is the game’s intended baseline. Which happened first is a chicken-and-egg question, I suppose.

If your dungeon has more than 12 rooms, your characters are going to level up. Make a 25-room dungeon, and they’ll level up twice. Particularly in a low-level dungeon, you need some linearity to ensure that players don’t hit the CR 3 or CR 4 monster in room 25 until they’ve got the experience from rooms 1 through 24.

There’s an “analysis paralysis” reason why linearity is a virtue, too. If every room has four undifferentiated doors leading out of it, you’re going to see the game grind to halt as the players argue every time about whether to go east or west. That’s no fun for anyone.

So clearly you want some linearity, but players will feel stifled if they don’t feel like they get to make meaningful choices. Here’s one approach to linearity that worked well for me. I’m going to use a dungeon as the example, but the approach works for any adventure site—or any event flowchart, for that matter.

Rather than start the PCs at one edge of your graph paper, put that first entry staircase in the middle of the map. Drop them into a room that gives three or four choices right off the bat, and your players will revel in the choice. Then, build your dungeon like a bullseye, with easier encounters near the middle of the map and the tough stuff tucked away at the edges and corners. Include periodic branches, especially ones that connect within the same “ring” of the bullseye. Now the players perceive meaningful choice, and you know the PCs won’t get to the corners without the prior experience they need.

Also, I had a few questions for Melan, if he's still reading.

1. What do you think about the old mapping techniques on 8 1/2" x 11" grid paper? Many dungeons used to play a metagame of finding secret rooms or ensuring a level was fully mapped by filliing in all the spaces on a single sheet of paper. The Prince in T1-4 is probably the most famous case.

2. What do you think of classical mazes in games? The kind kids used to buy in paperbacks for long trips. The ol' pencil tracing style. My understanding is, these are no longer considered fun and instead tedious mapping chores more than anything else.

3. Lastly, do you think dungeons (meaning maps of any interior space; buildings, towers, sewers, etc.) should put more priority on non-linear style or on logical construction by the in-game designers?

I pretty much agree with everything you mentioned in your first post. You were pretty clear that not all dungeons need by non-linear. They certainly work in Gygax's tombs S1 and Necropolis. Of course now these are considered bad design by many. Whereas I've become pretty sick of reading newer modules, event and dungeon-based, that are essentially flowcharts. Anyway, thanks for bringing this phenomenon to light.