Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Melan" data-source="post: 2952756" data-attributes="member: 1713">With a slight delay, here are my replies and comments on points raised by posters up to #47. ***1. Two approaches to dungeon designOne already useful result from the thread is that I am now able to coherently formulate a thought on the purpose of dungeons which had been germinating in my mind for some time. There seems to be a split in the game fandom on this subject, and accordingly, it polarises discussion. First, there are those who identify dungeons as a vehicle for plot-based play. These people also tend to have fewer problems with linear dungeon layout, or even prefer it to other types. Their preferences are probably better served by a dungeon with a definite beginning, a definite finish and a sequence of encounters, which, when strung together, builds a narrative (or something to that extent). In this game form, the layout or structure of a dungeon doesn’t matter too much. As a provocative statement, I will risk drawing flames by saying thata) there is no overwhelming need in this case to even have a dungeon map – as a DM, you could direct  the game with statements like „having defeated the mildly annoying tarnisher monster, you press onward, and after bypassing some side passages, you enter the court of the lich-vampire. You see a marble fountain spraying six sorts of coloured liquid before a great bronze portal. (etc.)” I am not convinced all players otherwise accustomed to plot-based adventuring would take well to this - as Eric Noah noted, players like their illusion of choice - but taken to the extreme conclusions, that is what linear design is: focusing on a predetermined sequence of encounters.b) this form of adventure isn’t a real dungeon in the classic sense. For one, it has zero explorative element. What it is instead is a set-piece, a backdrop to set plot-based adventures in. This is in stark contrast to the dungeon as originally imagined - a place to adventure in. That kind of dungeon has no plot - this kind doesn’t have place. Naturally, I am writing about absolutes, when there is ample room in between.It is interesting to note how this interpretation of dungeons has influenced game design since the early 80s, so much so that it is considered to be synonymous with it. Even the designers of Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury, who admittedly wanted to showcase 3e’s „return to the dungeon” aspect, chose this form which is demonstrably different from the comparatively non-linear introductory modules like Keep on the Borderlands or In Search of the Unknown. It seems to me that today’s dungeons aren’t the spiritual successors of this form - instead, they can trace their ancestry to tournament modules like Slave Pits of the Undercity or even Tomb of Horrors. Tournament modules are understandably more linear than others, because they need to standardize the flow of play for comparative purposes (post-tourney appraisal). I also suspect they are associated with less designer guilt, because, after all, a dungeon without a „real purpose” is „dumb”.The second approach is treating dungeons as an environment the players can explore. Although there may as well be some nebulous main objective („Humanoids are raiding the countryside. Kill ’em and take their stuff.”), there is a single reason for the existence of the dungeon in the campaign: to allow exploration in a reasonably freeform environment. In theory, the dungeon is only „finished” when the players tire of it or exploit its adventuring potential. The sequence of play may emerge from goals set by the party or spontaneously. (As an interesting observation from personal experience, the game session seems to often have a buildup, peak and denouement even in such unregulated cases - due to the simple phenomenon that as players exhaust their resources due to attrition, every successive encounter poses more risk of loss, and eventually, one comes which severely taxes the party and may lead to exceptional successes or spectacular failures.) This style is arguably better served - or outright requires - more complex and more extensive maps. In fact, unlike in the other one, negotiating the hostile environment is in itself an element of play. I also posted my OP in a thread on Dragonsfoot, and Evreaux made a very insightful comment to this effect, far better than I could:***2. Meaningful choices and dungeon mapsThere seem to be two questions that need to be addressed here. First, what are meaningful choices? Hussar (among others) wrote:Ironically, I originally had a lengthy paragraph about this question in the original post, but ended up cutting most of it because I thought it would have made the article too long. Oh well. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Meaningful choices may be identified on multiple levels of decision making. Rounser already touched upon them, but here they are again. On the simplest level, not all choices are meaningful. At a nondescript intersection, you may as well flip a coin or follow the golden rule („left hand on the wall”). A DM could provide some information with descriptive hints: a charnel stench to the right, scattered equipment to the left - or use „intersections” which inherently require a meaningful choice (do we take the twisting chimney to a lower level or do we use the marble stairway that is decorated with skulls?). In many cases, this is impossible. But even in a theoretical information-poor dungeon where individual branches are nondescript, choices become meaningful on the strategic level where the goal is managing a whole expedition. For instance, the following questions may come up:„Do we delve deep into the dungeon or stay near the entrance and cover more territory?”„Do we use the shortcut where random encounters are very common, or do we go through that abandoned level we don’t know fully yet?„How far are we going to go? Do we undertake higher risks for a higher probability of rewards?”etc.As an example, when I was running Necromancer’s Tomb of Abysthor module (which I consider a dungeon with a very good layout), the players eventually realized that every time they left the dungeon to recover, their opponents, the cultists Orcus would organize ambushes, try to block certain routes and prepare for their next assault, and that these assaults were progressively getting more and more brutal. It was an interesting dilemma for sure - and it encouraged them to explore further, look for alternate entrances and so forth. The suitably complex structure of the dungeon made this kind of choice possible.The second question is: how do encounters fit into the map? Some posters seem to have come to the incorrect conclusion that a complex layout meansa) a lot of frustrating mapping puzzlesb) that interesting rooms will be few and far between.Neither problem is an inherent feature of a well constructed dungeon. It is also possible that certain mapping puzzles are fun if not overdone - they are no different from any other dungeon type encounter like getting across a pit or avoiding a mechanical trap. As Ourph correctly remarked, most of them can be treated as a single unit of the dungeon. In the OP, I can easily point to multiple examples: the complicated minotaur maze in Keep on the Borderlands is represented by a crosslike structure (you can essentially get to the minotaur, a fire beetle lair or a secret door that leads to the bugbear chieftain’s hideout), and the room maze in In Search of the Unknown is essentially a straight line, because it eventually leads you to the same destination no matter where you go in it. Some mapping puzzles are of course frustrating. I file numerous mazes under this category, such as the minotaur maze in Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth or Borderlands (I am presently preparing to write up one of my minotaur mazes as a free adventure so there will be one that doesn’t suck <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />).It is also not definite that a big, complex dungeon will be miles upon miles of empty space with the occasional encounter. In fact, Paul Jaquays proves in his excellent dungeons (Dark Tower, Caverns of Thracia, Realm of the Slime God) that this is far from the truth: the secret is simply putting a lot of good encounters into your dungeon. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Bob Bledsaw’s Tegel Manor is another example of a dungeon module where most rooms have an interesting encounter, and the dungeon layout is 100% perfect (coincidentally, I wrote the revised version for Necromancer Games, so I had to become very familiar with how it works - it works very well indeed).The obvious downside to this approach is that such a dungeon becomes time-consuming to design. That is a real problem with no optimal solution. Iron regime proposed making a map and plopping down encounters as the players explored it. While I wouldn’t advocate this solution as perfect, I remember having a lot of fun this way when I was fourteen and I was running Ruins of Undermountain with nothing but the maps, dice and my imagination. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Today, I’d rather be a bit „uneconomical” in my design and let unexploited encounters or even mini-adventures return at a later date, possibly in another campaign. Of course, in a dungeon which accommodates multiple forays and there is no definite end to adventuring, it is more likely that the PCs will stay around and explore unknown sections. And there are some things which remain mysteries - for example, in Rappan Athuk, there is a [spoiler]hidden tomb on the „purple worms” level which none of Bill Webb and Clark Peterson’s PCs found under 25+years.[/spoiler] Occasionally, that is no problem either.***On to specific comments.Hussar:Yes. That’s why I usually consider it wise to put secrets where their discovery is not due to painstaking searching, but observing your map, examining a natural or man-made feature, or following a hint/rumor/map. As for the second point, I use a lot of small dungeons too, but consider them a part of wilderness adventuring. These should be probably be called „lairs” to differentiate them from the real deal.Erik Mona:Keeping in mind that I am unfamiliar with Whispering Cairn, my guess would be to insert this detour into the flowchart, even though such „lockouts” tend to make linear design even more linear. There is nothing preventing it. I am ambivalent about these sorts of plot devices; for example, I think a similar element hurt the final dungeon in EGG’s otherwise excellent Necropolis mega-adventure by breaking the flow of exploration. But I don’t know, maybe it works in Cairn.Lareth never impressed me that much. However, I have a high opinion of giant crayfish, giant frogs (most assuredly!), rust monsters, gelatinous cubes, green slime and similar squiggly horrors. They emphasize the whimsical and weird aspect of the game, and are an important part of its character. In fact, they are part of what makes D&D a non-generic fantasy game (along with Vancian magic, a decidedly materialistic worldview, etc.). But this is a subject for another thread...Also boring. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Not boring: City State of the Invincible Overlord, Modron, Lankhmar, the Keep.Settembrini: very good observations! You should post more. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Ourph: likewise, that’s some very good stuff.meleeguy:I have also been a lifelong fan of maps, from before I was roleplaying. My dad had a book with maps of caves in them... that had to do something with me getting into dungeoneering. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> WRT Forge of Fury’s maps, I was initially very impressed by them, but after a while, I realized that they just weren’t as good as my initial impressions made them seem. The art is very good, though, and I don’t think they are „dangerously bad” in any case.Actually, the images were (indirectly and distantly) inspired by my job - I am a regional economist, and really like abstract, graphical models of economic geography. As for getting good maps, I highly recommend anything Paul Jaquays did (Necromancer Games recently re-released Caverns of Thracia, which is a good start), but there is no way his maps are getting graphed. Simply too complex - Paul's use of the third dimension is unparalleled in game design.</blockquote>

Verification