Have we lost the dungeon?

[John Morrow]

Seeing as the implict goal in early RPGs was for characters to become leaders i don't find articles like the one you mention overly remarkable. Write ups of early games make it prety clear that a PCs relation to npcs was an important part of the game; accquirring allies and minions was of importance to those seeking success and power with the game.

That's not the context of the article, though. One of the anecdotes, for example, has a PC falling in love with an NPC, the NPC getting killed, and the PC going on a spontaneous quest to find some way to bring her back to life. That has nothing to do with aquiring allies and minions nor seeking power within the game. The article also talks about giving sub-optimal characters a chance with the anecdote of a person playing a cougaroid with epilepsy who needed to rely on other characters when his disability kicked in. Again, not about seeking power. I'm sure some groups did. Plenty of groups didn't.

The original Metamophosis Alpha as dungeon isn't a very broad stretch of the definition of dungeon actually. The dungeon in this question is an enigmatic confined environment of unkown typography filled with hideous dangers that a band of individuals willing to commit theft and violence are set loose within to explore and dominate on a quest for personal and/or group power.

The big "quest" of Metamorphosis Alpha was to save the ship from disaster (as per the 1973 Canadian series The Star Lost -- see http://www.dvshop.ca/dvcafe/madscreen/starlost.htm for details), not a quest for personal and/or group power. The ship was huge (Bill Armintrout addresses players taking elevators to unmapped and unconsidered decks before the GM is ready for them in the article) and certainly no more "confined" than a city or small country once the players learned how to get around. As for hideous dangers, individuals willing to commit theft and violence, and exploration, we are back to describing more than just a dungeon and well into a few of S. John Ross' five elements of a commercially successful role-playing setting (Anarchy and Violence).

Space:1999 isn't a dungeon and Logan's Run isn't either because they don't focus of the accuisition of power as motivators for the characters. Space 1999 is actually a homesteading western and Logan's Run is a retelling of the Oddessey.

Space: 1999 included an enigmatic confined environment (Moonbase Alpha and, more broadly, whatever was in the range of the Eagles) of unkown topography (they couldn't steer the moon and had railroaded "encounters" as they passed through unknown space) filled with hideous dangers and the crew was willing to commit theft and violence to survive the encounter. I think it has a great deal in common with many traditional dungeon role-playing scenarios. Particular episodes had even more in common and included such plots as exploring derelict spaceships, asteroids, and caves on the moon and defeating the opponents found there.

As for Logan's Run, consider the movie from the fight at the New You shop to seeing the sun for the first time. We've got dangers, tests, puzzles, traps, and even a hideous danger to be defeated at the end of the tunnel before they can leave. There is also the hunt through Arcade for the runner and the encounter with the cubs at Cathedral which are very dungeon-like. And let's not forget that the domed city is an environment no less confined than Starship Warden was nor that Washington, DC was empty of people except for the one key encounter for the PCs.

Yes, these two stories were a lot like other stories, but they were also a lot like dungeons (at least in part). One does not preclude the other.

 

[Monte At Home]

To answer the original poster, no, I don't think we've lost the dungeon at all. I think it's alive and well.

The quote attributed to me was taken slightly out of context. The piece it was taken from wasn't suggesting that we'd lost the dungeon but was referring to the fact that during 1st edition (and before), TSR as a company stressed adventures as the key product in their product line, while in the days of 2nd edition the campaign setting and setting sourcebook were the key products. (The article also goes on to point out that a lot more time, attention and care went into 1E adventures because of that, hence why when people look back at good adventures, most of them are from those earlier times.)

This led to a shift in focus in DMing (generally speaking, of course--not trying to say its true of everyone) that stressed world design over adventure design. Which in and of itself may not be a bad thing--again, that wasn't my point.

The point I was making was the adventures can be a viable type of product, and its unfortunate that--with a few notable examples--its been all but abandoned.

Anyway, that's why I used the dates 1979 and 1989. I wasn't trying to make a statement about today. I simply used the word dungeon because in 1979 most (but not all) adventures were dungeon adventures (homebrew or published), and were called dungeons or modules, not adventures.

 

[Monte At Home]

The authors of the 3e DMG would disagree with you there, as they state categorically that "the dungeon" is somehow different than the rest of the game; it's where you go to have adventure; and it's separate and distinct from other aspects of the game.

That's a very interesting point. I could quote parts of the DMG to you that would refute that statement, but that would be lame because regardless of what it actually says that's not what you, the reader, came away with, and that's actually the important thing. I'm sorry you came away with that impression.

It's an important thing for designers going forward to keep in mind, I think. Like you, I'm one of those DMs who likes adventure to happen everywhere. I myself have been running an entirely city-based game since well before 3E came out. There are "dungeons," but when there are, they're right there in the PCs back yard, so to speak.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I'd characterise the issues being described in this thread as follows:

1. Dungeons -v- other adventures. Here the discussion focuses around the specific setting of a dungeon and the specific mechanics of dungeoneering; some dungeons have come under fire for seemingly arbitrary placement of traps, tricks and monsters, and also for a perceived repetitive nature. As far as I can see the broad conclusion is that dungeon-based adventures are good and can work provided there's a certain minimum amount of rhyme and reason to the dungeon population and the placement of obstacles. Nevertheless, dungeons as a setting have attracted some hostility.

2. Location-based adventures -v- event-based adventures. Here the discussion has focused around the role of the adventure designer, and I could paraphrase the central question thus: "Is the role of the adventure designer to create an interesting and challenging environment for the player characters to explore, or is it to tell a story?" (NB: A few minutes' careful thought will suffice to show that the AD can't do both without compromising on one or the other.) Here, event-based adventures have attracted some hostility and dungeons (which have been associated with location-based adventures, particularly by Celebrim) have come out on top, probably because event-based encounters leave so little room for player choice or player skill to affect the outcome... personally I never want to bother with event-based adventures, we might as well all just sit around drinking beer while the DM tells us what happened and then hands out the xp.

I don't feel that the dichotomy between world design and dungeon design is worth examining. Analysis will show that D&D has always been about world design. In D&D's early history, some campaigns had dungeons that were effectively bigger than the surface world, but that doesn't change the fact.

 

[Desdichado]

That's a very interesting point. I could quote parts of the DMG to you that would refute that statement, but that would be lame because regardless of what it actually says that's not what you, the reader, came away with, and that's actually the important thing. I'm sorry you came away with that impression.

Hmmm... I'm gonna go reread that text box then, as it seemed to be about as clear as anything else I read that the dungeon was separate from other activities. Unless my memory is just completely off, I don't know how it could be interpreted any other way.

Of course, it's 8:30 in the morning, and I'm at work, so I won't be able to look for that text box all day either...

 

[Desdichado]

2. Location-based adventures -v- event-based adventures. Here the discussion has focused around the role of the adventure designer, and I could paraphrase the central question thus: "Is the role of the adventure designer to create an interesting and challenging environment for the player characters to explore, or is it to tell a story?" (NB: A few minutes' careful thought will suffice to show that the AD can't do both without compromising on one or the other.) Here, event-based adventures have attracted some hostility and dungeons (which have been associated with location-based adventures, particularly by Celebrim) have come out on top, probably because event-based encounters leave so little room for player choice or player skill to affect the outcome... personally I never want to bother with event-based adventures, we might as well all just sit around drinking beer while the DM tells us what happened and then hands out the xp.

There is another way to do "event based adventures" though, other than writing a story and cramming it down the PCs throat. My typical adventure design is to come up with NPCs first, develop their agendas and what they're trying to accomplish, and then finding ways to let the PCs know what the NPCs are up to. Then the PCs get involved, and the plans of the NPCs are naturally thwarted or aided, depending on what they decide to do, and the plans react and change accordingly.

I think the characterization of site-based vs. narrative adventures is a bit false, because there are other ways of doing things besides just those two.

 

[S'mon]

I like the idea of the dungeon as separate from the everyday world, for the Campbellian reason noted above. I certainly do run non-dungeon adventures based on intrigue amongst the nobility, or large-scale warfare, or a murderer loose in the PC's home town or castle, but I think these "incursion" based scenarios where adventure _comes to_ the PCs are fundamentally different from the "call to adventure" paradigm of the Dungeon.

 

[Celebrim]

To answer the original poster, no, I don't think we've lost the dungeon at all. I think it's alive and well.

Well, at the risk of appearing to have too much hubris (HA! Me?), I'm going to disagree with you and butter you up at the same time.

Amongst published products, I do think that we've lost the dungeon and that you yourself are one of the last skilled dungeon designers producing products professionally. Of course, since I could probably list the number of people who I think are skilled high profile dungeon designers in the whole history of the game and still have a few fingers left over, it may simply be that we no longer focus on the dungeon even if there are people out there that could do it but effectively this is the same thing. Except within lucky groups who already have good dungeon designers as DM's, there aren't alot of products out there to share or to teach young DM's how to go about making good dungeons.

So, while I agree that between you, Skip, and Bruce Cordell, there is alot of potential out there for well crafted dungeons, I'm not sure I completely agree than dungeon design isn't being lost. There did seem to be late in 2nd edition and early in 3rd edition something of a reinassance in dungeon design going on, but that seems to be passing and I'm really sure how influential that period was. Are we forever doomed to 'new golden ages' scattered between long periods in which the dungeon (and the module) are out of vogue? Who other than Skip, Bruce, and yourself is out there carrying the torch for thought provoking dungeon crawling?

 

[John Morrow]

There is another way to do "event based adventures" though, other than writing a story and cramming it down the PCs throat. My typical adventure design is to come up with NPCs first, develop their agendas and what they're trying to accomplish, and then finding ways to let the PCs know what the NPCs are up to. Then the PCs get involved, and the plans of the NPCs are naturally thwarted or aided, depending on what they decide to do, and the plans react and change accordingly.

I think that this is the way that many DMs/GMs try to "split the difference". The idea is to create a setting-based game with enough dramatic things going on that the PCs can find something interesting to do and you may even get a good story out of it. In fact, one of the things that most role-playing style analysis seems to ignore is the fact that almost all types of role-players are willing to tolerate fairly contrived set-ups and setting elements and it's largely how things play out after the game starts where the style differences clash the most. Most players realize that the GM needs to set the stage before the game begins. It's how the GM controls the stage after the players take control of their PCs and engage the situation that they have the most issues with.

I think the characterization of site-based vs. narrative adventures is a bit false, because there are other ways of doing things besides just those two.

Perhaps, but what you are describing fits into that paradigm. You are describing is running a setting-based game with a dramatic set-up. The key distinction is whether the GM decides what happens next based on what would logically happen next in the setting or based on other concerns (e.g., story, challenge, fun, interpersonal issues, etc.) and, if they use other concerns, what those other concerns are. This issue can't really be avoided because almost every game will have situations where deciding what happpens next based on what would logically happen next in the setting clashes with what would make a good story, a good challenge, the most fun experience, etc. just as what happens in real life often clashes with what would make a good story, a good challenge, the most fun experience, etc. And when that clash happens, the GM has to decide which wins.

What I think you are pointing to is that many (of not most) players are quite tolerant of contrived set-ups designed to create opportunities for a good story, a good challenge, lots of fun, etc. Generally, a good set up for a game or campaign is one bursting with opportunities for the PCs to get involved in interesting things happening in the setting. But where the style difference matters is what happens after that set up and during play. Once you've created your setting full of NPCs with agendas and the PCs find out what they are up to, do you simply let events play out as they logically would if the setting where a real place or do you adjust situations to make sure that the PCs discover certain clues and do certain things to produce a more narrow range of possible outcomes?

Of course there are still limits to how much staging some players will tolerate. To give you an analogy, if you want to hunt pheasant, it makes some sense to go hunting in a place known to have lots of pheasants rather than picking a random bit of land in the hope that you'll find pheasants there. On the other hand, a lot of people think that putting pheasants in a box and releasing them in front of a person with a gun so the person with the gun can shoot them is a bit unsporting and artificial and loses a lot of what "hunting" is supposed to be about, reducing it to target shooting. Similarly, a lot of players will accept GMs providing a target rich set-up that's likely to generate the sorts of adventures that they want but many players don't want the GM to put the adventure into a box to be opened in front of the players with effortless yet predictable results.

Of course what I'm still leaving out (and, again, many discussions of role-playing styles as categories overlook) is one of thresholds and limits. In reality, I think many good GMs will let what logically happens next in the setting happen unless doing so crosses a certain threshold of doing damage to the game. For example, a GM might not fudge combat results until a PC is about to die. A GM might not shove a clue in front of the PCs until they miss a clue that will cause the campaign to collapse or end badly. A GM might not fudge combat encounters until the PCs are about to get slaughtered (or, from the other side, walk all over a powerful villain) simply because the dice are being incredibly one-sided that day. That can and does provide a lot of shading but it doesn't erase the ultimate conflict between the GM making decisions for setting-based reasons and the GM making decisions for metagame reasons, during play, when those two sets of concerns conflict.

(EDIT: Spelling)

 

[John Morrow]

The point I was making was the adventures can be a viable type of product, and its unfortunate that--with a few notable examples--its been all but abandoned.

Are they really that viable (or at least as viable as settings)? I keep hearing people claim that selling adventures isn't profitable, which was part of what the whole OGL deal was supposed to be about, wasn't it? Are there good reasons to believe that selling adventures could be good business, especially if more companies were doing it? How big is the market and how quickly would it saturate?