Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PapersAndPaychecks" data-source="post: 2249794" data-attributes="member: 28854">Count me in with the dungeoneers. Actually I like a mixture.  Settings for the last adventure I wrote included a farm (rescue), a village (whodunnit), then a farmhouse with cellars (cellars were a four-room "dungeon"), then a rural wilderness area (chase), then a shrine (rp encounter), then a mini-dungeon (comprising about 60 rooms spread across 2 levels).  I'm presently working on a city adventure. Of all these, the dungeon bits were certainly the easiest to write.  I find town/city-based adventures much more challenging and time-consuming to prepare, and the results are much more variable... a good town/city/wilderness adventure is often more satisfying than a dungeon, but no dungeon I've ever written (including ones generated on the fly) is as bad as the worst town/city/wilderness. And this is ultimately why dungeons are popular.  They produce a structured and challenging game environment with a small amount of preparation time - and that's the whole point of them.  Dungeons are, in a very real sense, Dave Arneson's largest single contribution to the D&D game because they allow DMs to have jobs and families rather than needing to be full-time world creators. I agree that given the choice I would rather prepare adventures which include a smaller proportion of dungeons than is actually the case.  However, I only have a certain amount of preparation time and I need to develop a certain quantity of content - therefore I have to salt my campaign world with dungeons.</blockquote>

Verification