How dungeons have changed in Dungeons and Dragons

[Psion]

You know, I don't think I've ever seen you misspell a word in that line. Do you actually just cut and paste it?

It's a macro hardwired into his nervous system.

 

[tx7321]

Grodog makes a good point: "ontinuous combat would bore me to tears, especially within the scope of 3.x combats (which, since I'm not MerricB, take me a LOT longer to run than AD&D combats). "

Thats true, unless your MerricB (and lets face it, there's only one MerricB ) a typical 1E dungeon crawl would take forever and become a chore for the players and DM if using 3E rules. Perhaps the dungeons of today are written with the 3E rules in mind (so it's not that 1E sytle dungeons are considered too boring by players, but rather, that the system of rules make them impractical. Perhaps the evolution of dungeons in D&D has more to do with the evolution of rules (where battle after battle in 1E was quick and easy, and didn't hurt the tempo; in 3E battle after battle would slow the game down too much (think about room after room of 20-30 kolbolds or orc (or the like) vs. a group of 7-8 PCs; this wouldn't phase a 1E DM, but would be a pain in the neck for his 3E counterpart). :\

 

[Psion]

Thats true, unless your MerricB (and lets face it, there's only one MerricB ) a typical 1E dungeon crawl would take forever and become a chore for the players and DM if using 3E rules.

How ironic.

I'm thinking that the 3e skill rules that enable the PCs are going to make my upcoming Return to the Tomb of Horrors (which includes the original) run more smoothly.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think tx is right. With the age of gamers increasing time becomes more and more scarce. Speed is important for a game. The problem is D20 is slow. It's not unusual for a high level combat to last a couple hours - even the whole night for a big finale. Unfortunately, this has influenced adventure design to where players stay within the adventure path almost entirely instead of having to find it / create it for themselves. Time can't afford to be wasted.

For example, reading adventure path storyhours the stories are almost uniformly the same. Events, locations, NPCs, and adventures all happen in the same order. The DM is choosing their path, not the players. If you've read one, you know what is going to happen next in another. This means what is played is already prepared which helps the DM. Unfortunately, it removes the opportunity for the characters to choose their own ends and be responsible for their actions. The adventure has already plotted the action, just not the success or failure. So success often rides on the tactical decisions made each combat instead of strategic planning on who to fight or whether to fight at all.

 

[SteveC]

I think the focus for the game has shifted over the years. I know that our group played much like some of the other old-timers here have discussed: lots of variety, role play mixed into shorter site-based adventures.

Still, the vast majority of modules that were published at the time encouraged the dungeon crawl mentality. There were notable exceptions, to be sure, but about 90% of what was published by TSR and Judges Guild was a dungeon crawl.

With 3x, I think what has changed is the tone of the game from the creators themselves. WotC has put out a lot of product that is not just a long dungeon crawl, and many of the third party publishers have as well.

So the answer is, I think, that the dungeon has changed from the "official" sources, but it has not changed very much in my games.

--Steve

 

[WizarDru]

I think you've got the wrong question. It isn't 'how have dungeons changed', it's 'how has the presentation of dungeons changed'?

Quick quiz: how many pages long is Tomb of Horrors module, not including the illustrations? Answer: 12 pages.

Now consider that the Sunless Citadel is 32 pages. And Sunless Citadel is inflated by having stat-blocks in the module, a practice that became unnecessary for MM standard monsters when the MM came out.

Under 1e, most store-bought modules assumed by default that individual DMs would, as they desired, provide the framing for the module. This changed over time as modules provided more to DMs...a necessary change, I think, as more and more DMs began to question why they should pay for something they could actually make using the random tables in the DMG or just from experience. Hell, the DMG gave you all the random encounter and wilderness material you'd need.

Often the motivation was simply given to PCs. "You've been told by the Duke of Geoff to go into the Crystalmists and find this Toscjanth place." Of course, by that time, you were given a little 'search' adventure and some random encounters within the module, making the trek there just as much as an adventure.

The continued success of both Dungeon Crawl Classics and stuff like the Paizo Adventure Paths show that there is an equal demand for both styles of module....but I think a large emphasis has been placed on framing and assumptions of use, and that is the fundemental change, not the dungeon itself.

 

[MerricB]

I think tx is right. With the age of gamers increasing time becomes more and more scarce. Speed is important for a game. The problem is D20 is slow. It's not unusual for a high level combat to last a couple hours - even the whole night for a big finale. Unfortunately, this has influenced adventure design to where players stay within the adventure path almost entirely instead of having to find it / create it for themselves. Time can't afford to be wasted.

Hmm. I don't think that is the case.

I think what is actually the case is that those people who enjoy narrative arcs exist, and so adventures are written to cater to them. People who like dungeon-crawls also exist, and they also get adventures for them (see Sons of Gruumsh and Return to Greyhawk Ruins). People who enjoy creating their own arcs... well, they're mainly creating their own adventures, aren't they?

D&D still has a lot of players, and, let's face it, most of them are *not* buying adventures. They create their own.

So, the people who remain want something better than they can create themselves.

For a narrative style adventure, then there are several elements that need to be addressed - linking and foreshadowing being two key ones.

For a delving style adventure, then the creativity of individual encounters is more key. (See Lost Caverns of Tsocanth; there's almost no "plot" to it, but the encounters are each unique).

When you look back at the history of published mega-dungeons, there are surprisingly few on the ground. Gygax was unable to complete any of his for publication - Temple finally came out after Mentzer got it into shape, and we're still waiting on Castle Greyhawk. The next couple were Undermountain and Greyhawk Ruins, but the first is incomplete, the second uninspiring.

In 3e - and I talk here only of Wizards contribution - the adventure size mitigates against megadungeons again. Still, Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury both fit the mold of primary delving adventures, having 56 and 54 areas respectively. Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil takes it to another level - the crater ridge mines hit 231 encounter areas! (Can someone look up how many areas the original Temple has?)

Dungeon Magazine really has problems with page count and doing large dungeons.

Once we hit 3.5e, we begin to look at the new crop of Wizards adventures. Sons of Gruumsh is the primary one, with 48 encounter areas, as does The Twilight Tomb. Return to Castle Ravenloft is an oddity, so I'll leave it for the moment. The introductory adventure Scourge of the Howling Horde suffers from the new delve format (12 areas only!), and Red Hand of Doom has a mere 17 areas in its biggest dungeon - well, it's a narrative adventure, not a dungeon crawl.

To compare some numbers...
White Plume Mountain - 27 encounter areas
Pharoah - 67 areas in the Pyramid (sort of)
Hall of the Fire Giant King - 62 encounter areas.

Hmm...

I think the 1e adventures tend to be denser for encounters, but I need to check more thoroughly.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

MB: "Do you want to ask about why the shift away from dungeon-crawls and to more variety in adventures, or insult people who play computer games?"

Oh, that must be it !

Ah, you admit it!

Sorry about that, tx - I've just seen way too many threads denigrating 3e as "video-gamey" that I react badly to similar comparisons.

One thing to consider is that above ground adventuring can be v. similar to delving. Think about it, moving through rooms in a building, or down narrow confined alley ways and streets, forest trails, ravines and the like. So perhaps the "dungeon crawl" still exists in a way, just presented in a different fashion. The "board" is still there, but you can move around it with more freedom.

Do you own The Speaker in Dreams (a early 3e adventure)? That explicitly has a flowchart/dungeon map for a city investigation. It's a very useful technique, actually.

As far as 1E modules go, I think the topside parts were left undeveloped on purpose, to allow the DM and players interacting to create the story of whats going on (who they talk to, how they get to point A to B, what wacky adventures they have on the way...that all develops "in game", it wasn't usually written down. I remember exploring Homlet and taking days (in game time) checking out other places in and around the village, as the DM made up stuff on the spot...some of which were just as cool as the module itself.

My best experience with such was running a 3e conversion of The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh. Design your own town with hints! Very cool. (Unfortunately, U3 was a complete let-down).

But note, the DM and players came up with all that "story line" it wasn't written down or suggested (as it often is 3E modules, in plot, ecological and anthropological descriptions, DM notes, etc.

Actually, if you're really going to look at the difference between 1e & 3e adventures, a big one isn't how dungeons are handled - for they are fairly similar - but rather how the wilderness is handled.

That's a really significant shift in adventure design over the past 30 years, IMO.

Cheers!

 

[shilsen]

What about an underground city though?

Same as in my previous post, except I don't have to describe the weather

Dungeon design doesn't have to be linear....

Agreed. I just think it's far more common to see linear than non-linear dungeons as a player, and as a DM, if I'm doing a non-linear adventure, I'd just as soon put it in whatever situation fits (which might, of course, have a dungeon aspect) rather than shooting for a dungeon.

I thought it would be worth drawing Melan's thread and associated discussions to your attention in case you would be interested in a trying out a non-linear dungeon environment, though: they are fun, in many ways, and offer a very different playing experience than a city or wilderness or planar setting.

Sure. I appreciate the thought and the link. I'd read parts of that thread earlier, but never looked through the entire thing. Lots of very nice ideas there.

The game isn't called Dungeons & Dragons for nothing

Actually, for me, it really is called Dungeons and Dragons for nothing As I said, my games almost never feature dungeons, and dragons show up pretty rarely too (thrice in 45 sessions, with two of those being combat encounters).

And I'm really big on the whole "what's in a name?" approach, so I tend to ignore nomenclature. Which, to go off on a tangent, helps me with approaching lots of D&D game elements without preconceptions. When I look at a class called the Samurai, I just look at the mechanics (and use what flavor I want), rather than having any expectation that it should/will fit the samurai from history, myth or popular culture. Same goes for monks, demons, devils, angels, dragons, weapons, armor, etc. Which goes some way to explaining why my D&D mostly doesn't have dungeons or dragons.

 

[grodog]

I think what is actually the case is that those people who enjoy narrative arcs exist, and so adventures are written to cater to them. People who like dungeon-crawls also exist, and they also get adventures for them (see Sons of Gruumsh and Return to Greyhawk Ruins). People who enjoy creating their own arcs... well, they're mainly creating their own adventures, aren't they?

I think those distinctions didn't exist as cleanly/clearly in OD&D and AD&D as they do today: there wasn't a separate storytelling movement in gaming, for example. People who liked D&D created dungeon-based games with unique encounters as well as narrative arcs, recurring themes and characters, with background and story-consequences based on the outcome of adventuring. There were few, if any, defined borders in the game (including the willingness to expand into other genres/settings a la Metamorphosis Alpha, Boot Hill, modern Earth, and many, many fiction-inspired settings [Oz, Melnibone, Dying Earth, Mars, etc., etc., etc.]).

When you look back at the history of published mega-dungeons, there are surprisingly few on the ground. Gygax was unable to complete any of his for publication - Temple finally came out after Mentzer got it into shape, and we're still waiting on Castle Greyhawk. The next couple were Undermountain and Greyhawk Ruins, but the first is incomplete, the second uninspiring.

True. The oft-quoted T1-4, A1-4, GDQ1-7 serieses were all, originally, individual modules without any connecting content across the three arcs. The only true mega-dungeons we knew of were all unpublished: Castles Greyhawk, Blackmoor, and El Raja Key, and Undermountain (revealed in part, only, alas).

Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil takes it to another level - the crater ridge mines hit 231 encounter areas! (Can someone look up how many areas the original Temple has?)

T1 Hommlet with 33 keys, 4 detailed buildings of those 33 contain another 68 keys (Inn 28, Traders 13, Church 15, Tower 12), and the MoatHouse and dungeon with 35, for a total of 132 details encounter keys (33 - 4 so we don't count the detailed buildings twice + 68 + 35)!! All in a mere 32 pages, complete with backstory, story follow-up consequences, and plenty of room for expansion into a full-fledged campaign.

T2 ToEE: has 344 encounter keys in total, not counting T1's 132
- Nulb has 4 keys
- Temple Ruins has 15 keys
- Dungeon Level 1 has 55 keys (two are #a keys)
- Dungeon Level 2 has 58 keys (many are #a, b, c, etc. keys)
- Dungeon Level 3 has 61 keys (ditto)
- Dungeon Level 4 has 35 keys
- Air Node has 32 keys (minimalist detail on all of the nodes, like M&T Assortment entries)
- Earth Node has 24 keys
- Fire Node has 36 keys
- Water Node has 24 keys

So, T1-4, in total, has 476 detailed encounters.

To compare some numbers...
White Plume Mountain - 27 encounter areas
Pharoah - 67 areas in the Pyramid (sort of)
Hall of the Fire Giant King - 62 encounter areas.

I think Gary's modules tend to include more encounters, in general. The elemental nodes drop off significantly in the number of encounters detailed, which seem to be another marker for where Frank took over the production of the manuscript from Gary's original materials.

I think the 1e adventures tend to be denser for encounters, but I need to check more thoroughly.

I would tend to agree. Heart of Nightfang Tower Spire strikes me as a denser number of encounters keyed for a 3.x module, but that's just a general impression, not validated.

Actually, if you're really going to look at the difference between 1e & 3e adventures, a big one isn't how dungeons are handled - for they are fairly similar - but rather how the wilderness is handled.

AD&D really didn't provide much in the way of published wilderness adventures (S4 and WG4 being the grand exemplars, along with EX1, EX2, and WG6, and portions of L1 [and the X-series]). Of those, only S4/WG4 and L1 are normal (non-demiplanar) wilderness....

Are there any true WotC wilderness adventures in 3.x?