How large should you're average dungeon be?
- Thread starter Imaro
- Start date
ExploderWizard
Hero
Its hard to determine actual numbers independent of content. If a huge dungeon were interesting I could enjoy it. Likewise, a 6 room dungeon full of nothing but huge fights that take almost a whole session each could be very boring.
I didn't think the KOTS dungeon was physically too large. The encounters individually just took too long to resolve in real time.
Having empty rooms or places to explore without constant combat are nice to have in medium to large dungeons. Often there is is no logical reason why the monsters in small dungeons don't all come running after combat or other noise starts. Even if there are only 4-6 meaningful encounter areas, spacing them farther apart helps keep the encounters separated a little better.
I didn't think the KOTS dungeon was physically too large. The encounters individually just took too long to resolve in real time.
Having empty rooms or places to explore without constant combat are nice to have in medium to large dungeons. Often there is is no logical reason why the monsters in small dungeons don't all come running after combat or other noise starts. Even if there are only 4-6 meaningful encounter areas, spacing them farther apart helps keep the encounters separated a little better.
I answered 1-4 but that is more the number of combet encounters in an evening's play than in the entire dungeon. As others have stated, not all rooms should have encounters and not all encounters need to be combat ones.
A complete dungeon can span several gaming sessions and my players actually made it through about 4 maps worth of the WLD before the DM (me) ran out of steam.
A complete dungeon can span several gaming sessions and my players actually made it through about 4 maps worth of the WLD before the DM (me) ran out of steam.
Raven Crowking
First Post
There are a number of good points here already, but here's my $.02:
1. System Matters. The longer it takes to resolve an encounter, the fewer encounters should take place per dungeon. As a result, something like OD&D or Laybrinth Lord can have far larger dungeons than 3e or 4e and remain interesting.
2. History Matters. What the dungeon is determines, to a large extent, how big the place should be. A ruined castle is not a series of caves is not a fallen tower is not a destroyed city. Different dungeons require different sizes based on nothing more than what they are, and what their history is.
3. Variety Matters. The more interesting a dungeon, the more encounters it can include while remaining interesting.
I think that any given milieu should include (generally) between 1-10 "megadungeons" that a whole campaign could take place in, many smaller dungeons with 30-100 discrete areas, and a whole bunch of tinier dungeons and lairs of 1-30 rooms.
YMMV.
RC
1. System Matters. The longer it takes to resolve an encounter, the fewer encounters should take place per dungeon. As a result, something like OD&D or Laybrinth Lord can have far larger dungeons than 3e or 4e and remain interesting.
2. History Matters. What the dungeon is determines, to a large extent, how big the place should be. A ruined castle is not a series of caves is not a fallen tower is not a destroyed city. Different dungeons require different sizes based on nothing more than what they are, and what their history is.
3. Variety Matters. The more interesting a dungeon, the more encounters it can include while remaining interesting.
I think that any given milieu should include (generally) between 1-10 "megadungeons" that a whole campaign could take place in, many smaller dungeons with 30-100 discrete areas, and a whole bunch of tinier dungeons and lairs of 1-30 rooms.
YMMV.
RC
I generally like large dungeons to, but there are two giant exceptions to that.
1) Gygaxian\1e random dungeons - The ToEE and Maure Castle are two examples of dungeons that are chock full of awesome.... except for their layout. I generally keep all the encounters and redo the dungeon layout.
2) Paizo's castles - This suffers from the opposite problem, of being too functional/realistic and thus I end up with a bunch of tiny rooms that have irregular shapes. The rooms are too small to do battles room by room, and trying to draw out whole floors on 1-inch grid paper is an exercise in pain, since you will inevitably make a mistake.
So I like functional dungeons with rooms between 16 and 20 rooms for me. A happy medium between the above and WotC's current 4e dungeons which are far too simple.
1) Gygaxian\1e random dungeons - The ToEE and Maure Castle are two examples of dungeons that are chock full of awesome.... except for their layout. I generally keep all the encounters and redo the dungeon layout.
2) Paizo's castles - This suffers from the opposite problem, of being too functional/realistic and thus I end up with a bunch of tiny rooms that have irregular shapes. The rooms are too small to do battles room by room, and trying to draw out whole floors on 1-inch grid paper is an exercise in pain, since you will inevitably make a mistake.
So I like functional dungeons with rooms between 16 and 20 rooms for me. A happy medium between the above and WotC's current 4e dungeons which are far too simple.
I voted 28+, but I'm pretty sure a fundamental issue here is what one means by "dungeon rooms", "continuous dungeon crawl", etc.. What is being critically distinguished from what else?
"Dungeon" in the D&D context is to me a functional rather than architectural term, and (rather obviously to the initiated) that function is not specifically to be a gaol (which is the usual meaning outside of fantasy games). The term "underworld" as used in OD&D, or "place of mystery" as in C&S, may be more suggestive. It need not be subterranean, or even indoors; an enchanted wood, for instance, might serve.
The key is that there are defined paths to explore, all (or at least most) leading to "adventure" of some sort. A small fortress, tomb, or other site that by construction or population is effectively a "gauntlet" fits a broad definition. However, a "proper" dungeon to my mind has the qualities of diversity that featured in the original D&D description; some amount of geographic scope is generally necessary to provide an ample basis.
The dungeon map is like a flow-chart, the transposition into physical space facilitating navigation of event "space" via an arbitrarily great number of possible paths. It is a way to "open up" a scenario. Instead of a script, you get something like a Rubik's Cube. There is not (necessarily) an arrow of time preventing the visiting of "paths not taken" previously.
One of several small dungeons, or part of a larger one, might offer little variety. It might cater to those who especially like tricks and traps; or fights; or exploration and mystery; or navigation of a social milieu; or some other limited aspect of adventure. In the broader scheme, though, variety is to be desired -- along with the ability of players to choose for themselves what they will undertake.
If one conceives of a D&D "dungeon" as categorically lacking one or another aspect, then naturally the want may exhaust interest (perhaps quite rapidly). Sameness in any respect tends to dullness. Even "empty" (of obvious peril and treasure) space can play a critical role in the rich structure of an engaging dungeon.
The assumption that an environment is to be of "one shot" utility, a puzzle to be solved, an obstacle to be cleared, seems par for the course these days. A more dynamic site facilitating reuse raises oft neglected design considerations.
"Killing things and taking their stuff" is an advertising slogan, not a prescription for getting "back to the dungeon" as it originally was conceived and captured imaginations.
"Dungeon" in the D&D context is to me a functional rather than architectural term, and (rather obviously to the initiated) that function is not specifically to be a gaol (which is the usual meaning outside of fantasy games). The term "underworld" as used in OD&D, or "place of mystery" as in C&S, may be more suggestive. It need not be subterranean, or even indoors; an enchanted wood, for instance, might serve.
The key is that there are defined paths to explore, all (or at least most) leading to "adventure" of some sort. A small fortress, tomb, or other site that by construction or population is effectively a "gauntlet" fits a broad definition. However, a "proper" dungeon to my mind has the qualities of diversity that featured in the original D&D description; some amount of geographic scope is generally necessary to provide an ample basis.
The dungeon map is like a flow-chart, the transposition into physical space facilitating navigation of event "space" via an arbitrarily great number of possible paths. It is a way to "open up" a scenario. Instead of a script, you get something like a Rubik's Cube. There is not (necessarily) an arrow of time preventing the visiting of "paths not taken" previously.
One of several small dungeons, or part of a larger one, might offer little variety. It might cater to those who especially like tricks and traps; or fights; or exploration and mystery; or navigation of a social milieu; or some other limited aspect of adventure. In the broader scheme, though, variety is to be desired -- along with the ability of players to choose for themselves what they will undertake.
If one conceives of a D&D "dungeon" as categorically lacking one or another aspect, then naturally the want may exhaust interest (perhaps quite rapidly). Sameness in any respect tends to dullness. Even "empty" (of obvious peril and treasure) space can play a critical role in the rich structure of an engaging dungeon.
The assumption that an environment is to be of "one shot" utility, a puzzle to be solved, an obstacle to be cleared, seems par for the course these days. A more dynamic site facilitating reuse raises oft neglected design considerations.
"Killing things and taking their stuff" is an advertising slogan, not a prescription for getting "back to the dungeon" as it originally was conceived and captured imaginations.
