D&D 5E If I were to publish a megadungeon, how would you prefer I handle XP?

[RangerWickett]

I've written a fair number of story-driven adventures, but I've also had fun with games where the focus is on good tactics and problem solving over characterization and narrative. Like, I can enjoy The Witcher 3 (highly character driven, with narrative quests and an overarching plot) and Dark Souls (challenge-driven, with exploration and environmental storytelling).

To give myself a change of pace in game design, I've got an idea for a megadungeon that I want to playtest with my friends and then maybe write up and publish. But when it comes to leveling and XP, I could go a couple ways.

Metroidvania vs Milestone?

Not my map.

One of the appeals of Metroidvania style games is that you can explore and try different paths, and then you get new abilities that let you double back and unlock previously-unavailable areas. In D&D, it's a bit harder to forcibly gate off different areas, because players can be tenacious, but you can still have different 'levels' of a dungeon that are harder than the party is ready for. But if the PCs go that way, while they might get their butts kicked, I think it's fun if they can earn a good reward should they survive. So I don't want to just do milestone leveling (e.g., you beat level 1 of the dungeon, so you go up a level; you beat level 2 of the dungeon, so you go up another level), because I want it to be fine for the party to go 'out of order' and to make incremental progress in multiple places.

On the other than, the default rules of D&D kinda limit how 'mega' a dungeon can be. You might have seen where another poster did the math and found that if an adventuring party uses its resources at the expected rate, they can go from 1st to 20th level in 45 days. Level Up (A5E) - How to reach 20th Level in 45 days — An analysis of "adventuring day" per character level

The Emerald Spire Style?

Much emerald. Very spire. Wow.

A few years ago I played a campaign that used Pathfinder's Emerald Spire 'Superdungeon'. Its design mentality, to my recollection, was that each level's map had to fit on a poster-sized sheet, and have enough XP to have the party go up a level. A different person wrote each level of the dungeon.

It was neat to have a bunch of dungeons with different themes, but I'm pretty sure we managed to see every room in the place, kill every monster, and get the 100% completion achievement unlocked trophy, plus hit 13th or 14th level, all in the span of a couple in-world months. It kept us busy for maybe 5 months of real-world play time, and I certainly had fun, but nothing in it especially stuck with me (other than an abiding hatred of how Pathfinder 1e handles 'precision damage' characters like swashbucklers, making them pretty moot against undead, elementals, swarms, oozes, constructs, and probably other stuff I'm forgetting; but I digress!).

Is a dungeon that you can potentially beat 100% sufficiently 'mega'? Is it just a 'superdungeon'? Is that good enough?

Or should I go for a bigger scale, and just tamp down on the XP value of encounters? Have more enemies than you can possibly actually defeat, but perhaps have 'keystone' boss fights that, once you win, causes an area to clear out?

I know megadungeons aren't for everyone, but for those of you who might be interested, how big would you want a published one to be? Do you want a megadungeon where you can wipe out the last boss monster right as you ding to 20th level? Do you want something more like a city that's bigger than you can possibly tackle, for you as GM or player to use as a backdrop for your own stories? Do you want a tightly-scripted adventure where, oh no, the BBEG is your long-lost twin cousin?!

 

[iserith]

Standard XP, but only for killing monsters or changing their attitude from hostile to indifferent or unfriendly via social interaction. Very little treasure on monsters - you have to poke around to find that reward.

There are factions in the dungeon that don't get along or have alliances that shift. The PCs might be seen as invaders or useful tools to a given faction. Apex monster is a dragon because D&D. It is nightmarish and the PCs could face it underleveled, but they should know it's there well before they make that choice.

Size-wise, I say 20 four-hour sessions of content if the group moves at a good clip. A town nearby is a safe haven, but only until the dragon wakes up and turns the place to ash. That's the doom clock to keep the PCs moving.

 

[Clint_L]

Do both.

Most WotC adventures give you multiple options. As someone who uses a variation of Milestone, I like to see what the writer suggested would be the right time for the party to level up, even though ultimately we just decide based on what feels right for the group and what I have planned for material.

 

[LordEntrails]

But when it comes to leveling and XP, I could go a couple ways.

Don't.

If you are going to publish an adventure, then you should not be proscribing how it must be run. Especially not a mega-dungeon. Not only leave the choice up to the customer to decide, but give them the tools (if needed) to run it however they want. i.e. give standard XP for encounters. And if their is ten times the needed XP to go from level 1 to 20, let the customer know that so they can scale the XP if desired. If their are logical story driven XP quests, then include those. If their are good milestones to use, include those.

 

[cbwjm]

If you could capture a metroidvania feel to a megadungeon, that would be awesome. It'd probably have to be gear based.

For levelling, I'd prefer XP. If a 3rd level party somehow manages to defeat the CR 9 golem then that chunk of XP is the reward (I mean, whatever it was guarding was also the reward, but that xp man, it's a great reward).

I guess I'm thinking of the megadungeon through the lens of a westmarches campaign which can have challenges in a low level area that higher level PCs need to come back and defeat, which is kind of like a metroidvania style game though with levels instead of an item that let's you double jump.

 

[RangerWickett]

Don't.

If you are going to publish an adventure, then you should not be proscribing how it must be run. Especially not a mega-dungeon. Not only leave the choice up to the customer to decide, but give them the tools (if needed) to run it however they want. i.e. give standard XP for encounters. And if their is ten times the needed XP to go from level 1 to 20, let the customer know that so they can scale the XP if desired. If their are logical story driven XP quests, then include those. If their are good milestones to use, include those.

I take your point, but I'm thinking of it from the perspective of "how much stuff ought I write"? If there are, like, enough enemies in the 'early' sections that the party could earn enough XP to reach 10th level, that makes later sections perhaps-boring cakewalks.

I suppose it's feasible to cater to multiple playstyles, perhaps with sidebars highlighting how each section could be trimmed down if the GM only wants X encounters. Or rather, it would probably be easier to build a functional spine, then give 'greebles' (a term from Star Wars - little doodads they would glue onto ship models to make them look from a distance like they had realistic textures appropriate for huge vessels), by which I mean a selection of bonus material that the GM could decide to use or not without messing up the broader geography and flow of the dungeon.

 

[Stormonu]

I think if I were to do something like this today, I'd "roadmap" it - fill in the primary encounters and leave enough space on the map for the DM to fill in other areas as needed. More a point-based map than a physically mapped out one - nail down the core areas and insinuate avenues leading off to the next area (the original Undermountain is a good example of this, both on the original maps and the subsequent add-ons). Including a short discussion of this would be critical, and you could include a laundry list of optional "pop-in" encounters for the gamemaster to put in or ignore at their choosing. This allows the DM to choose how in-depth they want to keep characters around in certain areas before moving to the next.

As for the actual map, I'd go with a largish one, much bigger than the battlemat sized one (at least 4 maps worth). Like above with the encounters, you might want to have entirely optional areas that could be slotted into the existing sections as the DM pleases.

 

[Lanefan]

Standard XP, but only for killing monsters or changing their attitude from hostile to indifferent or unfriendly via social interaction. Very little treasure on monsters - you have to poke around to find that reward.

I'd add in XP for sneaking past them and thus avoiding the encounter.

There are factions in the dungeon that don't get along or have alliances that shift. The PCs might be seen as invaders or useful tools to a given faction. Apex monster is a dragon because D&D. It is nightmarish and the PCs could face it underleveled, but they should know it's there well before they make that choice.

Nice.

Size-wise, I say 20 four-hour sessions of content if the group moves at a good clip.

This is so highly variable from table to table I wouldn't even use it as a parameter. Just write what you're gonna write and let each individual table sort it out: what takes 15 sessions at one table might take 80 at another (such as mine ).

A town nearby is a safe haven, but only until the dragon wakes up and turns the place to ash. That's the doom clock to keep the PCs moving.

Meh - not a fan of this, not for a megadungeon anyway where a large part of the point is to just keep exploring.

Putting a doom clock on things too strongly encourages a get-in get-it-done get-out mentality which in this case would mean they beeline for the dragon, kill it as soon as they are able, then leave. I've seen this happen far too often.

Not much point writing a megadungeon and then encouraging the players/PCs to only interact with the 20-30% of it that lies directly between them and the dragon, hm?

 

[iserith]

I'd add in XP for sneaking past them and thus avoiding the encounter.

I prefer rewarding exploration challenges with treasure, and avoiding encounters is often its own reward since the PCs can conserve resources that way. I would not give XP here.

This is so highly variable from table to table I wouldn't even use it as a parameter. Just write what you're gonna write and let each individual table sort it out: what takes 15 sessions at one table might take 80 at another (such as mine ).

I think going for a set number of hours of content is a good way to plan out how much you're going to create. Some groups will do it faster, some slower.

Putting a doom clock on things too strongly encourages a get-in get-it-done get-out mentality which in this case would mean they beeline for the dragon, kill it as soon as they are able, then leave. I've seen this happen far too often.

Not much point writing a megadungeon and then encouraging the players/PCs to only interact with the 20-30% of it that lies directly between them and the dragon, hm?

If they can both find the dragon and defeat it while way underlevel, I'd say that's a pretty amazing if unlikely result and no doubt a great story. As well, the game just works better in my view when time actually matters. It adds another dimension to choices that the players must consider.

 

[aco175]

I tend to use story awards now. Different sections of the dungeon have its own theme and when complete, you gain a level. Complete can mean different things. Each section has rewards and some can be different than just magic and gold. Say you defeat the goblin king and his ritual to create a golem he was planning to use on the orcs, you may find the heart of the golem in the lair of the oozes and be able to go back and awaken it to fight on your side.

I also favor a system based on number of encounters and a sliding scale as one goes up in level. Each area of the dungeon is given a level you think the PCs should be when they should go there and if they are lower level, they might get 2 points per encounter instead of one. If they go to an area of lower level, they might only get 1/2 point or less depending on how many levels above the number you are. This takes more tracking and up front time to determine things.

 

[LordEntrails]

I take your point, but I'm thinking of it from the perspective of "how much stuff ought I write"? If there are, like, enough enemies in the 'early' sections that the party could earn enough XP to reach 10th level, that makes later sections perhaps-boring cakewalks.

I suppose it's feasible to cater to multiple playstyles, perhaps with sidebars highlighting how each section could be trimmed down if the GM only wants X encounters. Or rather, it would probably be easier to build a functional spine, then give 'greebles' (a term from Star Wars - little doodads they would glue onto ship models to make them look from a distance like they had realistic textures appropriate for huge vessels), by which I mean a selection of bonus material that the GM could decide to use or not without messing up the broader geography and flow of the dungeon.

Good question.

To me, the difference between a very large dungeon (LD) and mega dungeon (MD) is a MD is simply too big to ever complete. Taking a completionist approach with a MD just doesn't work. There's too much there for a single campaign or set of characters to ever do, or need to do. Sure, maybe the first few levels/areas are completely explored, but after that kicking in every door is just... boring. And that then it becomes goal or objective oriented. IMO its a lot like a traditional campaign setting. A single campaign is never going to explore every part of Greyhawk or the Realms, etc, but rather bits and pieces of it. i.e. the party might spend some time in Waterdeep, and then in Luskan, and maybe a few adventures in the Dessarin Valley. But never will they fully explore each and every one of those.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

I would ignore PC advancement.

Let PCs enter the dungeon from multiple points. Have the ecology make sense. Maaaybe have the first few encounters near entrances be more defeatable creatures at lower levels; but maybe not.

The only way for a MegaDungeon to not be a slog is to make it a sandbox. Give them places to find allies inside; save zones if you will.

Populate the place with way more XP than they could ever need to get from 1-20. If they get to 20 and get the brilliant idea to take over the entire place and kill everything in it - let them. Nature abhors a vacuum, as does Orcus and Lolth and Asmodeus etc etc

 

[Yaarel]

Simply count encounters.

The number of encounters to the next level depends on the level.

For levels 5 to 12, it is about 15 encounters per level.

 

[Lanefan]

I would ignore PC advancement.

Let PCs enter the dungeon from multiple points. Have the ecology make sense. Maaaybe have the first few encounters near entrances be more defeatable creatures at lower levels; but maybe not.

The only way for a MegaDungeon to not be a slog is to make it a sandbox. Give them places to find allies inside; save zones if you will.

Populate the place with way more XP than they could ever need to get from 1-20.

The two bolded bits in there don't quite square with each other: if you ignore PC advancement, how are they ever going to get from 1 to 20?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I would do milestone leveling with a level boss on each level. So PCs can skip around to wherever they like and get themselves in trouble if they wish, but with the promise that if they can figure out how to beat the level bosses "early" somehow, they can power level up and then romp all through the dungeon until they reach areas they're evenly matched for again.

My wife and I used to do something similar with the PS1 version of Diablo, going after high-XP targets like commandos.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

The two bolded bits in there don't quite square with each other: if you ignore PC advancement, how are they ever going to get from 1 to 20?

The megadungeon and the designer of said dungeon doesn't care about PC advancement.

PCs and GMs running the game care about it.

Two different groups

 

[Shiroiken]

I'm a fan of including XP for exploration and social encounters. If the party runs across a trap or hazard for the first time, they get some XP; disarming/avoiding the trap/hazard via ability checks or abilities is the equivalent to combat. Denizens of megadungeons don't always require combat, and offering xp for resolving encounters with social skills rewards this. Additionally, you can offer up special quest XP for accomplishing specific goals, such as unlocking certain areas.

 

[MNblockhead]

I'm on my third year of running Rappan Athuk. D&D 5e RAW with some homebrew. Most of the homebrew is related to strongholds, factions, and followers. The one big change to the core 5e rules I made for this campaign that has made all the difference is GP for XP with limited milestones. GP for XP, i.e., gaining experience for what you extract from the dungeon leads to a style of play that works very well for a mega-dungeon and slows down progression at the early levels with the occasional jump when they have a big score. I don't allow skipping levels though.

Another approach could be a modified milestone system. When I ran Curse of Strahd, I used the Structured Milestone XP for Curse of Strahd by R. Padron, which I bought on DMs Guild. I liked his approach and think that it would work well for a mega dungeon. But you would have to invest several pages explaining the system and need to ensure that you have the milestone opportunities spread out enough to allow sufficient advancement while keeping it a sandbox. Basically you give points for defeating important antagonists, finding important macguffins, and exploring different areas.

 

[RangerWickett]

I appreciate all the feedback, and I'm amused that there are like five different opinions that are kind of hard to reconcile. I'll make something work though.

The next thing to decide is whether to actually have the whole mega dungeon be one connected complex where everything is perilous and any real 'haven' is outside, or if there should be like towns and such for safe havens between sections of dungeon.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

I appreciate all the feedback, and I'm amused that there are like five different opinions that are kind of hard to reconcile. I'll make something work though.

The next thing to decide is whether to actually have the whole mega dungeon be one connected complex where everything is perilous and any real 'haven' is outside, or if there should be like towns and such for safe havens between sections of dungeon.

Not sure if you are soliciting opinions on this, but since this is the internet, opinions are bursting off of all of us like boils

My personal opinion - do both, or at least offer both

1. Have safe havens inside the dungeon. A complex the size of a mega dungeon is going to have various factions within (probably). As such, some of those factions are going to be willing to either temporarily or permanently ally with the PCs. (It became an ongoing thread in our Mad Mage campaign that every group that was even remotely like a civilization, we'd ask if they wanted to open a franchise of our Dragon Heist tavern - the Under Mount Inn. DM never had any of the groups take us up on it. Probalby because he knew it would totally derail the published adventure. It still made a nice bit though)
2. OR give them an easy way to get to the surface - gates are classic; another is to just have a ton of entrances/exits.

PCs will determine which is best for their party at any given moment...