D&D 5E Megadungeon delving as a campaign’s core; is it compatible with modern play?

[Maxperson]

Crafting a CLW wand takes one day. The GM can literally say "While the cleric builds the wand the fighters clean and repair their kit and the ranger and druid go hang out in the Forrest collecting junk for their spells. The next day dawns".

Two sentences, the wand is done, and everyone gets to play the game they showed up at the table to play.

Did your campaign never have in world day where nothing world changing happened?

Sure. And it had days that were busy. I'm not going to switch one for the other just so the wand can be made. If they get lucky and nothing happens, great. If not, not.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure. And it had days that were busy. I'm not going to switch one for the other just so the wand can be made. If they get lucky and nothing happens, great. If not, not.

So your world is so full of calamities that the PCs are lucky if one day passes without them? Wild.

 

[Maxperson]

So your world is so full of calamities that the PCs are lucky if one day passes without them? Wild.

Who said anything about calamity? Stuff happens pretty much every moment of every day in towns and cities. The caster needs a fairly comfortable, quiet and well lit area, which means that the vast majority of time they are going to be in town, where lots of things happen. Maybe not to them directly, but they are going to hear things. It's up to the PCs whether they go investigate or ignore what they hear, not me.

 

[Lanefan]

Remember, crafting in 3e doesn't ever take a long time. You're talking a day or two at the absolute outside for 99% of magic crafting.

Ah. We ran it that it took a few weeks for anything other than potions or scrolls. Then again, we also used 1e-like training in our 3e game, so downtime was much more a thing than RAW would have it be.

If the rest of the group can't sit still for a day, and insist that the DM let's them carrying on play, that's just douchebaggery on the part of the players. And the DM who allows it is equally a douche.

What kind of player says, "Well, you guys are doing something for a day, so, I'M going to go off and adventure?" and the DM goes along with this?

Like I said, if a player or players pulled this on me, you can guarantee that I'm going to force the DM to play my elf being awake almost all night, in real time. Doesn't matter if I'm standing still and not saying a word. You can't fast forward my role play.

GImme a break.

I agree, just a day is a trivial time to wait and I can't see a problem with that. That said, I don't see the DM as a douche for allowing it, as I see it as the DM's job to neutrally react to whatever the players have their characters do.

But something like researching and inventing a new spell, which even in 3e I think took a fair bit of time, is a different thing. As is overseeing (and funding) construction of a decent home for one's family, which can eat up a few months of game time in a hurry. I-as-character wouldn't expect the rest of the party to sit around and do nothing during that time; ideally they'll have their own downtime things to do but if not, I can't complain if they take to the field again without me.

And as player, it's then on me to either sit out for a while or - much better! - to have on hand, or roll up, a replacement PC.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't disagree. Some people can't be bothered, but I don't see why they get to be the ones to control the flow of time.

One of the bigger arguments I've seen in the last 15 years or so was over just this. We'd been in the field without a break for something like three real-world years (campaign's 15 years and counting) on a string of high-pressure adventures and missions, and as both players and characters most of us had built up a laundry list of downtime things we wanted to get done; some as a party/company and some as individuals. So when we finally got some downtime out came that list...except one player who only wanted to continue adventuring and had no use for any of this downtime stuff the rest of us wanted to get to.

A few sessions later and, kaboom.

Well, I expressed my opinion of that above. You can make an argument that there's a problem when one or two players are tying up a disproportionate amount of time in activities others don't participate in (and this isn't less true when its five different players do it, since it still involves most of the group spending most of their time twiddling their thumbs) but something like spell research or item crafting are not massive real-world time consuming processes.

Indeed, not big real-world time sinks but they are big in-game time sinks. And during all that in-game time, what do the other characters do?

Where I wouldn't hesitate for a moment. "Oh, sit down, we're not running multiple separate games here."

I'd consider myself a poor DM were I to do anything like that. If seven PCs want to go (or by accident end up going) five separate ways then so be it, and that's what I'll be running as best I can.

 

[Hussar]

Again, we get back to time and pacing though.

For you, spending a session or five doing five different things is no big deal. For me, that's a significant portion of an entire campaign. As in probably about 10% of the entire campaign's length. So, yeah, it's going to be viewed very differently. When the baseline assumption for a campaign length is between 50 and 80 sessions, anything longer than a single session is a LOT of time.

 

[iserith]

Regarding downtime and splitting the party, I think it's a very good idea to have a backup character so that if your character dies, you don't have to sit out of the game while making a new one. I want every player at the table engaged with the game as much as possible during session time. The exception is if the DM took character death off the table, in which case you don't really need one.

But, as a player, if someone in my group wants to take some downtime and we're not actually in a hurry, I can't fathom why I wouldn't say "Yes, and..." to that and come up with something for my character to do (even just chillin') while the activity is resolved. There's just no good reason that I can see to force the choice upon someone else to either do the activity they want to do and play another character or keep playing the same character but not do the activity. It's rude in my view. But if the player volunteers to do that - "Doing this thing will take X weeks, so I'll just play my other character during that time so we can keep the pressure on Lord Badguy - then that's fine. It's not a bad idea to level up one's backup character anyway.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'd consider myself a poor DM were I to do anything like that. If seven PCs want to go (or by accident end up going) five separate ways then so be it, and that's what I'll be running as best I can.

Your choice, but like I said, I feel no need in a game with any time overhead to have most of the group sitting around while one player is playing, rinse and then repeat. I've seen exactly one campaign in 40+ years where I thought that worked well, and I'm not about to assume I'll see another one.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Regarding downtime and splitting the party, I think it's a very good idea to have a backup character so that if your character dies, you don't have to sit out of the game while making a new one. I want every player at the table engaged with the game as much as possible during session time. The exception is if the DM took character death off the table, in which case you don't really need one.

A lot of that depends on a combination of how long it takes to generate a character and how likely character death is. In the OD&D days someone could generate a new character in minutes; in the PF2e games I've seen character death was uncommon enough there was no reason to worry about the occasion when it happened. There have been other games that landed more in both cases (RQ games years ago for example).

But, as a player, if someone in my group wants to take some downtime and we're not actually in a hurry, I can't fathom why I wouldn't say "Yes, and..." to that and come up with something for my character to do (even just chillin') while the activity is resolved. There's just no good reason that I can see to force the choice upon someone else to either do the activity they want to do and play another character or keep playing the same character but not do the activity. It's rude in my view. But if the player volunteers to do that - "Doing this thing will take X weeks, so I'll just play my other character during that time so we can keep the pressure on Lord Badguy - then that's fine. It's not a bad idea to level up one's backup character anyway.

Yup.

 

[iserith]

A lot of that depends on a combination of how long it takes to generate a character and how likely character death is. In the OD&D days someone could generate a new character in minutes; in the PF2e games I've seen character death was uncommon enough there was no reason to worry about the occasion when it happened. There have been other games that landed more in both cases (RQ games years ago for example).

Sure, more recent versions of the games make character creation much lengthier. But unless the DM takes death off the table, it's always a risk (assuming no fudging) so it's wise in my view to have backups ready to go in the event it does. What I don't want, as a DM or player, is a player sitting at the table effectively not playing due to what I would consider poor readiness.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, more recent versions of the games make character creation much lengthier.

Agreed. The process can be shortened a bit by reducing the number of choices e.g. not using feats (a major choice point) and streamlining the number of playable species, but even then it's still time-consuming. Randomizing spell selection for arcanists would help too as rolling can often be faster than choosing.

The one thing that a DM can do in all editions to speed up char-gen is come up with basic equipment lists or kits for each class or class group, with total cost and encumbrance noted and a note that players can always choose to deviate from the kit if desired. Equipping a character is IME the longest part of the char-gen procedure.

But unless the DM takes death off the table, it's always a risk (assuming no fudging) so it's wise in my view to have backups ready to go in the event it does. What I don't want, as a DM or player, is a player sitting at the table effectively not playing due to what I would consider poor readiness.

Death isn't the only reason a character might leave play for a while, though. Downtime activities e.g. spell research, capture by enemies, accidental long-range teleport with no way back, simple player-chosen character cycling - all of these can take a character out of play for quite some time both in-game and out.

 

[iserith]

Agreed. The process can be shortened a bit by reducing the number of choices e.g. not using feats (a major choice point) and streamlining the number of playable species, but even then it's still time-consuming. Randomizing spell selection for arcanists would help too as rolling can often be faster than choosing.

The one thing that a DM can do in all editions to speed up char-gen is come up with basic equipment lists or kits for each class or class group, with total cost and encumbrance noted and a note that players can always choose to deviate from the kit if desired. Equipping a character is IME the longest part of the char-gen procedure.

Death isn't the only reason a character might leave play for a while, though. Downtime activities e.g. spell research, capture by enemies, accidental long-range teleport with no way back, simple player-chosen character cycling - all of these can take a character out of play for quite some time both in-game and out.

Again, that'll be dependent on edition and this is a 5e thread which I know you don't play. In many D&D 5e groups, it's common in my experience that everyone has 1 character with no plan for a backup character. Either the DM has to take death off the table, fudges when it approaches, or accepts the fact that someone may have to sit out of the game and make a new character.

In groups like mine that do have backup characters, it's common for the players to favor one character over the other and avoid situations where they'd have to bring the other character into play, so a lot of the situations you describe may never arise. Sometimes players will switch to their backup to play them to 3rd level so that they're a bit more survivable should they need to tap them in later, but that's about the extent of it at our tables.

 

[Lanefan]

Again, that'll be dependent on edition and this is a 5e thread which I know you don't play. In many D&D 5e groups, it's common in my experience that everyone has 1 character with no plan for a backup character. Either the DM has to take death off the table, fudges when it approaches, or accepts the fact that someone may have to sit out of the game and make a new character.

Rather than just accepting that fact, though, wouldn't a DM who has character death as a possibility want to encourage the players to plan ahead?

In groups like mine that do have backup characters, it's common for the players to favor one character over the other and avoid situations where they'd have to bring the other character into play, so a lot of the situations you describe may never arise.

The player-chosen ones, sure. But if a PC gets captured and hauled away (or teleported away!) by an enemy, or steps on a teleport trap and ends up in mid-jungle 1000 miles away, or falls down a one-way chute into an inaccessible part of the dungeon - then what?

I've seen all of these happen in play, by the way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again, that'll be dependent on edition and this is a 5e thread which I know you don't play. In many D&D 5e groups, it's common in my experience that everyone has 1 character with no plan for a backup character. Either the DM has to take death off the table, fudges when it approaches, or accepts the fact that someone may have to sit out of the game and make a new character.

In groups like mine that do have backup characters, it's common for the players to favor one character over the other and avoid situations where they'd have to bring the other character into play, so a lot of the situations you describe may never arise. Sometimes players will switch to their backup to play them to 3rd level so that they're a bit more survivable should they need to tap them in later, but that's about the extent of it at our tables.

That is a culture I don't participate in and don't particularly care for. I always encourage back up characters, and death (and other ways to take a PC out of play for a while) is always on the table.

 

[TwoSix]

When the baseline assumption for a campaign length is between 50 and 80 sessions, anything longer than a single session is a LOT of time.

I think I've said this before, but campaign length, session length, and play group size are some of the most impactful variables that get glossed over when we discuss what impacts our play style and preferences.

For example, to me, calling 50-80 sessions a baseline for campaign length seems radical. The longest campaign I've ever been in 30 years of playing is 39 sessions, and that took about 2.5 years. My groups average maybe 15-20 session, but that's because we have rotating DMs, up to 8 players, and we love to try new systems and new ideas. I can't imagine how much game tastes would be impacted if my normal play was that I was a forever DM, with 3 players and running 100+ session campaigns.

 

[iserith]

Rather than just accepting that fact, though, wouldn't a DM who has character death as a possibility want to encourage the players to plan ahead?

I certainly recommend it.

The player-chosen ones, sure. But if a PC gets captured and hauled away (or teleported away!) by an enemy, or steps on a teleport trap and ends up in mid-jungle 1000 miles away, or falls down a one-way chute into an inaccessible part of the dungeon - then what?

I've seen all of these happen in play, by the way.

Those situations are probably uncommon in any edition, but even less common than that in D&D 5e, based on what I can see of other people's games plus my own. Whereas multiple characters per player was more common in the past, that does not seem to be the case anymore.

That is a culture I don't participate in and don't particularly care for. I always encourage back up characters, and death (and other ways to take a PC out of play for a while) is always on the table.

I think I'd stop short of calling something so trivial a "culture." It's just a preference.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, more recent versions of the games make character creation much lengthier. But unless the DM takes death off the table, it's always a risk (assuming no fudging) so it's wise in my view to have backups ready to go in the event it does. What I don't want, as a DM or player, is a player sitting at the table effectively not playing due to what I would consider poor readiness.

Eh. I don't see sitting out a bit of a game generating a new character being that much of chore, unless I'm having to do it a lot.

Edit: I should note I play in PF2e, which I have little reason to think is simpler than D&D5e, and I still think I could generate a new character in less than an hour unless I just found myself paralyzed regarding extremely basic decisions at the start.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I certainly recommend it.


Those situations are probably uncommon in any edition, but even less common than that in D&D 5e, based on what I can see of other people's games plus my own. Whereas multiple characters per player was more common in the past, that does not seem to be the case anymore.


I think I'd stop short of calling something so trivial a "culture." It's just a preference.

Its a playstyle. Changing playstyles for the majority is close enough to a culture shift for me.

 

[Bluebell]

But my point is this: could megadungeons be made into viable environments for the current more character-focused playerbase, is it possible to synergise the two gameplay styles when the map only expands down instead of out and caverns and corridors are 90% of what you see instead of the horizons of forests, mountains, giant cities and frozen tundras? A game where you know you’re going to be coming back through these places over and over so instead of just casting flight on the party to cross that ravine you hire carpenters to build a sturdy retractable bridge, set up a protected outpost as a safe retreat in the monster infested halls and build a rapport with the inhabitants of the dungeon town every time you pass by? Do you mug that wandering salesman for all they’ve got or point them towards the corpses of your latest encounter saying they’re free to salvage anything of interest to them?

So getting back to OP's original question: this is a question I've thought quite a bit about because my current campaign is a homebrewed megadungeon using 5e, and all of my players are very much of the more modern character-focused mindset. When I decided I wanted to build a megadungeon, I scoured through the forums here for every single thread on the topic, and I find it fascinating how diverse megadungeons can actually be, depending on what philosophy you approach them with.

Does my megadungeon recognizably have the same goals as the original, traditional megadungeons did? Not really. I think resource management is a completely valid source of tension in a game, but it doesn't interest me as a DM (at least right now). Nor am I interested in "kitchen sink" style dungeons, where any and every possible monster can show up. I see the value in these for more casual "drop in" play, but for a game where I intend to play with the same small group of players, ideally each with the same character, for a full campaign? Everything should have narrative purpose, including the monster types available to me.

I still adhere to the idea of partially building the campaign around the characters themselves and their backstories, except now both I and the players are keenly aware that maybe they aren't going to be able to simply stumble across the NPC who murdered their parents, so perhaps they need some backstory and character motivation that will better suit the restrictions of the setting they'll be playing in.

My players can't decide to run off to the tundra or an exotic city at the drop of a hat the way that an open sandbox game may allow, so it's my job to make the dungeon itself as vivid and diverse as if they got to explore an entire continent. A few sessions of walking around in damp, dark caves is spooky and fun. Ten sessions of that sounds profoundly boring. The dungeon should be consistent, but also it should change as they move deeper, feature different zones that offer a different feel, and it should also change over time. There should be lots of branching options so that they don't feel like they're walking down an endless corridor of DM railroading. They should have multiple overlapping goals as both individuals and as a party so they can have many small victories along the way and feel the sense of progression that would normally come from clearing a small dungeon and then leaving.

Also, time is real and continues to move forward, both inside the dungeon and outside it. Every time they back out of the dungeon to take a break at camp, they will find things have changed. Every time they re-enter the dungeon, they will find things have changed. They will realize that there might be consequences for spending too much time without exploring, and the time wasted backtracking (especially as they delve deeper and walking in and out becomes a multi-day affair) might not be worth it.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Sorry for a little bit of a necro, but on the discussion of backstory driven neotrad play from earlier in the thread one way to integrate character backstory and narrative (in order to satisfy the modern taste) to a megadungeon is to fill (or add to/alter) your megadungeon with backstory relevant content.

So if your Warlock or Witch made a pact with some entity in their backstory but they arent sure of its true nature, the answer to that mystery should be found in multiple steps throughout the dungeon, you can even explore the fates of other people who made pacts with them or something.

If your fighter is part of a Stark style family of homorable old blood nobles? The dungeon could include references and content about their ancestors, maybe a legendary sword they have to unlock the power of that was wielded by their family in ancient days or some such.

You can add such elements to existing dungeons or revolve the dungeon around them if you're creating the dungeon from scratch.