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

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
They're part of the world. Events will happen, including events dealing with the adventure that they are on. They will hear about events during down time. They can opt to ignore those things or engage them. In my experience some or all of the players will choose to engage, which means that the crafter either gives up crafting, or sits out the fun. Usually they give up the crafting.
Or, if the crafting is going to take a while, what's stopping that player from rolling up or cycling in another PC to cover the gap?
They choose whether X% of the PCs engage what is going on. Not me. The crafter chooses whether to sit out. Not me.
In-character, yes.

At the table, however, there's solutions to keep that character's player involved - one is suggested just above.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Thomas Shey

Legend
Or, if the crafting is going to take a while, what's stopping that player from rolling up or cycling in another PC to cover the gap?

Assumes they have another character, or that that the game group is okay with levelling a character so that they're not just someone who's going to die when the normal opposition looks at them funny. Neither of those is within shouting distance of a given.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Or, if the crafting is going to take a while, what's stopping that player from rolling up or cycling in another PC to cover the gap?
That's not how my group rolls. They get heavily invested in their characters, so they aren't going to want to 1) stop playing that PC, and 2) start a new one that they won't play for long.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Thomas Shey said:
Assumes they have another character, or that that the game group is okay with levelling a character so that they're not just someone who's going to die when the normal opposition looks at them funny. Neither of those is within shouting distance of a given.
To me, the one is always allowed and the other is always a given - to a point; new characters come in a level below the party average.

Players in my games often end up with multiple PCs if for no other reason than at low levels I encourage them to play two at once, such that if-when one dies there's still the other to play.
That's not how my group rolls. They get heavily invested in their characters, so they aren't going to want to 1) stop playing that PC, and 2) start a new one that they won't play for long.
Well, then, by their own doing they have an unpleasant choice to make:

--- craft the item but sit out of play for a while, or
--- don't craft the item and keep playing, or
--- try to talk the rest of the PCs/players into stopping and waiting

IME success on the last is the least likely outcome.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
To me, the one is always allowed and the other is always a given - to a point; new characters come in a level below the party average.

Many modern groups have a strong single-character-per-campaign (short of character death) rule.


Players in my games often end up with multiple PCs if for no other reason than at low levels I encourage them to play two at once, such that if-when one dies there's still the other to play.

Right now I'm in a game with a player with two characters (largely because no one wanted to play a primary healer as their main character); its the first time I've seen that in more than a decade (and prior to that, the first time I'd seen it in two).

Well, then, by their own doing they have an unpleasant choice to make:

--- craft the item but sit out of play for a while, or
--- don't craft the item and keep playing, or
--- try to talk the rest of the PCs/players into stopping and waiting

Which means, in practice, if the third is not the case, item crafting is essentially useless.

IME success on the last is the least likely outcome.

I don't see why. Barring some time-binding event going on, people gloss over time spent doing uninteresting things all the time in games.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Many modern groups have a strong single-character-per-campaign (short of character death) rule.
Their problem, then.
Which means, in practice, if the third is not the case, item crafting is essentially useless.
Along with many other downtime activites that take some in-game time to do, yes. Which IMO makes for a poorer and shallower campaign/setting in the long run, as downtime activities tend to be when the largest degree of engagement with the greater (i.e. non-adventure-site) setting takes place.

I've run into this myself. As a player, I like having my characters take time off adventuring now and then in favour of downtime activities such as building a party base, researching spells, seeing to family matters, and so forth; but it's not so easy when one or two other players only want to adventure and would prefer their characters be in the field 24-7 as they-as-players have no interest in downtime activities (or, tbh, engaging with the setting much at all other than through its adventures).

And so, my having spare characters available to play when my others are down only makes sense. :)
I don't see why. Barring some time-binding event going on, people gloss over time spent doing uninteresting things all the time in games.
Sometimes. But other times - frequently - IME while one PC digs in to do some time-consuming downtime activity other players will say, in-character, something like "We're not just going to sit around town doing nothing for three weeks. Let's go adventuring while she's busy and see what trouble we can get into.". As it's what those characters would do and those players are only being true to their characters, I can't and won't argue with it.

Those characters might, however, seek out a temporary replacement for their missing companion... :)
 

Hussar

Legend
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.

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.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
Their problem, then.

If enough people do it, its a generic problem. The fact some people don't have it doesn't change that.


Along with many other downtime activites that take some in-game time to do, yes. Which IMO makes for a poorer and shallower campaign/setting in the long run, as downtime activities tend to be when the largest degree of engagement with the greater (i.e. non-adventure-site) setting takes place.

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.

I've run into this myself. As a player, I like having my characters take time off adventuring now and then in favour of downtime activities such as building a party base, researching spells, seeing to family matters, and so forth; but it's not so easy when one or two other players only want to adventure and would prefer their characters be in the field 24-7 as they-as-players have no interest in downtime activities (or, tbh, engaging with the setting much at all other than through its adventures).

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.
And so, my having spare characters available to play when my others are down only makes sense. :)

Sometimes. But other times - frequently - IME while one PC digs in to do some time-consuming downtime activity other players will say, in-character, something like "We're not just going to sit around town doing nothing for three weeks. Let's go adventuring while she's busy and see what trouble we can get into.". As it's what those characters would do and those players are only being true to their characters, I can't and won't argue with it.

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

Argyle King

Legend
The core aspect that players play DnD for has changed since the early days, while I myself am relatively new participant in the hobby in the grand scheme of things(My first real foray was with the 5e starter set) what I’ve gleaned from discussions is that the focus has shifted from dungeon delving as the core of the game to conquer the challenges presented within, where your character was more a faceless avatar for the player to interact through, to more modern playstyles where it’s more about telling/discovering the story of the characters you’ve created (not a criticism just an observation.)

Dungeons in the old games were sprawling labyrinths filled with traps, monsters and enemies, magic, puzzles, secrets and a whole host of other obstacles and megadungeons were the biggest baddest ones of them all where you could explore for months and still not discover everything it had to reveal, only coming out from underground for more supplies, offload the piles of gold that you couldn’t carry any more of or training your new character levels as that was a thing back then.

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 I’d like to hear your thoughts on the viability of megadungeons as the setting of modern games, is it possible? Do you like the idea? How would you implement it in your own game?


Can it be done? Yes

I'd go so far as to say that Ptolus was built around the idea.

I did something similar with a home game, by leaned even further into the dungeon delving aspect. The campaign was a location-based campaign, taking place in a city built around a megadungeon.

In fact, the reason for the city existing was because of the dungeon. I loosely based the town on old gold rush towns, with delving for loot being the rush. Stories spread about the mass of riches possible for those willing to brave the dangers. Shops, inns, and other such businesses were built nearby to serve (and make money off of) delvers.

How character-driven play mixed into that is that the stories became about why someone would choose to come there. Sure, there were promises of riches and glory, but -to the average person- going into a danger-filled pit in the ground seemed somewhere between suicidal and psychotic.

•For one character, the story was coming from an impoverished family and trying to make enough (and survive) to save the family farm back home.
•For another, they were tasked by their holy order to retrieve an artifact rumored to be in the megadungeon. The artifact was also sought by a villain because it was believed to be the method through which one could claim a mantle of godhood discarded by a deity long ago.
•For yet another, he was the second born of a noble and viewed unfavorably, so undertaking (and succeeding at) a dangerous quest was his way of proving himself and earning a spot at the family table.

I can't remember the rest right now, but those were two that I remember. Each character had hooks related to why they would choose such a dangerous task or profession. Part of the ongoing story was interpersonal interactions and exploring what was meaningful to each character. Some of it was also the war-veteran-like bond which develops among a group routinely subjected to near-death. In some cases, the dungeon itself revealed information which changed a character's worldview.

I should also point out that a big part of it the diet also involved the outside world not being static. In the case of the character working for the holy order, that meant that other delving teams might be hired (by the opposition) to retrieve the artifact first -which could mean dire consequences.
For the player looking to save the family farm, it meant sending supplies (and money) back home, as well as tuneup family's situation getting better or worse.

I'm not sure if any of this makes much sense, but the point is that it's possible.
 

JiffyPopTart

Bree-Yark
They're part of the world. Events will happen, including events dealing with the adventure that they are on. They will hear about events during down time. They can opt to ignore those things or engage them. In my experience some or all of the players will choose to engage, which means that the crafter either gives up crafting, or sits out the fun. Usually they give up the crafting.

They choose whether X% of the PCs engage what is going on. Not me. The crafter chooses whether to sit out. Not me.
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?

Fighter: Hey guys, we just got a summons to see the emperor on Tuesday.

Cleric: Tuesday! We had that Terrasque thing that day!

Fighter: That's after lunch. We can see the emperor in the morning, jump the Terrasque on the way to slay the Demogorgon, then dine with Tempus that evening.

Sorcerer: Just don't forget we have to save the world before bedtime.

Fighter: Right Right...let's squeeze that in after the Demogorgon but before Tempus, I don't want to upset my meal.

Rogue: I'm just glad we get a light day Tuesday, I'm getting tired.
 

Remove ads

Top