New Dungeoncraft: The Dungeons of Greenbrier Chasm

[Primal]

Once upon a time, when I first started playing D&D 26 years ago, I might have said exploring empty rooms built tension because we didn't really know what would happen, and the way we played was so random that anything could have happened. As I have gone from teen age to creeping into middle age, I have to disagree with you. Encountering empty rooms one at a time is a waste of my time. Perhaps it's the fact that I don't game for hours every week, perhaps it's the fact taht I'm more jaded, perhaps it's the fact that I expect my games to be more like fiction and less like some weird exploration of disjointed fantasy, but if I played in a game where we wandered around some empty rooms until something happened, I probably wouldn't pla in that game for very long.

Although we apparently share the same "Age Category" ('Ancient Grognard' ) our preferences seem to vary a bit. I like those empty rooms -- or, actually, room that *seem* empty at first glance -- and even after all these years they still serve to build up the mood and the tension for me (and my whole group). I usually hate it when every room in a dungeon contains "action", because it often feels very artificial ("Why have these grells not devoured those kobolds we slew in the previous room?"). Not to mention that playing such (published) adventures usually mean that the whole session consists of little more than dice-rolling, as every fight draws more "heat" (attention) to the party.

Weird that you seem to think that 4E would cater better to your needs (i.e. "more like fiction") since to me it seems (I hope to be wrong, though) that 4E will be *more* about "weird exploration"/"disjointed fantasy" than any previous edition of D&D. For example, the Dungeoncraft installments by James seem to strongly encourage the PCs to delve into the local dungeons (James is even pondering about running the whole campaign as one giant dungeon delve in the Chasm). On the other hand, it seems that 4E is strongly separating the Encounter Areas from "useless" areas (this is also hinted at in Rich Baker's blog as he discusses his work on the 'Thuderspire Labyrinth'). This may actually lead into the game becoming more like fantasy fiction (i.e. by removing "useless" narrative and exploration by focusing the game on action "hotspots"). However, it may also very easily lead into the game becoming little else than separate Tactical Combat Encounters with some marginal role-playing qualities.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I seem to recall that was addressed in another writing by WotC. I think their expectation is that traps won't be that style of "Gotcha!" Traps (by the way they intend) instead will be either an encounter of its own that needs to be overcome, or they will be part of the environment during an encounter and serve as an obstacle or even a separate combatant.


As for the article, I'm not so big on the design idea. For an introductory adventure, I don't like the idea that the chasm is a megadungeon meant to be done in parts. It just seem unfulfilling to get a group started with the idea of: "You can do a little bit of this right now, but come back when you are more than just local heroes and you can do the rest."

I would prefer the idea that something big and dangerous broke out of Greenbriar Chasm. Eventually the party goes to the chasm for some reason. They only encounter lower level things because the area is being repopulated by creatures that would never go near the thing that broke out. In the course of exploring the chasm, the party can find clues about what once dwelled in there and where it might have gone. The chasm itself is played out and is done. Through the party's adventuring career they continue to hear things that may have something to do with whatever broke out until eventually they understand enough to seek it out and stop it. Maybe I would return to the chasm by having the party discover months/years later that what broke out has returned to it in order to complete some dark ritual, but I would not just leave it as, "yeah, there are more levels for you to explore, but those inhabitants will just kick your butt if you go down there now. Come back in another 7 levels. They won't do anything to the town until you are ready to face them."

I'd write it like this:

Heroic: Some Thing was bound down there long ago, with a small city's worth of temple around it because it took that much effort to keep this Thing contained. Now, the Thing is off somewhere recovering its strength, but it'll be out of commission for a while. In the meantime, you have no idea what happened, so let's drop the matter for the moment and go after some plot hook you found while you were down in the dungeon. Also, while you were in the dungeon you stumbled across a door you had no ability to open. That was important.

Paragon: Bad things are starting to happen, and you learn it's because the Thing escaped its trap, and it sweats awful and poops evil. You find out the magnitude of the threat, and clue into the fact that things are going to get really bad if you can't trap the Thing again somehow. How? Well, if it was done once, maybe they left instructions for doing it again, in case of such an emergency. Now, go on an adventure in order to find out how to open the door that you couldn't open, while you notice that things are starting to get weird out there due to the influence of that Thing that escaped.

Epic: Part of the problem with exploring a dungeon designed to keep an epic-level threat contained is that they designed it both to keep the Thing inside and to keep anyone from letting it go. So, sucks to be you. Fight your way down to where they put all the info on how to trap epic-level Far Realms Things, and then finish up by going to find the Thing and beat it down so that it's weak enough to be recaptured. Recapture it, the end.

There's a lot of room in there for writing up lots of details, side adventures, Far Realms-tainted sites and creatures, an end-of-the-world scenario, and lots of fun ancient evil. Makes me think a bit of Shadow of the Colossus.

 

[Primal]

I don't know if anyone else feels the same way, but to me this "Rite of Passage"-thing seems a bit odd in a 'Points of Light'-setting. If the NPCs are supposed to be inherently weaker than the PCs and the wilderness is a-crawl with dangerous creatures, why would the people of a small village -- whose very existence is threatened by those creatures -- deliberately risk the lives of their young generation? It's not as if they're suffering from any sort of overpopulation, hey?

I also have a problem with the degree of altruism apparently expected from the PCs, because the Alignment Rules in 4E seem to suggest that *most* PCs should be 'Unaligned' (Neutral). Why would you risk your neck for your fellow man? Just because you're a PC? Just because you're somehow (mechanically) "More Heroic" than your neighbours -- or even your own father? This also calls to question that if the PCs are supposed to represent the "other end of the spectrum" (i.e. the "better" part of the gene pool) -- how realistic is it that there are 4-6 such individuals born to "Non-Heroic" parents in a small village of 200 people or so?

Although I agree that in a small "protomedieval" community people would stick together, it feels a bit of a stretch to assume that *every* PC (especially if you're 'Unaligned') would want to help the community out of pure altruism. My players (who would jump at the chance to play 'Unaligned' characters) would probably tell me that "Oh come on, you can come up with something better... so what if the grumpy old farmer Graelmer's sheep are afflicted with weird mutations?". Now, if the whole village or their loved ones are *directly* threatened, they might feel that even more "mercenary-minded" PCs would "swallow the hook". I'm not saying that my players would not wish to participate in the game -- they just want to have *believable* hooks that truly motivate their characters.

And pray tell me -- if the 'Points of Light'-concept is as "narrow" as the Dragon and Dungeon articles seem to indicate (i.e. small settlements surrounded by the Darkness) it seems a bit unlikely that your PCs could actually purchase weapons and armour in Greenbrier, for example. Trade appears to be almost non-existent and why would anyone work as a Weaponsmith or Armorer in a 'PoL' village? Note: if there are, say, King's soldiers in the village or NPC adventurers passing by every now and then, it's a completely another matter -- yet this would probably be too "deprotagonizing" by 4E standards, so we can forget about it. It would make sense if the clerics at the local temple would craft and sell armour and weapons, but once again: NPCs are not supposed to "outclass" the PCs in 4E, right? So, where do the PCs get their equipment?

In most campaigns I guess that these things won't even matter, but one of my players is a history teacher (who hates anything which is not consistent or internally logical) -- need I say more?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I don't know if anyone else feels the same way, but to me this "Rite of Passage"-thing seems a bit odd in a 'Points of Light'-setting. If the NPCs are supposed to be inherently weaker than the PCs and the wilderness is a-crawl with dangerous creatures, why would the people of a small village -- whose very existence is threatened by those creatures -- deliberately risk the lives of their young generation? It's not as if they're suffering from any sort of overpopulation, hey?

I also have a problem with the degree of altruism apparently expected from the PCs, because the Alignment Rules in 4E seem to suggest that *most* PCs should be 'Unaligned' (Neutral). Why would you risk your neck for your fellow man? Just because you're a PC? Just because you're somehow (mechanically) "More Heroic" than your neighbours -- or even your own father? This also calls to question that if the PCs are supposed to represent the "other end of the spectrum" (i.e. the "better" part of the gene pool) -- how realistic is it that there are 4-6 such individuals born to "Non-Heroic" parents in a small village of 200 people or so?

Although I agree that in a small "protomedieval" community people would stick together, it feels a bit of a stretch to assume that *every* PC (especially if you're 'Unaligned') would want to help the community out of pure altruism. My players (who would jump at the chance to play 'Unaligned' characters) would probably tell me that "Oh come on, you can come up with something better... so what if the grumpy old farmer Graelmer's sheep are afflicted with weird mutations?".

Being familiar with the unity and community structure of rural villages, I actually feel very strongly that the allegiances of the villagers are going to lie primarily with their community, and those who are in it for themselves will probably be quickly noticed and either corrected or ostracised. Of course, PCs aren't normal people with normal motivations, being controlled by players, and all. Given that this is the case, it makes no sense to question the believability of the social situation. If the players aren't going to make characters who fit the background, then they've already broken the ice for suspension of disbelief.

Besides, in this case, the hook isn't "do it for the village" except in the case of the hypothetical cleric who gets handed an ancient ritual and a hatful of responsibility. But that was presented as a roleplaying hook, in which the cleric may or may not want to be straight up about what he really wants to do in the ruins. The others think they're spending the night out by the old haunted crevasse (being youngsters, they're unaware of its true nature), and are either coaxed in by the cleric, or by some curious activity going on in one of the caves...

edit: I also wanted to express my distaste for anyone who uses alignment as a reason to avoid participating in the plot, especially in the first adventure, and especially in a game that doesn't even really have alignment anymore! That is not a believability issue. That is an issue concerning combative players. There's a certain amount of "playing along" that goes along with dumping the responsibility for the plot onto the DM. If a player is not willing to play along, perhaps he should be playing a single-player game.

And pray tell me -- if the 'Points of Light'-concept is as "narrow" as the Dragon and Dungeon articles seem to indicate (i.e. small settlements surrounded by the Darkness) it seems a bit unlikely that your PCs could actually purchase weapons and armour in Greenbrier, for example. Trade appears to be almost non-existent and why would anyone work as a Weaponsmith or Armorer in a 'PoL' village?

Because it's friggin' dangerous out there, and if someone in the village knows how to use a sword, they'd better damn well have one. Not that it is likely that you'll be able to buy a sword in Podunk Village #12, but your starting wealth indicates net worth, which includes a sword that you earned from the local smith in trade for whatever it is you're good at. Or from your uncle. Or from your temple. However, somewhere down the road is a city, and in a city there will be places to buy decent weapons once you've earned enough loot and gained enough XP that the starting area is starting to feel small and poor.

I don't see any great task in justifying how the PCs got their gear. Simple weapons are easy enough to make or buy from a blacksmith, and more complex weapons probably represent some special circumstance. Owning a sword might just be what makes your character a PC, rather than just another NPC who ends up being a turnip farmer rather than a rogue.

 

[kennew142]

In most campaigns I guess that these things won't even matter, but one of my players is a history teacher (who hates anything which is not consistent or internally logical) -- need I say more?

I'm a historian as well, with a focus in Late Antique/Dark Ages. There is nothing in the campaign hook that wouldn't make sense in such a setting. Coming of Age rituals are pretty iconic in tribal/village cultures. The presence of actual monsters in this setting makes it a bit more problematic, but it is the village cleric, who (seeing something special about the PCs) asks them to go farther and perform a ritual of cleansing in the dungeon itself.

There is nothing a GM can do if faced with a table of contrarian players, but a character built to the setting should have a sense of obligation to the village. The kind of mercenary self-centeredness you describe would not be common in a dark ages (PoL) setting, or any tribal setting. If not motivated by altruism, the characters should at least be motivated by the expected adulation of the villagers.

You may have difficulty with the hook, especially given the apparently contrarian nature of your players, but that doesn't make it illogical at all.

 

[JohnSnow]

I don't know if anyone else feels the same way, but to me this "Rite of Passage"-thing seems a bit odd in a 'Points of Light'-setting. If the NPCs are supposed to be inherently weaker than the PCs and the wilderness is a-crawl with dangerous creatures, why would the people of a small village -- whose very existence is threatened by those creatures -- deliberately risk the lives of their young generation? It's not as if they're suffering from any sort of overpopulation, hey?

Anyone who wants to see a really good example of PoL combined with the "Rite of Passage" should read Michael Stackpole's Dragoncrown War series, particularly the prequel novel - Dark Glory War.

The main characters in that novel are undergoing their "rite of passage," as happens in many tribal communities (as well as warrior ones, like Sparta). They end up running into actually dangerous adversaries. Usually, a youth on his "rite of passage" ends up spending the night on a mountaintop, to no effect. He's faced his fear and he returns home a man, and everyone celebrates.

Occasionally, the lad has to kill a wolf or something equally innocuous (by D&D standards). Usually, that's such a momentous event that the story is embellished and made to seem very heroic, like that of Leonidas in 300.

VERY infrequently, the threat is serious by D&D standards. Something like goblins, dire wolves, or maybe a predatory dinosaur of some kind (again, see Stackpole for a really cool use of a fantasy world creature modeled after JP-like "velociraptors"). And of course, the PCs just happen to be the ones who encounter that serious threat. Why? Well, they're PCs...Duh.

Most of the village youths just aren't that unlucky.

 

[helium3]

Personally, I'm willing to step down a rung lower and see where these quest rules takes me. We're all going to be new comers to 4E, and besides that there are more than a few bad habits from previous editions that need breaking.

I won't allow the possibility of excessive pride to stop me from improving my game.

Sure. I don't really have a problem with the existence of a "Quest" mechanism per se.

That being said, my own personal group situation would likely preclude me from using it if it works similarly to how the Quest Cards are described.

Simply put, by the time the mantle of DM was transferred to me my group had gotten so "trained" to think with the "The DM is Running Expedition to X" mindest that they were, at first, nearly incapable of deciding what they wanted to do if I didn't hit them over the head with plot hooks. Ideally, I'd like to get to the point where the players can make decisions about what they want their characters to do simply based on what they know is going on in the "world." Handing out cards that define "quests" wouldn't work because I'd yet again be codifying what it is that the characters are supposed to be doing.

But that's my own personal thing. I don't have a problem with the Quest mechanism unless it's somehow hardwired into the rules in a way that forces me to use it. I can't even begin to imagine how that would happen, though.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Y'know I missed these before. These are cool. I'm a big fan of the reuse a map trick.

I think he should draw them in pencil though in case the PCs or NPCs alter them around to account for future actions. I'd include that for the modular overland maps too as even cities can be wiped out.

He doesn't need pencil, I reckon. It looks like a map drawn with ProFantasy's Campaign Cartographer Pro3 (and add ons): no more need for pencils with PC mapping software!

 

[Plane Sailing]

Trade appears to be almost non-existent

I don't think you'll find this is true of the basic PoL setup.

 

[ZappoHisbane]

I also have a problem with the degree of altruism apparently expected from the PCs, because the Alignment Rules in 4E seem to suggest that *most* PCs should be 'Unaligned' (Neutral). Why would you risk your neck for your fellow man? Just because you're a PC? Just because you're somehow (mechanically) "More Heroic" than your neighbours -- or even your own father?

What I've seen of the tidbits that we have thus far, unaligned does not equate with the pre-4e Neutral alignment. In 4e, Good and Evil are reserved for beings (PC or otherwise) that are supernaturally Good/Evil. Devils, Celestials, Undead, and perhaps Clerics, Paladins and Warlocks.

To put that in perspective, most criminals are likely unaligned. Same goes for philanthropists and nuns. It takes a Mother Theresa or a Josef Mengele to rise above or fall below 'unaligned'.