Sanctum

[delericho]

I watched "Sanctum" last night (the James Cameron-produced cave-diving film). Enjoyed it rather more than I expected - not as good as "The Descent", but still enough to add it to my "recommended viewing" list for DMs.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that D&D adventures, by default, should take place in actively hostile environments. That is, those caves the PCs go down shouldn't just be a bunch of caves, nor even be dangerous only because of the monsters and death-traps; the caves themselves should be possessed of a malign spirit intent on doing the PCs harm.

Plus, the game is way to lenient on encumberance. Even simple things like food and light become much more important when there's a real risk of running out.

 

[Dioltach]

I think it's good to add a malignant dimension to surroundings; if I recall correctly one of the 3.5E books had an entry for a genius loci. And I'm pretty sure that most people have been somewhere that just felt unfriendly. (My mother grew up in Lancashire in the forties and fifties, near Pendle Hill, and she says it was commonly accepted that the Hill actively disliked intruders.)

That said, I think that hostile nature can easily become overused. Most players prefer some variety -- monsters, traps, not just endlessly hostile environments. Also, different adventures call for different settings: natural caves, underground complexes, ruined towers. And these different settings, with their different monsters and challenges, make it easier for the DM to hold the players' interest.

Of course, now that you've brought it up, I'm itching to throw my players into a dungeon where the very walls seem to threaten them. Nothing like a bit of paranoia to keep the players on their toes ...