Smaller or bigger dungeons?

[Arkhandus]

Either's fine to me. I haven't gotten to play as D&D in general as I'd like, so any kind of campaign is alright by me as long as it's not one of the few extreme or unusual kinds that don't appeal to me at all. Dungeoncrawling's fine by me.

 

[meomwt]

A good mix of each is essential, I'd say. Keep the players on their toes, keep them looking for that secret door that isn't there, while the hungry wolves/ zombies/ dinosaurs (delete where applicable) come home and find canned goods ready and waiting for them.

I've run multi-level complexes and half-dozen-room lairs before now, and each has been well received.

One day, I'll get round to running Rappan Athuk, then they better watch out!

 

[Melan]

The two types fulfill different functions; therefore, in an ideal campaign, I would mix the two (obviously, there would be more small dungeons - there is no need for more than one or probably two really big ones). Small dungeons can be "completed", and I think many players like that feeling. They are also easier to build around a theme. But larger dungeons - at least 50 rooms - open up strategic possibilities and complexity you simply can't cram into a small structure. For example, inter-level exploration obviously needs multiple levels. You don't get that incredible feel of exploration and being lost in an immense thing if it only takes a few sessions to clear it out. Big dungeons can't, and shouldn't ever be cleared!

In practice, I don't have the time or patience to design a proper megadungeon, so I only make small and occasionally medium ones... my "dungeon" is the wilderness.

 

[Gothic_Demon]

Generally I go for small and themed, because my regular party play more political and social adventures and dungeons are generally focussed on a particular BBEGs home or somesuch. My other group generally prefer a few small dungeons, one after another; although I can sometimes combine them into one big dungeon with transitional points.

 

[shilsen]

Huge dungeons mean CoDzilla can't stride room to room with buffs always a going.

Neo-phyte DM: You mean that someday as a DM I'll be able to make PCs run out of buffs?

Experienced DM: I'm telling you that when you're ready as a DM, you won't have to.

 

[Li Shenron]

Big dungeons!

But at the same time I want them with only a few monsters. I hate dungeons where every single room has to have an encounter, and these encounters have nothing to do with each other.

But the locales should be many, not just a bunch of rooms but a full castle, cavern complex or ancient catacomb... I prefer that the exploration takes some time, that there's a mix of both dangerous and quiet areas, and that sometimes getting out of it quickly is not so easy

Also better when many of the locales themselves are large, which gives a sense of magnitude to the whole adventure (think the Balrog encounter in LotR movie...), even if it might be not very realistic to build them. It also has the added benefit that battles can accomodate more tactical manoeuvres.

 

[Brazeku]

I dislike big dungeons for the simple reason that they are too great a time investment- not so much for myself, but for the players. While it is possible to keep changing it up to keep it interesting, it seems more realistic and entertaining to achieve that with multiple locations.

 

[jimpaladin]

I voted small, but I do like the old school crawls. I like the idea behind small ones due to the amount of effort it would take to createw/magic a big one. Also as others have said, I want a realistic eco-system not a countdown through MMIII for example.

 

[Flynn]

I like dungeons that are completed in one or two gaming sessions, so my vote is for smaller. Bigger dungeons get boring very quickly, IME as both a player and a DM. YMMV.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Steel_Wind]

Smalller makes for an overall stronger adventure.

I would point to Erik Mona's Whispering Cairn as the ideal size of a dungeon in 3.5.