Smaller or bigger dungeons?

[Mallus]

My real preference is "virtually nonexistent", but for the sake of the poll I voted "smaller".

 

[GlassJaw]

I prefer well-thought-out, themed dungeons. I also want the ecology to make sense.

These things are more difficult to do in larger dungeons so they usually end up getting boring or nonsensical. I find I can design better smaller dungeons and I also have more fun as a player.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Maybe I'm just a product of my youth, but I think the early modules hit it about right. They were big enough that you felt some sense of accomplishment in beating them, but not so big that you got the 'oh my god when are we going to finish this thing'. I think if it assumes the party has to retreat and return, it's too big.

While I admire the effort that goes into producing the epic dungeons, I really have little interest in running or playing them.

 

[Odhanan]

A big dungeon does not have to feel like endless corridors. It can be run in a very entertaining, very dynamic way. It depends on the DM really.

Assuming that the little and the big dungeon are run with equal skill, I will thus prefer the bigger one. Further, I prefer being able to come in and out of the big dungeon (Ghul's Labyrinth, Rappan Athuk) rather than being trapped in it (World's Largest Dungeon).

 

[KingCrab]

The 5 room dungeon article from Dungeon gave some strong arguments for small dungeons. Anyone recall which issue that was in?

 

[Asmor]

As a DM, smaller, and that's what I voted for. It's just plain easier to make a small dungeon and retain some modicrum of verisimilitude, not to mention that even the work put into a small dungeon can be quite daunting.

Plus, it means that you're only spending one or two sessions on the dungeon, and it also means that you can more easily throw new dungeons at the party. It also means you're not locked into a concept for very long, handy when it turns out that your ideas weren't so great in practice.

As a player, however, I'd love to go through a mega dungeon. I really want to play through the WLD some time.

 

[Flynn]

Man, I should just carry a flag which says, "I'm with the undead mouse!"

*goes off to paint one*

Shilsen,

Did you mean that you were going off to paint a flag, or that you were going to paint an undead mouse? Just curious, because if it's the latter, I'd love to see the mini when it's done. (And now, to bring this back on topic...) I think there's definitely a place for an undead mouse in a smaller dungeon.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Treebore]

The only Mega Dungeon I have liked is Undermountain. The first version, not the new piece of junk.

After that Castle Greyhawk was a bit too long. So is Temple of Elemental Evil.

I like Necromancers Tomb of Abysthor, Lost City of Barakus, and Rappan Athuk.

I think the real key is to have multiple reasons, and multiple things going on inn the Dungeon environment to make it much more dynamic.

When your going into a huge complex for one reason, and have to go through and explore the 500 rooms and fight the 3,000 creatures just to reach that one goal, thats when it gets bad.

Which is why I enjoyed Undermountain, Rappan Athuk, Tomb of Abysthor, and Lost City of Barakus. I had multiple reasons for the party to go in multiple times.

Tomb of Horrors was "just the right length" for a one goal dungeon.

 

[T. Foster]

One great big central campaign-dungeon, with numerous smaller lair-dungeons and adventure-dungeons scattered hither and yon across the wilderness.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think the real key is to have multiple reasons, and multiple things going on inn the Dungeon environment to make it much more dynamic.

When your going into a huge complex for one reason, and have to go through and explore the 500 rooms and fight the 3,000 creatures just to reach that one goal, thats when it gets bad.

Exactly. Small dungeons may be adventures (or parts thereof), large dungeons should be treated like setting. IMHO. YMMV. YDMB.