OSR The Basic/Expert Dungeon

Yora

Legend
While I was working on some dungeons for my next campaign, I noticed once again how easy it is to fall into the pattern as thinking of dungeons as just monster lairs and NPC strongholds. I repeatedly kept back to thinking about what kind of monster I could put into the sandbox and what a dungeon build around it might look like.
This is the opposite approach from coming up with an interesting environment first and then considering what kind of creatures and people could be encountered while exploring it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

overgeeked

B/X Known World
I feel obliged to mention this thread from rpgnet: Misadventures in randomly generated dungeons and the followup up Fellowship of the Bling thread.
It's really important to note that the OP of those threads and his players were making several fairly sizeable mistakes when doing those adventures. They're still comedy gold, but anyone reading those and thinking that's how B/X runs or should be run will be misled.

Some notable flubs: no retainers or men-at-arms, going for combat often, higher than recommended HD monsters on low levels of the dungeon, finding stairs and immediately going down, among others.
 

Mannahnin

Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
There were references to castle greyhawk and other megadungeons in Dragon, the ‘zines, at cons, etc.

But published adventures were usually done first for tournament play, so could only be so mega.
True, generally. Some modules, first introductory ones like B1 and B2, were not, but you're right that most of the early modules were originally tournament scenarios. TSR had a regular revenue stream from tournament play at conventions, and then got more cash from it by selling the scenarios.

Why was castle greyhawk not released? Gygax was busy, but probably also nervous about it, he himself had moved the bar and reset expectations.
TBF, it seems that it was never written/finished in the format they used for modules for other people to run. If you check out the couple of rare photos of level 1 of the CG dungeon in Gary's binder, it's a labyrinthine maze with really minimal, 1-page keying. He and Rob Kuntz have talked about how they improvised a lot of the dungeon dressing. It had detailed maps (LOTS of them), but the keying was evidently written as loose, mostly disorganized notes like a lot of us write for ourselves as DMs, and never at the level of detail that people expect from published products.

In the early 2000s he talked about collaborating with Rob Kuntz to complete it as a publishable project, but discussed it being a huge task requiring multiple years of work, and neither of them having the time or financial security to do it "on spec". Gary later worked with Jeffrey Talanian/Troll Lord Games to eventually complete an alternate version of it, Castle Zagyg I: The Upper Works, which is a big boxed set with 5 large interior books, a maps & illustrations handout, and several level map pages as well, but that came out the same year he passed, and he never completed that re-do.

I'm trying to find the post by Gary I was reading last week where he kind of summarized the materials

 

Orius

Legend
TBF, it seems that it was never written/finished in the format they used for modules for other people to run. If you check out the couple of rare photos of level 1 of the CG dungeon in Gary's binder, it's a labyrinthine maze with really minimal, 1-page keying. He and Rob Kuntz have talked about how they improvised a lot of the dungeon dressing. It had detailed maps (LOTS of them), but the keying was evidently written as loose, mostly disorganized notes like a lot of us write for ourselves as DMs, and never at the level of detail that people expect from published products.

Yeah from everything I've read, Castle Greyhawk was never written up in a professional manner. There were maps and notes, and everything was always changing too as Gary's players interacted with the dungeon. Then too, Gary was probably reluctant to publish too much back in the day to avoid spoiling his players on what was down there. Right now, I think the notes are better presented as a sort of academic thing that gives people a look into an important piece of the game's history rather than as an actual game product.
 

Not a big fan of megadungeons but even more against "empty rooms". I just don't see the point.
Every room should have something for the PCs to see/push/find/discover/break/chat etc. Even if it's a thrown away piece of kit, evidence of a former presence, a clue to something, etc.
 

Yora

Legend
This establishes that every time the party enters a room and they don't notice anything interesting, there has to be something hidden that they have to keep looking for.
I don't think that is a good approach to making dungeons that feel like real places and running a game where failures might happen.
 

SJB

Explorer
In 2003 Decipher’s Lord of the Rings RPG (designed by Mike Mearls) did give some thought to these issues so that one might have both interactive ecosystems and disarticulated generation. Here is Andy Slack’s explanation from 2016:

“The thing of note on the Vertical Exaggeration is that the boxes representing levels and the lines showing their connections are labelled; for example a trip from Dimrill Dale (surface) through the First Deep (labelled “P15”) to the Redhorn Upperdeeps (“P20”) takes you along a connecting arrow labelled “P15/T6”. P is the Peril target number and shows how likely the PCs are to run into trouble while there, and T is the travel time in hours – thus it takes 6 hours to travel from the First Deep to the Redhorn Upperdeeps. Levels themselves take an hour to traverse, so the dungeon itself is a points-of-light setting in miniature; long, dark, mysterious passageways connecting densely-packed areas of rooms and chambers. The expectation is that the PCs are not “house-clearing” one room at a time, they have a specific destination in mind and are trying to get there by the shortest route possible to minimise the chance of encounters.”
 

thirdkingdom

Hero
Publisher
This establishes that every time the party enters a room and they don't notice anything interesting, there has to be something hidden that they have to keep looking for.
I don't think that is a good approach to making dungeons that feel like real places and running a game where failures might happen.

Yeah, sometimes there's just nothing there. It's up to the players to decide whether it is worth the time and resources (torches, oil, etc.) to search or not.
 

Mannahnin

Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
Not a big fan of megadungeons but even more against "empty rooms". I just don't see the point.
Every room should have something for the PCs to see/push/find/discover/break/chat etc. Even if it's a thrown away piece of kit, evidence of a former presence, a clue to something, etc.
In megadungeon play empty rooms serve several purposes.

A big part of the original playstyle was navigating the dungeon, with mapping, resource (torches) and time management, being skills tested. Trying to avoid getting lost, trying to find hidden treasures without running into too many monsters, figuring out spots where it made sense to devote time to searches and risk more wandering monsters, etc. The time burned moving through empty rooms is meant to build suspense. Every random encounter check is a chance of a dangerous wandering monster which usually has little or no treasure. So they're an ever-present threat you're hoping to dodge while you search the labyrinth for valuables and magic. Some of those "empty" rooms and corridors WILL wind up having random encounters in them.

I think it's often a good idea to put some little clue or useful bit of dressing or description in an empty room, but it doesn't have to be much. One of my favorite tweaks to random encounter rolls is to make the random encounter happen on a 1, but a SIGN or clue of a wandering monster also be found on a 2. This gives the PCs hints or info about what kind of monsters inhabit the area, especially if you're using random encounter charts at least partially drawn from the monster lairs on that level.

Dungeons with lots of empty space have greater verisimilitude from the perspective of having actual buffer zones between monster lairs so it doesn't look like they would necessarily have killed each other before the PCs got there or be allies like you would assume if they live next door. They also give players the option to run away from and then maneuver AROUND a monster lair that looks too tough.

Remember that if you're primarily seeking treasure (rather than fights), avoiding monsters or running away from them is a legit and smart tactic. Even if, for example, the party decides they want to come back and deal with the Bugbear lair they ran from last time, maybe they use empty rooms in the dungeon to help them do it! Perhaps tricking/luring one or a few of the Bugbears out to an empty area where the PCs can ambush them, rather than just storming the full lair all at once.

If you're playing one of the original rule sets or OSE (or another clone with Fleeing/Retreat/Pursuit rules), read those fleeing and pursuit rules! Note that most of the time monsters which ARE pursuing will break off pursuit once they lose line of sight to the fleeing party; this is one reason why the old dungeon maps have those weird jagged corridors. Although doors serve as well (and Hold Portal can be very valuable if you can put a door between you and the baddies).

Tournament modules, OTOH, often had more dense content in part due to time concerns in limited duration convention play slots, and published designs were often much more dense than the original guidelines for similar reasons- players largely seemed to prefer hitting more monsters quicker, less maneuvering around empty rooms. There's a dramatic demonstration of this contrast between Mike Carr's B1 In Search of the Unknown and Gygax's B2 Keep on the Borderlands. Mike Carr's module is much more about exploring this weird, mostly empty, mysterious space, where the Caves of Chaos has all these lairs right next to each other.

So, all that being said, having a large number of empty rooms is something the game moved away from, but they actually DO serve several purposes when playing the game in the original style.
 
Last edited:

Orius

Legend
Two more things:

Empty rooms are useful as places to hole up and rest in long expeditions. IIRC, exploring a dungeon in the some of the old rules required occasional rests, and in 5e can be useful spots for short rests.

The old dungeons were designed to be reused. A room that was empty in one playthrough might be occupied the next time as the DM restocked things.
 

Remove ads

Top