Undermountain Begins! (And DMGII Tidbit...)

[The_Warlock]

Excellent response Mr. Morrow. I guess part of the problem here, and your respnse clarifies it for me, is that in many ways I don't disagree with you. As I said "as long as there are methods to deal with it". I admit, that phrase is broad and was not specific enough under the circumstances, but I wholeheartedly agree with you that there would, could, and should be places that are not always wholly barred/warded, but I would work from the concept of "The dungeon is thus warded" as my blanket statement, and then, having that baseline, cut away at the blanket in certain areas, thus defining such areas as how they are different from the baseline warding, rather than start with bare dungeon and constantly rehash and re-list for myself the tally of defenses.

However, as Henry, and I (I hope) pointed out, especially in this circumstance, Undermountain is more than a lair, its a playground, laboratory, and amusement park, and in the setting, its defenses are not only conceivable, but a basic necessity that would have been worked into it from the beginning to support its unique, and twisted, ecosystem by someone capable of doing it with enough time and resources to do it almost completely. And in the case of a place like Undermountain, and its purpose, almost everywhere matters.

From tactically minded individuals or groups that don't have a milennia and epic magics (which while I don't overly like the 3E epic magic system, can account for staggering expansions in area of effect, city size and bigger) at their disposal, I heartily agree with your estimate that the most important areas would be truly protected, rather than every last men's room. And have even designed places in such fashion. But when it's a purported 14 level dungeon with 9 sub-levels, an attached sewer, and attached tomb dungeon, and a town of underdark slavers, I'd rather know the baseline rules for the place that are generally all encompassing, and then read about the individual areas that differ from that baseline.

I guess that also points to a problem in communication overall in this thread as a whole - I was definitely speaking of Undermountain, and similar events, locales, and NPCs. I think some of the discussion is assuming that all foes, dungeons, etc in a given GMs world or setting thus inherently are being constructed the same. I believe that all competent NPCs with access to the resources would do their best to protect themselves. That does not mean I would build an entire campaign where every dungeon, every NPC lair, and every challenge barred every translocation, divination, and ability that my players had at their disposal. That would be boring and silly. But I will apply protections appropriate to the antagonists - if that happens to be a massive teleporation block and there is good reason, AND capability, AND resources, AND time - then so be it. If it doesn't then I won't, if you take my meaning? Also, "there is a teleport block", that's a high level ability that is being denied the party - maybe it will make them use other high level abilities (or gasp! role-playing) they have but rarely or never use to find ways around the teleport block. Isn't that overcoming the challenge?

In the end, I agree with you in principle, but not in method, if you will. You say making sweeping declarations is heavy handed and flavorless, that there should be nuances and connectivity to the rules. I say making sweeping declarations is pragmatic and time saving, I am basing it off the rules as written, within the reasonable limitations that the specific nemesis/locale/group has available, and then peel away the layers of the blanket in certain areas to achieve the unique methods, flavor and keys for the players to find and manipulate to their advantage.

In the end, I love Undermountain for what it is, always the same; everchanging; full of wonderful, weird, schizoid encounters; with established and durable factions and personalities; and where high level play is mandatory, where amazing abilities have to be used every day; but where you have to walk in the front door like every other schlub.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Well, I think the second comment comment explains how to handle the first fairly. A high-level opponent will plan for such threats but should do so within the rules using things like like Mage's Private Sanctum with perminancy to protect their main lair, using Dimensional Lock to protect temporary lairs, using Demensional Anchor to keep they from fleeing, etc. Basically, a DM can limit the protected area based on how an opponent might protect themselves within the rules rather than waving their hands and declaring large sections of a dungeon a "no teleport zone". In addition, creative use of environmental hazards like underground lakes or even lava flows and spells like False Vision could also discourage a party from blind teleportation into areas that they've only seen via scrying.

If you are hard pressed to figure out how to protect an NPC from teleporting PCs, put your PCs in a situation where they have to protect themselves from teleporting NPCs and take notes about how they protect themselves.

In that case, and given the resources of someone like Halaster, the answer IS, in fact, the entire dungeon, or large sections thereof. In fact, it is quite easy for a 30th-level wizard with access to the Epic Level Handbook to develop and use large-scale anti-teleport wards. What's your concern, exactly?

Incidentally, Undermountain's original designer didn't exactly adopt a "sweeping and flavorless" approach, but rather talked at length about the implications of Halaster's paranoia. As such, it makes sense that UM would be warded generally against teleportation and other magics, and the spells exist (in fact, Ed wrote 'em up!) to accomplish this warding.

 

[John Morrow]

However, as Henry, and I (I hope) pointed out, especially in this circumstance, Undermountain is more than a lair, its a playground, laboratory, and amusement park, and in the setting, its defenses are not only conceivable, but a basic necessity that would have been worked into it from the beginning to support its unique, and twisted, ecosystem by someone capable of doing it with enough time and resources to do it almost completely. And in the case of a place like Undermountain, and its purpose, almost everywhere matters.

With respect to the Undermountain being a single location where this is true, I can understand that and think it's fine. As I said, a single large dungeon built by halflings where all of the ceilings are 4 ft. high could be interesting, too. A single dungeon created by a powerful fighter that doesn't allow spellcasting or magic items could be interesting, too. My main concern is that a GM look at Undermountain and say, "Hey, that really simplifies my life. All of my dungeons should be teleport-free zones."

I also understand your need to make your life simple. 3E can be incredibly time-consuming to do everything "by the book". But I still don't think it necessarily takes all that much longer to red-line out the areas of a dungeon where a party can't teleport than it does to red-line out the areas of a dungeon where they can. The main difference seems to be one of control. It's a matter of whether you want to look at things in terms of "All that is not forbidden is allowed." or "All that is not allowed is forbidden." They can have a very different flavor and, as a player, I can feel that difference in terms of control. The latter, to me, can send a message that the GM doesn't want the players to do anything clever or surprising that the GM hasn't planned for. Of course how the GM does this and how often matters a great deal.

I guess that also points to a problem in communication overall in this thread as a whole - I was definitely speaking of Undermountain, and similar events, locales, and NPCs. I think some of the discussion is assuming that all foes, dungeons, etc in a given GMs world or setting thus inherently are being constructed the same.

Well, there is also the issue of "how often is too often". At some point between "once" and "every time" lies a point at which the players get the distinct impression that the GM just doesn't want them using teleportation and scrying to spoil their adventures. Where that line is will vary from group to group, with some groups getting annoyed by it being used once and other groups never getting sick of it. Ultimately, do whatever works for your group but keep an eye out for signs that your players don't like it.

I believe that all competent NPCs with access to the resources would do their best to protect themselves. That does not mean I would build an entire campaign where every dungeon, every NPC lair, and every challenge barred every translocation, divination, and ability that my players had at their disposal. That would be boring and silly. But I will apply protections appropriate to the antagonists - if that happens to be a massive teleporation block and there is good reason, AND capability, AND resources, AND time - then so be it. If it doesn't then I won't, if you take my meaning?

Sure. But there are plenty of people out there who always assume that the time and resources are available if the good reason and capability exist. A lot of what adds texture and flavor to the real world is the trade off between quality, time, and money (as the classic caption under those words says, "Pick Two," meaning that one will have to be sacrificed to get the other two because). Yes, a fantasy setting can always have powerful figures that do have all three at their disposal and that's fine if it fits, but I really do think that the results of a trade-off are usually more interesting than perfection. And, yes, it can be time consuming to consider that trade-off when designing a dungeon but the basic feel of a trade-off can be created by making a dungeon less-than-optimal and by restricting really expensive stuff to critical areas.

Also, "there is a teleport block", that's a high level ability that is being denied the party - maybe it will make them use other high level abilities (or gasp! role-playing) they have but rarely or never use to find ways around the teleport block. Isn't that overcoming the challenge?

Yes. And as I've said, once or twice it can be interesting. But like any challenge that's based on denying the characters the use of some of their abilities, it can get old if overused. So what I guess I'm saying here is that it's OK to block teleportation and srying from some of your dungeons but don't overuse it such that scrying and teleportation are never really useful.

Of course I think another factor may very well be the tone and power-level of the setting. An Undermountain makes a lot more sense in the high-magic Forgotten Realms than it would in a lower magic or lower level setting. If your setting is filled with people who can scry and teleport, protection will logically be more common than in a setting where you can count the number of crystal balls and characters over 10th level on one hand. So in that regard, I can see how blanket bans may make more sense in a setting where Epic level characters were or are common. They make less sense in lower-powered settings.

In the end, I agree with you in principle, but not in method, if you will. You say making sweeping declarations is heavy handed and flavorless, that there should be nuances and connectivity to the rules. I say making sweeping declarations is pragmatic and time saving, I am basing it off the rules as written, within the reasonable limitations that the specific nemesis/locale/group has available, and then peel away the layers of the blanket in certain areas to achieve the unique methods, flavor and keys for the players to find and manipulate to their advantage.

As I said earlier, I appreciate your concern over saving time and as I said above, I'm not sure that red-lining out the limited areas where one can't teleport is any more time consuming than red-lining out the limited areas where one. Either approach can work but I think the feel can be very different. See above about making "forbidden" or "allowed" the default assumption.

In the end, I love Undermountain for what it is, always the same; everchanging; full of wonderful, weird, schizoid encounters; with established and durable factions and personalities; and where high level play is mandatory, where amazing abilities have to be used every day; but where you have to walk in the front door like every other schlub.

And as a location within the magic-rich and powerful Forgotten Realms, it makes sense. I'm not saying that the Undermountain needs to change nor is it horrible. My main concern is that GMs simply blindly emulate it on the grounds that it's mighty convenient to now allow the players to scry or teleport. And since many GMs do find scrying and teleportation to be mighty inconvenient, I think that's a legitimate concern. Like I've said, once or twice is interesting. Like many things in role-playing, the problem lies in repetition and overuse (which is, of course, subjective).

FYI, please note that some of this is written as generic advice for other people who may be reading it. I suspect that you already know a lot of what I'm saying here.

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

In the yeeeear.. 2525

Oh...that's just genius... simply beautiful... *wipes tears and applauds*

 

[John Morrow]

In that case, and given the resources of someone like Halaster, the answer IS, in fact, the entire dungeon, or large sections thereof. In fact, it is quite easy for a 30th-level wizard with access to the Epic Level Handbook to develop and use large-scale anti-teleport wards.

In the context of Forgotten Realms and Halaster, the Undermountain may very well make perfect sense.

What's your concern, exactly?

That a GM likes the idea so much that they use it as the default for all of their high-level dungeons. As a default, I don't think entire dungeons (even high-powered ones) should be teleport-free zones (though portions of them most certainly could be). In specific instances, where it makes sense in the setting that they are like Undermountain, it's a legitimate design choice but still one that I think should be carefully considered.

Incidentally, Undermountain's original designer didn't exactly adopt a "sweeping and flavorless" approach, but rather talked at length about the implications of Halaster's paranoia. As such, it makes sense that UM would be warded generally against teleportation and other magics, and the spells exist (in fact, Ed wrote 'em up!) to accomplish this warding.

Well, a great deal depends on what came first -- the in-setting justification for the teleport-free zone or the desire to have a teleport free zone and create a justification for it in the setting. I'm not Ed and don't know Ed so I can't say for sure.

But I will point out that when something happens in a role-playing game or setting, the players generally try to figure out what it is happening and why it is happening just as when an audience reads a story or watches a movie, they try to figure out what is happening and wny. Because of the nature of all of these mediums, there are explanations that deal with the setting and characters and explanations that deal with the authors and the medium.

For example, when a red shirt dies in Star Trek, the setting explanation is that they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The author explanation is that the author needed a way to show the audience how dangerous the bad guy was and needed to kill someone off who wasn't a regular. Kill off one red shirt and the audience will generally accept it within the setting because that sort of thing does happen in the real world. Kill off a red shirt a week and it becomes a cliche and the audience can't help but recognize why the author is doing it. It's not happening because a red shirt increases your chance of dying. It's happening beause the author needs a convenient schmuck to kill off this week.

Basically, the stronger the clues are that a particular situation is being driven by the needs of the GM or author rather than the needs of the setting, the more likely it is that the players or audience will start looking for the explanations for what is happening in the GM or author rather than in the characters and situations. And it really doesn't matter that the situation is realistic or possible.

In the real world, coincidences (both good and bad) happen all the time. But authors can't use good coincidences to neatly tie up a story and resolve all of the problems because the audience won't see the coincidence as natural. They'll see it as contrived by the author to solve a problem that they couldn't write their way out of. So even if good coincidences are realistic, authors can't use them or, at least, can't use them often because the audience won't see them as natural or real but as something the author is forcing.

Similarly, when an element of a setting becomes too convenient for the GM, it can look like a GM contrivance, even if it isn't.

Yes, it's entirely possible that Ed saw the anti-teleportation aspect of Undermountain as a natural part of his setting first. It's also possible that he wanted a powerful dungeon with certain features and, concerned that teleportation would ruin the whole thing, just declared the whole place a teleport-free zone and made the creator a paranoid and powerful person. Without knowing either way, I could only guess. But because the GM-level utility of making the Undermountain is so obvious (What high-level DM hasn't worried about how teleportation or scrying might short-circuit their adventure?), it's easy to think of it as a convenient author-level contrivance rather than an organic part of the setting, like a beneficial coincidence in a book. Does Undermountain make sense in Forgotten Realms? Sure. Might people still be bothered by it despite that? Yup.