D&D General (+) What Should Go in a D&D Book About Dungeons?

[Cadence]

So my desire for terminology is rooted in the why of the place. So you have this weird collection of creatures hanging out in this place with all the politicking that might go one there. But why is it there? Do the bad guys just live there? Are they some BBEG's troops waiting for orders? Are they guardians for something specific?

In the first case, I'd call it a dungeon (if a bit of a busy one). But in the middle case I would call it a fortress. I'm not sure exactly what I would call it (a vault?) in the final case.

Again, I just like have distinct categories for things because I find them informative. You would assault a fortress in a different way than you would break into a vault or you would explore a dungeon.

Are those also in game words for them? If so, what is the go to when the players aren't sure which case it is?

 

[jgsugden]

...But if the latrine is just a latrine, and is included only for the sake of realism (you DID measure rise over run to make sure the pipes would drain correctly, didn't you?) then many of us don't really care whether or not it's there. Maybe, for some people, its absence would be a glaring inconsistency, but I think being bothered by things like that is a choice.

You're missing my point. It isn't all times you make sense that drive the story as a notable event- it is the things that do not make sense. Seeing a latrine is not a magical experience that makes the game better. Dropping in the latrines, and the sleeping quarters isn't going to (often) be the payoff. It is the setup for the payoff.

Let's say you're playing a game in which there has been a waste disposal option for creatures everywhere you go. Sometimes it is just a deadend corridor. Sometimes it is a portable hole. Maybe an Otyugh. Maybe some oozes. Sometimes it is a river. Whatever - but the DM made sure there was an option for waste removal.

And then the PCs come to an orc cavern system and discover there is no waste removal option. This is a potential clue the PCs could note to indicate that maybe there is more to the complex than they've found. Maybe the druid wildshapes into an animal with a good nose and follows the faint smell of waste to a secret door. Maybe they just say, "they have to poop somewhere" and search the caves again. Maybe they speak with dead and ask where the orcs pooped before they died (and if you've never experienced the grand magnificence of Post Mortem Excretion Interrogation I feel sorry for you). But it can be a trigger for the PCs to figure something out.

And I promise you, players - across the board - love to feel like they figured something out. Not the PCs. The players. Even if they have their PC blindly stumble into the trap because the player realized it was thre and the PC didn't, they love to feel like they solved the puzzle you put out there.

Now, a DM could 100% just tell the players, "You don't see a latrine option. You think there must be more to the cave," That can, and does, happen in games. However, that type of dump of answers to players is a weak way to move the game forward. It takes agency away from the players. Even if you gatekeep it behind an investigation role, you're just reducing the game to dice rolls and DM dictums. The more tools you give the players to identify and apply, the more options they have to feel awesome.

There is, of course, middle ground as well. There are a lot of DM styles. However, I'm not talking about the spectrum of ground - I'm talking about the things you find when you venture to the realm of making settings where the dungeon makes sense. All I am, and have been, saying is that making a sensical world where you can apply 'real world' logic and figure out clues based upon the logical conclusions gives a DM stronger and more immersive toolset to create a game where players get to be more involved. I am not telling you that you have to play that way - just that if you do, it gives you tools that can be really rewarding.

 

[Reynard]

Are those also in game words for them? If so, what is the go to when the players aren't sure which case it is?

I'm not sure. I guess I am thinking of it more from the adventure design point of view. Like the book would say "If this location is a vault, do this and expect this, but if it is a fortress do this and expect your players to do this instead." So it is GM facing terminology designed to help build appropriate challenges based on the purpose of the dungeon.

Again, it isn't terribly well thought out at this point. it is just something i find interesting and possibly useful.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Again, I just like have distinct categories for things because I find them informative. You would assault a fortress in a different way than you would break into a vault or you would explore a dungeon.

In my mind the difference is not the way the game unfolds, or what strategy/tactics you use, it’s the feel.

A castle full of hostiles is, in my mind, more closely related to a bandit camp or a tavern full of very unfriendly locals than it is to a “dungeon”. The one-room barrow with a Wight is more dungeon-like than the castle is.

 

[TheSword]

This is just semantics on my part but what you are describing isn't a dungeon, it is a working fortress. I don't think a dungeon is defined as a structured location with some monsters in it. I think the fact that it is ruined, labyrinthine, balkanized, re-inhabited, full of forgotten secrets, and just plain weird make it a dungeon.

If it is the place where the evil overlord forces his weapons and trains his troops for sorties against the good and civilized lands, it is a fortress. And the way PCs would interact with that place is very different than the way they would explore a dungeon. Not to mention the different motivations for doing so.

Of course, it's easy enough to say a fortress is a kind of dungeon with a specific purpose. That's fine and you can certainly have a chapter about dungeon taxonomy. But to me, the king's vault and the villain's tower would get a different classification than "dungeon" just to create a clear distinction.

Yes it does seem like semantics.

What I advocated are dungeon denizens that don’t just sit in place waiting to be slaughtered by PCs but react to invasions of their territory according to their level of intelligence.

There are countless dungeons that include intelligent organized denizens. I’m very comfortable calling the Sunless Citadel, Undermountain or the caves of chaos dungeons and I like it when the intelligent folks who live there react appropriately

There are a few reasons for this, firstly it makes threats more dangerous and 5e needs all the jeopardy it can get to balance out the resilience. Secondly it makes PCs use tactics rather than charge into every situation. Thirdly it makes roleplay in the dungeon more likely as opposed to kicking down every door and taking skulls. Partly because enemies might outgun the PCs and partly because they might surrender.

Anyway. Wasn’t looking for a fight. Just wanted to share something I would like to see in a book about dungeons… how to use intelligent creatures as if they were intelligent.

 

[Reynard]

Yes it does seem like semantics.

What I advocated are dungeon denizens that don’t just sit in place waiting to be slaughtered by PCs but react to invasions of their territory according to their level of intelligence.

There are countless dungeons that include intelligent organized denizens. I’m very comfortable calling the Sunless Citadel, Undermountain or the caves of chaos dungeons and I like it when the intelligent folks who live there react appropriately

There are a few reasons for this, firstly it makes threats more dangerous and 5e needs all the jeopardy it can get to balance out the resilience. Secondly it makes PCs use tactics rather than charge into every situation. Thirdly it makes roleplay in the dungeon more likely as opposed to kicking down every door and taking skulls. Partly because enemies might outgun the PCs and partly because they might surrender.

Anyway. Wasn’t looking for a fight. Just wanted to share something I would like to see in a book about dungeons… how to use intelligent creatures as if they were intelligent.

I think you missed my point, which is probably my fault for being unclear.

I didn't mean that any dungeon inhabited by intelligent enemies wasn't a dungeon but was a fortress, I meant that if all that is in a dungeon is one faction or a group of aligned factions all focused on a single goal, that felt like a fortress rather than a dungeon. I had a few follow up posts to clarify what I meant by various terms and ultimately conceding that don't know what the best terminology might be. I won't waste time repeating that stuff here, but the long and short of it is that I think the purpose of the place -- from the PCs perspective, in the game world-- is the defining factor.

 

[Lanefan]

Again, I just like have distinct categories for things because I find them informative. You would assault a fortress in a different way than you would break into a vault or you would explore a dungeon.

Assuming you knew what you were getting into, which isn't always apparent until quite some way in.

 

[Reynard]

Assuming you knoew what you were getting into, which isn't always apparent until quite some way in.

I mean, maybe? I tend to try and give my players lots of information early to enable good use of agency. Sure, sometimes things turn out to be a ruse or surprise, but not giving them proper information to at least approach an adventure reasonably does more harm than good, IMO.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, maybe? I tend to try and give my players lots of information early to enable good use of agency. Sure, sometimes things turn out to be a ruse or surprise, but not giving them proper information to at least approach an adventure reasonably does more harm than good, IMO.

DM: "There's a castle on a hill maybe 5 miles from town, abandoned since Lord Lordicus, its last owner, died maybe 7 years back. The locals have recently - as in the last month or so - noticed lights at night and heard strange echoing noises at all hours from up there, meanwhile several farmers in that area have, over the last few weeks, reported finding dead livestock with neatly-slit throats. Can you brave heroes go up and check that place out for us?"

What are you getting into? Do the players/characters naturally deserve any more info, or at this point is it learn-as-you-go?

 

[Reynard]

DM: "There's a castle on a hill maybe 5 miles from town, abandoned since Lord Lordicus, its last owner, died maybe 7 years back. The locals have recently - as in the last month or so - noticed lights at night and heard strange echoing noises at all hours from up there, meanwhile several farmers in that area have, over the last few weeks, reported finding dead livestock with neatly-slit throats. Can you brave heroes go up and check that place out for us?"

What are you getting into? Do the players/characters naturally deserve any more info, or at this point is it learn-as-you-go?

That's a perfectly fine description of a dungeon as I described it. But if it turns out that it is a working fortress for the Dark Overlord, that description is potentially misleading. Of course, we're ignoring PCs doing research and recon prior to passing the old gate.

A sealed tomb holding ancient secrets is different than a death cult incursion outpost. Of course the death cult could set up their outpost in a sealed tomb, and that could promise some interesting wrinkles, but I don't just plop PCs at the entrance with false information. I like player agency. They should get to determine how they approach a dungeon. And to do that they should have a reasonable idea of what the place is most of the time.

 

[Lanefan]

That's a perfectly fine description of a dungeon as I described it. But if it turns out that it is a working fortress for the Dark Overlord, that description is potentially misleading. Of course, we're ignoring PCs doing research and recon prior to passing the old gate.

And if on checking out the castle they find it's got a much bigger dungeon beneath it than first thought - the unexplained noises being caused by critters from said dungeon reaching the surface having burrowed into the castle from below - then what?

One would like to think that both in and out of character the players will find ways to adapt to what the environment throws at them, even if it doesn't match the "advertising".

A sealed tomb holding ancient secrets is different than a death cult incursion outpost. Of course the death cult could set up their outpost in a sealed tomb, and that could promise some interesting wrinkles, but I don't just plop PCs at the entrance with false information. I like player agency.

Me too.

They should get to determine how they approach a dungeon.

Agreed.

And to do that they should have a reasonable idea of what the place is most of the time.

Not necessarily. Sometimes that info simply isn't available in advance, and the only way to find out what's in there is to go in there, look around, and learn as you go. And maybe that learned-on-the-fly info might cause the party to bail out and re-think or re-equip.

In the castle on the hill example, the players/PCs might conclude the problem is werewolves and gear up for that, only to find the actual problem is that something's animated all the corpses in the castle's crypt and they're up against a wide assortment of undead without a werewolf in sight. Time to go back to town and trade all that wolfsbane in on some holy water and a couple of spare Clerics.

 

[pemerton]

Let's say you're playing a game in which there has been a waste disposal option for creatures everywhere you go. Sometimes it is just a deadend corridor. Sometimes it is a portable hole. Maybe an Otyugh. Maybe some oozes. Sometimes it is a river. Whatever - but the DM made sure there was an option for waste removal.

And then the PCs come to an orc cavern system and discover there is no waste removal option. This is a potential clue the PCs could note to indicate that maybe there is more to the complex than they've found. Maybe the druid wildshapes into an animal with a good nose and follows the faint smell of waste to a secret door. Maybe they just say, "they have to poop somewhere" and search the caves again. Maybe they speak with dead and ask where the orcs pooped before they died (and if you've never experienced the grand magnificence of Post Mortem Excretion Interrogation I feel sorry for you). But it can be a trigger for the PCs to figure something out.

And I promise you, players - across the board - love to feel like they figured something out. Not the PCs. The players.

I think there's a lot of scope to set up mysteries and clues in a RPG, including in a dungeon. I personally wouldn't use latrines as the core of one.

 

[Andvari]

Yellow mold. Immediately upon turning the first page, spores are released.

 

[Reynard]

Not necessarily. Sometimes that info simply isn't available in advance, and the only way to find out what's in there is to go in there, look around, and learn as you go. And maybe that learned-on-the-fly info might cause the party to bail out and re-think or re-equip.

In the castle on the hill example, the players/PCs might conclude the problem is werewolves and gear up for that, only to find the actual problem is that something's animated all the corpses in the castle's crypt and they're up against a wide assortment of undead without a werewolf in sight. Time to go back to town and trade all that wolfsbane in on some holy water and a couple of spare Clerics.

Sure, I'm not trying to be militant or uncompromising about it. I was just saying I like reliably categories most of the time, not that you should never surprise or bait and switch.

 

[jgsugden]

I think there's a lot of scope to set up mysteries and clues in a RPG, including in a dungeon. I personally wouldn't use latrines as the core of one.

While there has been a taste for latrines in this discussion, it is about making sense overall - not just for poop behavior. You want the space to feel lived in so that it creates the sense of realism. Sleeping spaces, food sources, water sources - walking through the day of the creatures in your brain to figure out what they might do when not finding off invading PCs ... there is a lot more to it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yellow mold. Immediately upon turning the first page, spores are released.

Sphere of annihilation on the cover?

 

[Corinnguard]

What I would like to see in a dungeon are riddles and puzzles. This forum thread reminded me of the times I would encounter one or both while playing computer games such as Wizardry 7, Wizards and Warriors, and Elder Scrolls: Arena. This was back in the 90's. Sometimes you don't need a hoard of monsters guarding a treasure, just a really challenging riddle or a puzzle to vex and frustrate the players.

 

[Bill Zebub]

While there has been a taste for latrines in this discussion, it is about making sense overall - not just for poop behavior. You want the space to feel lived in so that it creates the sense of realism. Sleeping spaces, food sources, water sources - walking through the day of the creatures in your brain to figure out what they might do when not finding off invading PCs ... there is a lot more to it.

And while there’s nothing wrong with any of that, it’s just one of many tools a DM/designer has to make a dungeon interesting, and when a dungeon is interesting in other ways it’s the rare player who questions what those carrion crawlers survive on, or whatever the realism issue is. As common as the player who always points out, whenever somebody takes falling damage, that it really should scale exponentially. (And, yes, they exist.)

Now, I’ll agree that if I anticipate that question, and think, “Oh, I know, I’ll put a colony of giant rats in area 17, and giant rat skeletons in the carrion crawler nest…” that will bring the dungeon to life just a little bit. And if it occurs to me I will.

But for each thing like that I think of, there are 10 other realism issues that a really astute (and annoying) player would note and object to. But most people I’ve played with don’t really care.

It seems like your mileage does vary, which is fine.

 

[Lanefan]

Sphere of annihilation on the cover?

This and the yellow mold idea, while fine in theory, would have the unfortunate yet inevitable result in practice of steadily shrinking the customer base for future products. The bean-counters will never go for it.

 

[pemerton]

While there has been a taste for latrines in this discussion, it is about making sense overall - not just for poop behavior. You want the space to feel lived in so that it creates the sense of realism. Sleeping spaces, food sources, water sources - walking through the day of the creatures in your brain to figure out what they might do when not finding off invading PCs ... there is a lot more to it.

I don't think what you describe has been a component in any of the classic dungeons I can think of. This sort of thing is not found in White Plume Mountain. Not in the ToH. I don't recall it being a big part of KotB (the part of that I recall best is the shrine to chaos, and I don't think they have a kitchen). It's not generally part of the less-classic dungeons I know that are from the heyday of OD&D (eg the early White Dwarf ones).

I think dungeons work better when the clues and inferences are self-contained. Eg in the first dungeon that I designed for Torchbearer, one of the room had been the forging room for the (former) Dwarven occupant. There were leather hangings across the passageway between it and another room. The PCs investigated those hangings, and noted the smoke that had accreted on one side of them. But they didn't go into the room. Later on, after they had explored a (non-forged-based) workroom, one of the players worked out that the other room, that produced smoke, must be the forge room!

The reasoning was based on elements within the dungeon, rather than bringing in considerations of "realism" which may not be shared between players and GM.