Would these maps make for a fun dungeon adventure?

[Bullgrit]

I see what your meaning grodog. I was just thinking along "they are built for continuous and repeated forays by multiple groups of explorers. . . . They collectively form an open environment for dungeoneering," to quote Melan's description of the OP maps.

I think published dungeons like In Search of the Unknown and Keep on the Borderland match this (but on a necessarily smaller scale). Both of these dungeons kind of "just exist" -- a DM could run multiple adventuring parties (in the same world, in the same time period) through them like EGG did in Castle Greyhawk. They're sort of perpetual dungeons.

But something like the G series, the PCs are on a mission to find information or kill the Big Boss. Once they fulfull their mission, they move on to the next, probably never to return to that dungeon. And the DM probably won't run that dungeon again for another party unless he "resets" it. (In that world, in that time period, that dungeon is "done.")

"Perpetual dungeons" vs. "mission dungeons"

Castle Greyhawk is probably the prime example of a perpetual dungeon. I think most such dungeons were left to individual DMs to create (now often referred to as "mega dungeons").

White Plume Mountain is probably a solid example of a mission dungeon. It seems that TSR chose to publish mostly mission dungoeons.

Am I explaining this well enough?

Bullgrit

 

[grodog]

So who brought this back to life? Weird....

That would be me: I like Melan's model a lot, and wondered if he has done any further maps analysis projects, since it's been awhile. Edit: erm, I was thinking of Melan's thread @ http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...layout-map-flow-old-school-game-design-7.html sorry.

I see what your meaning grodog. I was just thinking along "they are built for continuous and repeated forays by multiple groups of explorers. . . . They collectively form an open environment for dungeoneering," to quote Melan's description of the OP maps. [snip]

"Perpetual dungeons" vs. "mission dungeons" [snip]

Am I explaining this well enough?

Yes, I think that helps clarify the distinctions you're making, Bullgrit. I guess what I'm saying is that some of the modules you're classifying as mission modules can transform easily, with some expansion on the DM's part (and as encouraged within the module's designs), from mission modules to perpetual modules---regardless of whether they're a classic mega-dungeon format like Castle Greyhawk.

To expland on that a bit more: the drowic underworld offered in G3 and D1-3 is a vast underground wilderness, through which the PCs will (usually) follow a narrow grey-shaded march from the SE to the NW; once they complete their mission to stop the giants and those behind them, or perhaps even during it, they may wander "off the path" of the published content, at which point they've entered the larger perpetual module environs of the drowic underworld. The design of the underworld map fully-encourages this exploration, and the GDQ1-7 supermodule even provides sketch details for many other possible encounters in that underworld. The DM has to design this content, of course, so that's part of what I feel like you're also calling out as a design flaw---that the module "ends" at the "edge" of the grey-shaded areas, whereas in a Castle Greyhawk or Maure Castle or other mega-dungeon, that there isn't really an undefined "edge" per se. Am I characterizing that properly?

Relatedly, while I agree that a good mega-dungeon overall design isn't designed to be completed and should definitely support repeated forays into it, good players will set missions and goals within the scope of that perpetual dungeon environment, too: "today we're back into the fortress to rescue the slave girls we left in the secret room when we had to bug out, then we'll try to capture/kill Cragen." So the idea of "mission" strikes me again more as a trait that's set in the background or in PC goals rather than the mission being an absolute definition for any module, per se.

Did that make sense?

 

[Gentlegamer]

I'm pretty sure "perpetual dungeons" used to be called campaigns.

I'm all for bringing back this style of campaign.

 

[Mallus]

While I can appreciate the time, effort, and, err, Cartesian creativity involved in making maps like those, I wouldn't let them within 100m of any campaign I had a say in. I prefer my dungeons to be mini or micro (pico?) rather than mega.

I like campaigns that are painted on a broader canvas.

 

[Bullgrit]

Did that make sense?

I guess what I'm saying is that some of the modules you're classifying as mission modules can transform easily, with some expansion on the DM's part (and as encouraged within the module's designs), from mission modules to perpetual modules

I understand what you’re getting at, but when the transformation means/requires the DM to make all the expansion himself (even if suggested by the module author), does that really count as making the adventure a perpetual dungeon?

I mean, if I design the whole city of Highport (which I did) for the module Slave Pits of the Undercity, does that make the published module a city adventure? The module text suggested the DM do this, just like the G modules suggested the DM expand beyond the given lair map.

So I don’t think having a tunnel going off the printed map into darkness, and telling the DM, “Feel free to create more dungeon rooms off in that direction,” really counts to make something like the G modules, themselves, as published, into perpetual dungeons.

Doesn’t Sunless Citadel and/or The Forge of Fury have a similar spot on the map and direction in the text to expand into the underdark? Surely that doesn’t make them mega-dungeons or underdark-excursion adventures.

Bullgrit

 

[grodog]

So I don’t think having a tunnel going off the printed map into darkness, and telling the DM, “Feel free to create more dungeon rooms off in that direction,” really counts to make something like the G modules, themselves, as published, into perpetual dungeons.

Point well-made, Bullgrit: the distinction between the two dungeon formats (published S4 module as-is, vs., say, an expanded S4 or drowic underworld) remains.

And---back to the maps: few of the maps in the published TSR modules, even the eminiently expandable ones are part-and-parcel representations of the style of mega-dungeon map design that Castles Greyhawk, Blackmoor, and El Raja Key suggest. WG5/Maure Castle, and the S4 maps are probably the closest, which only makes sense since the were excerpted from existing mega-dungeons in the first place.