Thanks to a post by Azraele I reread an oldie but goodie by Zak which goes into the Default Assumptions of Dungeons.

• There is a wide variety of monsters in the dungeon.
• It's really big.
• The design is nonlinear so you that you can end up doing the dungeon in any number of different ways.
• There are traps. These traps make sense considering who built them and what they were protecting.
• There are weird nonstandard tricks--these things are weird but they have a reason they're there. If all else fails its some kind of "test" and if even that fails then maybe it was designed by an insane wizard.
• There are enough traps that PCs look at every single thing in the dungeon sideways. Therefore every detail--even if harmless--is potentially important.
• The culture(s) that built the dungeon aren't the ones who live in it now (that's why there are traps and tricks guarding ancient hidden treasures rather than just guards in front of what amounts to a bank vault.)
• There is more than one intelligent faction living in the dungeon and controlling what goes on there (that's why 3-8 random adventurers have a chance of getting in and out--the enemy isn't inept, they just have to simultaneously deal with other shit besides you.) (That's also why there's more than one kind of trick and trap.)
• The whole dungeon functions together. A lever or key in location A can affect things that happen in location B. You have to go back sometimes to find these things.
• Dangerous features of the dungeon can be used against the dungeon inhabitants by clever PCs.
• The tricks and the traps alternate with monster fights but--more than that--they are integrated with monster fights so that they can work together. You never fight the same monster twice because environmental factors make a difference.

Over in the megadungeon thread, people refer to megadungeons as boring or nonsensical.  It seems like if you follow these default assumptions, you're not going to have that problem.  Zak's article makes the point that

Quote from: ZakThis is what the DM guide in the Red Box and AD&D DMG had trained me to expect, it's what video games, from Zork to Super Mario Bros had trained me to expect, and it's what actually playing the game for years had trained me to expect and I was always kind of mystified that whenever I looked at a module it was never like this.

So, what do you think?  Is this a good set of Default Assumptions for a good dungeon?  Is the "problem with megadungeons" that these assumptions aren't present in published dungeons, but are in self-designed ones, so people playing at a table with a do-it-yourselfer GM are experiencing a completely different kind of animal from those consuming published content?

The "problem with megadungeons" is that most people are booger-eating morons.  Therefore most megadungeons are shit, and so are most referees, and most players.

The problem with megadundeons is not everyone likes megadungeons.:-)

Speaking only for myself, I'd rather not run session after session after session running through what amounts to a rat maze. This is not anyone's fault. I just like overland stuff, as well.

I think a lot of the conceits, above, are excellent rationalizations for the way things work when it comes to the traditional, enclosed spaces of the dungeon. I think it's also okay to not give a shit about why things are the way they are and just play the game, as well. Whatever works, man. I mean, I like to have a decent explanation for things, but I don't think it's a necessity for everyone.

Reaction and Morale are missing from that list. I.E. fights are not "to the death" (& morale applies to the hirelings you bring with you... you DID bring hirelings, right?), and not all encounters are fights.

I've run three sessions of Caverns of Thracia over the past 2 days (7pm-10pm, 8am-11am, 7pm-10pm!) and Zak's description certainly matches what I've been seeing, so yes I'll agree.

Most early published dungeons fitted this description ok. TSR eventually started producing shovelware dungeons like B9, and WotC has produced a lot of crap over the years, especially linear dungeons.

Quote from: Telarus;971205Reaction and Morale are missing from that list. I.E. fights are not "to the death" (& morale applies to the hirelings you bring with you... you DID bring hirelings, right?), and not all encounters are fights.

Very important, and a thing that brings roleplaying opportunities into the game.

Quote from: cranebump;971202The problem with megadundeons is not everyone likes megadungeons.:-)

Speaking only for myself, I'd rather not run session after session after session running through what amounts to a rat maze. This is not anyone's fault. I just like overland stuff, as well.

Scenery preferences. Outdoors is a megadungeon with no roof. You can have narrow, constricting terrain in the outdoors (canyons, river valleys, etc) and you can have open areas in a dungeon (huge caverns, underground seas, etc).

Lots of people (a) have limited imaginations and (b) are so insecure about their preferences they feel the need to insult others'.

Quote from: CRKrueger;971194...
So, what do you think?  Is this a good set of Default Assumptions for a good dungeon?  Is the "problem with megadungeons" that these assumptions aren't present in published dungeons, but are in self-designed ones, so people playing at a table with a do-it-yourselfer GM are experiencing a completely different kind of animal from those consuming published content?

Seems like a good summary of what should be in a good dungeon. The idea they can't be found in published dungeons is pretty weak though, everything described here is present in the 2e Dungeon of Death for instance.

You're in college together and can play any time.  

Wait thats a default assumption for d&d not just dungeon s.  

That might be a different thread.

Air is ubiquitous and ventilation unnecessary.

Sanitary facilities exist for the sole purpose of putting something worse than spikes at the bottom of the pit.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;971248Scenery preferences. Outdoors is a megadungeon with no roof. You can have narrow, constricting terrain in the outdoors (canyons, river valleys, etc) and you can have open areas in a dungeon (huge caverns, underground seas, etc).

Lots of people (a) have limited imaginations and (b) are so insecure about their preferences they feel the need to insult others'.

No, that's not really an apt comparison, because, well actual walls in a dungeon. Chambers and passageways. I get where you're going, but, it's just not the same, right down to different types of resource management, as well as direction options. True, you could, as a GM, funnel the players this way and that, but environmentally, it's just not the same. it shouldn't be, either. It ought to be weird and scary going into chambers beneath the earth. I'd rather that experience be rare than each day's excursion.

On the last part, I fail to see where it requires more imagination to run a megadungeon. I wouldn't assert the inferiority of Dungeon play, but I wouldn't assert it as superior, either. Like you said, preferences.

A dungeon is a setting that happens to be a maze with rooms. Problems with dungeons are same problems with settings in general. In short learn how to write a decent setting that is fun to adventure in and if your specific idea works well with a maze with rooms then go right ahead and make it a dungeon.

The virtue of dungeons is that the concept  is easily explained to a novice.

1) Draw a maze with rooms
2) Pick some of the rooms to have monsters
3) Pick some of the rooms to have traps
4) Leave some rooms empty
5) A few of these rooms will have treasure in them.
6) If you have multiple levels make the monsters and traps tougher the lower you go but also makes the treasure more lucrative.

Once you get the hang of the above after a few session then likely you will have a better idea of what to do for your next setting.

Quote from: CRKrueger;971194

• There are weird nonstandard tricks--these things are weird but they have a reason they're there. If all else fails its some kind of "test" and if even that fails then maybe it was designed by an insane wizard.

OK. That’s a reason. But it’s a shitty reason. And it is a reason that is likely only to satisfy someone who would have already been satisfied by “it’s supposed to be a challenge,” “it’s just a game anyway,” or “because the GM wanted it that way.”

Quote from: Telarus;971205Reaction and Morale are missing from that list. I.E. fights are not "to the death" (& morale applies to the hirelings you bring with you... you DID bring hirelings, right?), and not all encounters are fights.

Yeah. That’s a critical miss.

Quote from: David Johansen;971272Air is ubiquitous and ventilation unnecessary.

Sanitary facilities exist for the sole purpose of putting something worse than spikes at the bottom of the pit.

I’d encapsulate this and a couple of other points as follows.

• Air, food, sanitation, and architectural support, if detailed at all, are only detailed for color or some special purpose.

Quote from: CRKrueger;971194Is the "problem with megadungeons" that these assumptions aren't present in published dungeons, but are in self-designed ones, so people playing at a table with a do-it-yourselfer GM are experiencing a completely different kind of animal from those consuming published content?

The main problem is people playing a game which is unsuitable for them based on interest, temperament, and possibly intellect.

Quote from: CRKrueger;971194There are traps. These traps make sense considering who built them and what they were protecting.

I'm going to take exception to that one, as the most effective way to protect something you don't want anyone to get to, ever, is to do what the ancient Egyptians did: drop a 1,000 ton stone block over the only entrance and call it a day.

Using deadly traps as a form of mundane access control doesn't make much sense, either, as you're going to lose a lot of acolytes and the occasional high priest to misfires or mechanical errors or just somebody accidentally transposing the last two digits of their password because they were thinking about the temple maidens.

Deadly traps as a form of test of worthiness where you don't much care if someone getting it wrong ends up dead, a la Indiana Jones and the Quest for the Holy Grail, makes perfect sense.  But it stretches credulity to have every dungeon full of those.

The overwhelming number of traps I've seen in dungeons have been illogical puzzle boxes, there for the amusement of players, rather than sensible elements of the setting as presented.  That's perfectly fine, but let;s not pretend they're part of the solution and not the problem.

• While some deadly traps are tests of worthiness most dungeon traps are elaborate, Rube Goldberg-style puzzles to challenge and amuse the players...or at least to amuse the DM. They owe their inspiration not from real world tomb protection, but from the sort of traps seen in the old tombs of pulp novels and from the fiendish traps that the heroes of pulp fiction overcome in escaping from or sneaking up on their various evil nemeses.
  

The simpler variety of D&D traps are more like the pit snares used by real hunters and the pungi stakes used by the Viet Cong. In that light many dungeon traps should be later additions by the current residents rather than something designed by the original architect. Under this assumption traps are reset by the current residents and it makes sense for there to be some way to avoid or disable the traps along the paths that the residents use -- for instance, a long plank to avoid a pit trap.

Quote from: David Johansen;971272Air is ubiquitous and ventilation unnecessary.

Sanitary facilities exist for the sole purpose of putting something worse than spikes at the bottom of the pit.

Zak's list is really "good dungeon features" - so no, these are not necessary for a good dungeon.