Let's imagine I am building an underworld, mega-dungeon type environment. When taking into consideration characters of a D&D group with various levels, hit points, spell slots, and so on, I can eyeball the relative difficulty of threats and challenges to help build the environment. I can also have an idea of the type of strategies some groups will come up with, I can tell the group will need to get back to town to heal, trade, bring back that particular weight or amount of coins to safety, and so on.

My question is, when you shift the paradigm to RuneQuest instead, what are the basic assumptions that would help me build a proper exploration environment? What opportunities should be there? What would constitute a default or usual exploration session from and back to civilization into the dungeon?

What to expect, and build around, based on the paradigm of the rules, and what to look for in order to provide an exciting, varied, dangerous environment to explore over the course of the campaign?

If you have practical experiences running these types of environments in RQ games, I'd like to hear from you. Thanks.

I'm coming mainly from a Chaosium (1st/2nd ed.) perspective.

The main published examples are Snakepipe Hollow and Big Rubble (of which Balastor's Barracks was a small part detailed in pretty lackluster fashion). The Rainbow Mounds (in the Apple Lane pack) are more of a "dungeon module" scope.

QuoteWhat opportunities should be there?

From the Referee's Notes in the 2nd ed. rulebook:
–experience in the use of skills
–opportunity to obtain treasure and thereby purchase training
–the chance to die in pursuit of the above
–enjoyment while doing all of the above.

Relative difficulty seems to me more mechanically sensitive to variables than old D&D. It takes a bit more work to calculate average results, but the principles are pretty straightforward (except that hit locations can make a big difference). Skill over 50% can build up an impressive advantage vs. skills under, especially coupled with superior armor and/or damage bonus. Nonetheless, a bit of luck one way or the other -- e.g., a fumble, critical or impale -- can be pretty decisive, especially as to the fate of an individual.

Intelligent monsters -- people, though not human -- should have appropriate motivations and occupations.

As (IMO) also true in D&D, there should be a good helping of "GM specials" in addition to magics from the rule book. That said, there are plenty of interesting combinations of usual ingredients to explore.

In the Gloranthan context, cultic significances and mythic origins are prominent. I think that tendency also fits many other milieus, a factor in basic fidelity to real ancient worldviews.

I would tend to make the mazes themselves smaller; the Big Rubble is huge, but much of that is effectively "wilderness." Wandering monsters, traps and such are likely to be more deadly, as compared with high-level D&D adventures in which attrition is often a key factor. "Empty" areas play a lesser role, while detailed ones remain at least as important.

There's no need to make up a complete "stat block" for each critter. I generally just note a few points (if any) that are different from the typical. It's not like Champions or 3E D&D. In many cases, as in old D&D, players won't even notice mechanical similarities or differences among a bunch of trolls or what have you.

Quote from: Benoist;689569Let's imagine I am building an underworld, mega-dungeon type environment. When taking into consideration characters of a D&D group with various levels, hit points, spell slots, and so on, I can eyeball the relative difficulty of threats and challenges to help build the environment. I can also have an idea of the type of strategies some groups will come up with, I can tell the group will need to get back to town to heal, trade, bring back that particular weight or amount of coins to safety, and so on.

My question is, when you shift the paradigm to RuneQuest instead, what are the basic assumptions that would help me build a proper exploration environment? What opportunities should be there? What would constitute a default or usual exploration session from and back to civilization into the dungeon?

What to expect, and build around, based on the paradigm of the rules, and what to look for in order to provide an exciting, varied, dangerous environment to explore over the course of the campaign?

If you have practical experiences running these types of environments in RQ games, I'd like to hear from you. Thanks.

Well I never run Runequest much. However I will point out there were was two "big" Runequest campaign.

The first was Dragon Pass, and the second was the Big Rubble in Pavis. And the Big Rubble  was at its heart Steve Perrin's megadungeon run with Runequest.

So aside from the advice given here. I would snag a copy of Pavis & Big Rubble from here.

Thanks Robert. I have Pavis & Big Rubble. Griffin Mountain too.

I didn't get my hands on Snake Pipe Hollow yet, though.

Thanks for your feedback too, Phillip. It is appreciated.

Quote from: Benoist;689569Let's imagine I am building an underworld, mega-dungeon type environment.

My question is, when you shift the paradigm to RuneQuest instead, what are the basic assumptions that would help me build a proper exploration environment? What opportunities should be there? What would constitute a default or usual exploration session from and back to civilization into the dungeon?

What to expect, and build around, based on the paradigm of the rules, and what to look for in order to provide an exciting, varied, dangerous environment to explore over the course of the campaign?

I would say the mega-dungeon or even big-dungeon experience isn't one that fits well with RQ, as people have said the closest you get is The Big Rubble but it isn't really the same thing. Whether this comes from the system or the common setting of Glorantha I'm not sure, probably a bit of both. To take Pavis & The Big Rubble, there's certainly lots of underground-incursion opportunities but they are limited raids into somewhat realistic places. Because the Rubble is a ruin there's a fair bit concealed, that's older or buried but there aren't gigantic underground populations knocking around.

The adventure is driven more by conflicting religious/political/racial groups more than a puzzle/trap/monster environment. As far as published materials go Snakepipe Hollow is probably the last setting which relied on the dungeon idea - Griffin Mountain and Trollpak really blew that away and personally it's tricky to go back to the dungeon mindset.

Having said that! I think the Rubble is a fair comparison but if you want to break it up from a design point of view, instead of a single mega-dungeon its a collection of environments, small settlements, cultures, political interests all sitting close together but in the Rubble's case it's grounded in the history of the region and each element has a sense of verisimilitude that a typical D&D dungeon doesn't.

Another issue is the frequency of combat, RQ tends to favour limited combat because of greater danger of death or serious injury for the PCs. It would be possible to tweak the rules to make the game accommodate more frequent combat by for example upping magical healing and recovery, upping player HP, but I think once you do that you start to lose the sense of danger that comes with the decision to fight which I think is part of the appeal of RuneQuest.

I was going to respond but then saw Bilharzia post, which I think describes perfectly the kind of "dungeon" that fits Glorantha/Runequest ethos. If we take its seminal works as example - Griffin Mountain, Pavis and Borderlands - the adventuring takes place on more or less realistic surface locations like ruins, old temples and sacred grounds, than on huge underground complexes/dungeons and such.

Well, I don't know. Roleplaying was certainly about dungeon-crawling back in the day. Wilderness adventures and greater 'realism' (as much as you can have in a fantasy world) grew in popularity, but I don't think that invalidates simple 'adventuring' or even dungeon-crawling in Glorantha as a play-style.

The Rubble can easily have underground complexes. If we have a Puzzle Canal, why can't we have labyrinths? If we have ancient temples, we can have buried temple complexes and trapped 'cities of the dead' underground.

You could also easily do something a little more bizarre, such as tunnel complexes that are in fact allegorical (or literal) 'bodies' of ancient behemoths. Or you can have entries to subterranean complexes inhabited by dwarves or trolls. Earth elementals. Water-filled complexes adjacent to the river filled with newtlings or other water-dwelling creatures.

Dungeon-crawling doesn't have to mean completely crazy 'monster hotels.'

A dungeon-crawl inside an abandoned dragonewt city would be cool. Imagine the bizarre wonders one could find inside.

Quote from: silva;689666I was going to respond but then saw Bilharzia post, which I think describes perfectly the kind of "dungeon" that fits Glorantha/Runequest ethos. If we take its seminal works as example - Griffin Mountain, Pavis and Borderlands - the adventuring takes place on more or less realistic surface locations like ruins, old temples and sacred grounds, than on huge underground complexes/dungeons and such.

Seconded.  Bilharzia summed it up concisely.  Monster Island also follows a similar approach with small, limited ruins or tombs. Go out to explore. Find a trap or two, a few encounters then the climax... and then return home to lick wounds, spend treasure or prepare for a follow-up expedition.

You can stage larger dungeon crawls provided your PCs are well armoured, have access to healing magic and most importantly of all, significantly out-skill their opponents.  

If you want to populate a dungeon with tons of foes such as goblins or undead, then utilise the Rabble or Underlings guidelines (p164 in RQ6 or make your own 'one-hit and they die/flee' rules) so they can cut a swathe through these foes, with a few proper encounters against opponents with about 20% less in their combat skill - to relish a bit of back and forth hewing - and a final BBEG or monster with comparative combat skills making the last battle particularly dangerous.

The important thing to remember is that RQ PCs are fragile, and remain so; unlike D&D where they start fragile but grow increasingly bullet-proof as they increase level.

Snakepipe Hollow is the only published RQ adventure I've played and I'll list what I can remember stood out:

- the dungeon wasn't just built, it was a BIG EVENT, the result of a magically-collapsed plain during a battle with chaotic hordes.

- treasure has a cultural/historical aspect (not just GP)as has the natural state of the caves (rock strata, metals, fossils) and the sentient monsters (factions).

- players discover what's in a location by descriptions of 'first glance' and 'closer look'.

- hard to accurately map due to twisting passages and odd-shaped caves.

- the party is up against overwhelming opposition - often leading to attempts to shift the dynamics of the factions to your own ends rather than just 'lair assault, dude!'

The thing about Snakepipe Hollow, Griffin Mountain, etc. is that most monsters have names.  In most cases even the mooks are individually named.  RQ is a lot more "zoomed in" than D&D, in my experience; I can't imagine it making sense to name every orc in a D&D megadungeon.

If you're actually going to do this, learn to write basic code in something like python, and write a random mook-generating program.

I see no reason not to run a megadungeon in Runequest, just using generic monster stats instead of bothering to create unique snowflake monsters. It just would be incredibly deadly over time, and not really play to the strengths of the RQ system.

Personally I think it's a lot easier than people reckon with a couple of caveats.

Running a vanilla fantasy setting with something akin to character classes is simple: you set up guilds and cults who jealously guard their secrets. So if you wish to learn sorcery then you must join a sorcerous cult. If you wish to learn combat styles or "thief" skills then you must join the appropriate guild if you wish to access training that can take you beyond say 90%. This organisational structure also gives characters classic RQ-style reasons to go exploring a mega-dungeon. Essentially the "class system" is part of the setting not part of the game mechanics.

Simplifications aside, RQ combat is more zoomed in and requires more dice rolls than old-style D&D if for no other reason than active defences require parry rolls. So if PCs do stumble into a den of 20 goblins they can't just stand there and swing until the goblins are dead and have the combat be over in about 20 minutes of real time.

Most combat is more likely to be in stealth mode than wandering from room to room bashing face.

The key to a mega dungeon in RQ as with any other system is resource management and setting up a safe area. What PCs will need to be able to do is to find ways to recover MPs, Hit Points and devotional pools while in the mega dungeon or discover a safe route out.

The other issue is improving. RQ character improvement tends to be little and often rather than levelling up. It also usually requires downtime for training or learning new spells. Again you can tweak these using the RQ6 toolbox.

The final issue tends to be NPC allies. If the PCs start dragging around a load of hirelings you can sort of use the rabble and underlings rules but it does risk bogging down in detail. RQ could probably do with a simple "group versus group" combat mechanic that lets players and GMs abstract a little when appropriate.

Ultimately, the key to running a mega dungeon in RQ is a confident GM who knows when its appropriate to switch to combat rounds, when a simple opposed skill roll will do and how to not get bogged down in detail, Action Points and Strike Ranks. Everything else is gravy.