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.

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.

Yep, this is me. I'd rather play a game engaging with the rich, detailed world on the surface, than stuck in a hole in the ground. Plus I hate traps and puzzles. I have pretty much zero interest in any kind of dungeon, even in my early D&D days, we ditched them within six months of playing for overland adventures exclusively.

Now I tend to prefer (straight) historical over fantasy, and they make even less sense in that genre.

Quote from: Kiero;971333Plus I [strike]hate[/strike] suck at figuring out traps and puzzles.

Edited for clarity.

Quote from: Kiero;971333Now I tend to prefer (straight) historical over fantasy, and they make even less sense in that genre.

'. . . the fuck?' said the builders of Derinkuyu, Naours, Orvieto, Petra, Lalibela . . .

Quote from: Bren;971324In 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.

Another approach is traps that were created by the original designers and have since been tripped, leaving behind the effect. Yes, the floor over the pit collapsed decades or even centuries ago, and now it remains as an obstacle to passage; yes, the ceiling caved in at this point in the corridor, and to get past it must be dug out and reinforced anew.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;971373Another approach is traps that were created by the original designers and have since been tripped, leaving behind the effect. Yes, the floor over the pit collapsed decades or even centuries ago, and now it remains as an obstacle to passage; yes, the ceiling caved in at this point in the corridor, and to get past it must be dug out and reinforced anew.

But it is not then a trap.

Quote from: daniel_ream;971317The 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.

I think you're spot on here... As you said it's cool as long as acknowledge what it is for IE - gamer/GM's amusement. Nothing wrong with that per se, but personally it's not really my type of thing. Me being a dour bastard and all.

While I like the 'odd' trap in a lair a lot of it boils down to, how often is it going to be traversed and what it is designed to protect (or prevent). If it's some ancient dungeon, then it may not even still function properly. Or have been built by someone else other than the most recent occupants.

For me to enjoy traps, they have to function properly in the given environment that takes into account that the lair is a 'living and breathing entity'. By that I mean, that there are creatures moving in and out of the structure. So these traps have to be relatively easy to bypass, assuming you're not dealing with a psycho who enjoys seeing his minions butchered.

Quote from: Bren;971379But it is not then a trap.

Yeah, that's an obstacle if you know it's there. But I do think 'traps' can include environmental hazards that, while not intentionally placed, function in a similar manner... often set up by the age and degradation of the place. Bridges that are no longer sturdy, stuck doors that if forced open might collapse a portion of the ceiling, loud noises bringing down fragile cave elements, gas pockets and slimey/slippery floors.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;971371Edited for clarity.

I'm categorically not interested in playing "try to read the GM's mind" and I don't do puzzles for fun.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;971371'. . . the fuck?' said the builders of Derinkuyu, Naours, Orvieto, Petra, Lalibela . . .

A tiny number of very specific places, most of which you could easily never encounter in any historical game.

Quote from: CRKrueger;971194So, 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?

I think this is true. People are getting trained to GM their games without imagination or any reference to reality. The reason I like that post and those guidelines isn't because they're the final words on dungeon design; it is because they are good first ones. There are a lot of good, worthwhile conversation inspired by those words.

You take a dash of the Jacqueys design philosophy and add a touch of Zak's guidelines, you get some extremely fun dungeons.

But why stop there? Why not take the tools learned from those meditations and make a flying city-dungeon inhabited by alien shark monsters? Or a dungeon which is a painting which is an entire world? Or use it to make crazy mansions for a surreal urbancrawl?

We need to be having better conversations about dungeons (and gaming in general), discussing the merits gifted to us from this list (and others) rather than discussing whether or not the list itself has merit.

Yes, of COURSE most traps are improbable Rube Goldberg doohickeys straight out of the pulps.  They're SUPPOSED to be.

Just like lurid pulp novels are full of poison needles on locks.

Quote from: Bren;971379But it is not then a trap.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: Simlasa;971411Yeah, that's an obstacle if you know it's there.

Exactly, a tripped trap may still present a challenge as a hazard or obstacle, and creative adventurers or denizens may then put it to their own uses, perhaps even making the trap functional again.

Quote from: Simlasa;971411But I do think 'traps' can include environmental hazards that, while not intentionally placed, function in a similar manner... often set up by the age and degradation of the place. Bridges that are no longer sturdy, stuck doors that if forced open might collapse a portion of the ceiling, loud noises bringing down fragile cave elements, gas pockets and slimey/slippery floors.

Yup, I use this sort of thing perhaps more often than I do actual 'set' traps.

I don't think a good dungeon needs any of those assumptions. AKA, the absence of those assumptions does not automatically make bad dungeons. However, they are good ideas to consider. Maybe they are required for megadungeons which TO ME are just game settings inside a contained structure.

And if your dungeon is made by an insane wizard, please go for the gonzo.

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?

Depends on your DM.

However, you are 100% correct in regards to the DIY GM vs. the Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Adventurer's League GM who are running 4 hour adventures where the particular locale may not be encountered again.

I don't really care as long as the adventure is fun.

I admit I'm wishy-washy on this topic.  I enjoy some wacky traps mixed in for the fun it causes.  I also want a little thicker veneer on the rationale than "mad wizard did it."  My compromise in my current campaign was to make most of wacky traps the invention of ancient gnomes, who had been mostly killed by the present timeline.   (No doubt their idea of a good way to protect a door had something to do with why other people were hot to kill them.  Also their own traps got a few of them.)  This sets up a mix, where in more normal dungeons or ruined castles or the like, the traps make sense or are natural hazard.  But when you uncover that door that shows signs of gnomish make, you know all bets are off.  

The first time the group went into an abandoned gnomish dungeon, chasing some goblins,  I had great fun describing the areas the goblins wouldn't go.  Plenty of bloodstains, severed goblin fingers, and so forth.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;971684The first time the group went into an abandoned gnomish dungeon, chasing some goblins,  I had great fun describing the areas the goblins wouldn't go.  Plenty of bloodstains, severed goblin fingers, and so forth.

Well done. You've added color to the dungeon, set up an uncomfortable atmosphere or ambience to the underworld, and given the players an important clue all at the same time.

Dungeons as they appear in classic D&D make almost no sense whatsoever. Trying to superimpose sense on them as they are seems silly to me.  Structurally, they're usually crazy; unless their origin story was "a crazy person built it", they're ridiculously impractical. The physical form of typical D&D dungeons look nothing like ancient tombs, ruins, or other historical underground complexes.  

So, you can make dungeons like that. The dungeons in the Dark Albion book are meant to look like what actual structures like barrows, catacombs, etc. looked like. In a lot of cases, with classic D&D dungeons, if they were naturally occurring cave-complexes or mines, rather than intentionally-built dungeons, they'd make more sense. But for the most part, if you're going the 'classic' route, you're probably better off not trying to make a lot of sense of them.