A dungeon is a dynamic environment ripe for adventure.

The "adventures" the PCs live within the confine of this dynamic environment are completely up to them, their own determined goals, objectives, and whatnot.

Quote from: Benoist;533678A dungeon is a dynamic environment ripe for adventure.

The "adventures" the PCs live within the confine of this dynamic environment are completely up to them, their own determined goals, objectives, and whatnot.

Benoist says it more eloquently than myself but yeah.

I'll put forth that a good dungeon is also dynamic.  When you kill off the pig-faced Grummsh-botherers, bandits might well move in and work with the bugbears to make the dungeon less vulnerable.  Or the swine-snouted hog-bangers might not get any new regular tenants; perhaps a gaggle of ghouls feasting on the greenskins' corpses, or the patch of yellow mold, gray ooze and a Gelatinous Cube for good measure here and again.

It should not inexplicably stay empty or just "bam, more orcs doing exactly the same thing" when the players come back.

I had a love/hate affair with this in Bethsoft's TES: Oblivion.  Dungeons would re-populate (good!) with commensurately more powerful creatures (very good!) but always the same types doing the same things (bad!).  So if you cleared out a fortress dungeon of marauders and collected a shedload of heavy, expensive gear (rusty iron at low levels) on day 10 of your adventuring career, then on day 300 you come back, they'll be toting ebony armor and weapons and have more hits...

Sorry, I got sidetracked.

Anyway: a dungeon is Dynamic.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;533664I played a one shot of his Dungeon Raiders system last month (he was the DM). The game was a blast with very simple OD&D style mechanics. He is a nice guy and fun to game with but this blog indicates that he has a lot to learn about old school.

In fact this method of dungeon design is as new school as it gets.

Interesting.

Quote from: Géza Echs;533659Hrm. But when we're talking about dungeons that are in published adventures, there's no way to differentiate the two. The dungeon and the adventure are all one piece - since, as I said, the dungeon doesn't actually exist anywhere.

I'd actually argue there is no way to differenciate the two (the setting and "the adventure") when the module is badly designed, with the expectation that the module in fact is a script to follow, that the text itself is the adventure. This isn't always the case.

Good modules in my mind present a setting and starting situation as the basis for play. Play itself becomes the adventure. The PCs find ways to interact with the setting and deal with the situation as depicted in the module, and from there the "adventure" arises as an emergent property of play that is not scripted in advance by the module. Take G1 which basically describes the basic problem with the giants, how the PCs might be hired, and from there, basically lets the PCs choose the way they want to deal with the compound. That's what makes it a great adventure with infinite replay value, in fact, that it is *not* a script for adventure, but lays out a site of adventure along with a possible way to get involved with the problem of the Hill Giants.

Another example is T1-4, which doesn't give you a point A to point B script of the "adventure", but basically lays out the entirety of Hommlet, describes the environs, talks about Nulb and the Temple, how all these elements are linked together and the past history most folks in the region know about, as well as problems going on around town, and basically lets the adventuring party do whatever it wants to do with it from there.

Quote from: Benoist;533708I'd actually argue there is no way to differenciate the two (the setting and "the adventure") when the module is badly designed, with the expectation that the module in fact is a script to follow, that the text itself is the adventure. This isn't always the case.

Good modules in my mind present a setting and starting situation as the basis for play. Play itself becomes the adventure. The PCs find ways to interact with the setting and deal with the situation as depicted in the module, and from there the "adventure" arises as an emergent property of play that is not scripted in advance by the module. Take G1 which basically describes the basic problem with the giants, how the PCs might be hired, and from there, basically lets the PCs choose the way they want to deal with the compound. That's what makes it a great adventure with infinite replay value, in fact, that it is *not* a script for adventure, but lays out a site of adventure along with a possible way to get involved with the problem of the Hill Giants.

Another example is T1-4, which doesn't give you a point A to point B script of the "adventure", but basically lays out the entirety of Hommlet, describes the environs, talks about Nulb and the Temple, how all these elements are linked together and the past history most folks in the region know about, as well as problems going on around town, and basically lets the adventuring party do whatever it wants to do with it from there.

Amen.

Scenes have a place in pre-scripted stories not rpg adventures.

What an rpg adventure needs is a setting and a starting scenario as it exists when the PCs enter the picture.

From that point on the adventure = actual play.

Plots have their place and I use many of them. All plots in my games follow the one simple rule I have for them: each plot is to belong to some entity (or group) inhabiting the game world.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;533716All plots in my games follow the one simple rule I have for them: each plot is to belong to some entity (or group) inhabiting the game world.

Yeah, npcs follow plots, right up the point where the adventurers interact with them.

After that, all bets are off.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;533841Yeah, npcs follow plots, right up the point where the adventurers interact with them.

After that, all bets are off.

Sometimes the npc(s) behind the plot will try and continue with it depending on the level of interaction. Once the PCs have made themselves known then future plots by those that are aware of the PCs might start including them.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;533860Sometimes the npc(s) behind the plot will try and continue with it depending on the level of interaction.

Right, that interaction can result in plans accelerating, or going sideways, or not changing at all.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;533860Once the PCs have made themselves known then future plots by those that are aware of the PCs might start including them.

The adventurers in my campaign have earned a sufficient reputation that now they are getting approached with offers and opportunities - dangerous offers, and opportunities frought with risk, of course.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;533391From the Troll in the Corner blog, a post about "classic dungeons."

No. That's a terrible way to design a dungeon. It's a terrible way to think about a dungeon. It is the epitome of My Precious Encounter(TM) design.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;533860Sometimes the npc(s) behind the plot will try and continue with it depending on the level of interaction. Once the PCs have made themselves known then future plots by those that are aware of the PCs might start including them.

Whenever this comes up in conversation, I encourage people to refer to this sort of thing as a "scheme" or a "plan": It means the same thing, but carries none of the linear baggage and poor preparation technique that "plot" brings with it.

When I prep my campaign, I fill it to the brim with schemes. But I never prep a plot.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;533960No. That's a terrible way to design a dungeon. It's a terrible way to think about a dungeon. It is the epitome of My Precious Encounter(TM) design.



Whenever this comes up in conversation, I encourage people to refer to this sort of thing as a "scheme" or a "plan": It means the same thing, but carries none of the linear baggage and poor preparation technique that "plot" brings with it.

When I prep my campaign, I fill it to the brim with schemes. But I never prep a plot.

Usually you're so black and white on gaming so I don't prefer to respond to you directly because I'm a casual gamer at best.  But that use of plan or scheme is wonderful. It also fits NPC's.

Quote from: Marleycat;533976Usually you're so black and white on gaming...

About the only thing I'm black-and-white on in terms of gaming is that using railroads and linear prep in a roleplaying game is like using a screwdriver to hammer in a nail.

If you enjoy it, more power to you. But if you're a fan of the medium, you are undercutting its strengths. And if you're a fan of the linear story you're trying to tell, then you're using the wrong medium.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;533986About the only thing I'm black-and-white on in terms of gaming is that using railroads and linear prep in a roleplaying game is like using a screwdriver to hammer in a nail.

If you enjoy it, more power to you. But if you're a fan of the medium, you are undercutting its strengths. And if you're a fan of the linear story you're trying to tell, then you're using the wrong medium.

No, you have me all wrong. Your choice of language is usually too aggressive for me to comfortably engage you in discussion. Your ideas are another matter. That's all I wanted to point out specifically. Usually I just lurk on whatever thread you enter and go hmm...and find ways to see if I can use them in my games in any capacity.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;533960Whenever this comes up in conversation, I encourage people to refer to this sort of thing as a "scheme" or a "plan": It means the same thing, but carries none of the linear baggage and poor preparation technique that "plot" brings with it.

When I prep my campaign, I fill it to the brim with schemes. But I never prep a plot.

I appreciate this clarity of usage. It removes any ambiguity regarding plots having scripts, versus schemes (or plans) having partial measures towards a goal. One interpretation favors adherence to structure to "reveal story" -- which is self-defeating for a game that prides itself on infinite methods of response -- and the other favors interactive dynamism.

I will try to remember to use this definition. It sounds useful.