Thanks to a post by Azraele (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?37143-Confessions-of-an-old-school-gamer-I-don-t-like-Dungeon-Crawls-anymore&p=971184&viewfull=1#post971184) I reread an oldie but goodie by Zak (http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-caverns-of-thracia-is-best.html?zx=28cdf8f4e81602e7) 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.
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 (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?804797-3rd-4th-5th-Mainly-I-Hate-Balanced-Encounters/page36). 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 (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?804797-3rd-4th-5th-Mainly-I-Hate-Balanced-Encounters/page36)? Or a dungeon which is a painting which is an entire world (http://satyr.press)? Or use it to make crazy mansions for a surreal urbancrawl? (http://projects.inklesspen.com/fatal-and-friends/images/28b50d355f0096196085dfd89f8970df37d2a0cc9cbbf89a8a4f9b715f4dc44f.png)
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.
Quote from: RPGPundit;972046So, 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.
That's basically it.
If you're playing for classical Dungeons then there is little point in expecting anything too logical. In fact, going that route would probably confuse players a tad. But whatever game I'd play or GM I'd personally always prefer to go for the structure/functional approach. But then I do like low fantasy. But it's all great if you're having a good game.
Quote from: RPGPundit;972046Dungeons 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.
I think its important to realize that "logical" is relative to the setting. For example, I wouldn't call someone devoting their life to magic in our world's history "logical", but its perfectly reasonable to do so in classic D&D. Similarly, though giant underground complexes aren't a staple of our world's history (although as Black Vulmea pointed out, they DO exist) the mechanics of a mystical fantasy universe could make their construction perfectly logical.
Quote from: Azraele;972108the mechanics of a mystical fantasy universe could make their construction perfectly logical.
I don't think so, not in the context of what we've been saying at any rate (unless you want to split hairs)... You could equally say, that in another fantasy setting, that such a fantastic Dungeon would be 'illogical'. Despite the fact, that we are playing a fantasy game.
A big wacky dungeon in Basic D&D could be considered 'logical' for the setting, in the way that you'd expect to see one in a D&D Dungeon crawl. But still, they can make little sense to the players or the characters (and many of the GMs who create them for fun).
Similarly, you won't see them in something like WFRP (in general). Sure, there is the odd exception... like Castle Drachenfells. But it still makes little sense as a piece of engineering. Not saying there's anything wrong with that if you want those in a game, but I'd not see them obeying any logical laws in any setting.
Whereas something more metaphysical like the depiction of hell would work perfectly (like the labyrinth of Hellbound or somthing). As any physical laws or logic goes out the window! Although, there may be some internal logic as how it all works (The laws of Hell, mabe?).
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;971196The "problem with megadungeons" is that most people are booger-eating morons. Therefore most megadungeons are shit, and so are most referees, and most players.
I read this and heard Edward the Longshank's voice from Braveheart in my head, trilling R's and everything, and laughed.
If there's a major race in a fantasy game that prefers to live underground, then dungeons become a lot more tenable. It's not nearly as big a jump from that to the trap-filled dungeon crawl as it is from a more human-centric campaign, where such races are either very minor or non-existent.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;972142If there's a major race in a fantasy game that prefers to live underground, then dungeons become a lot more tenable.
They still have to eat, and they still have to shit. Their living spaces will be designed for living in, not as elaborate puzzle boxes.
Quote from: daniel_ream;972164They still have to eat, and they still have to shit. Their living spaces will be designed for living in, not as elaborate puzzle boxes.
YMMV. In thirty-five years, players have never once asked me where the gelatinous cube poops.
Quote from: daniel_ream;972164They still have to eat, and they still have to shit. Their living spaces will be designed for living in, not as elaborate puzzle boxes.
Sure, "more tenable" is not "completely tenable". You need something else on top of the underground race, to get to the puzzle box. Before I can have a crazy dungeon, I've got to have more "dungeon" spaces than humans would have, so that those other reasons have a base from which to work. Given a space where dwarves once did the "short humans that liked to carve through rock" thing, it's not hard to repurpose it to something else. All it takes is a little imagination.
Quote from: darthfozzywig;972168YMMV. In thirty-five years, players have never once asked me where the gelatinous cube poops.
This.
Blackmoor and Greyhawk dungeons were designed essentially as "the fun house from Hell," and most of us who play them are perfectly fine with that.
I will say it again a Dungeon is no different than any other setting except that it is a maze with rooms with possibly multiple levels. There is no default for a forest, island, nor there is a default for a maze with room. Make it mean what you want it to mean and run with it.
"What's it all mean, Mister Natural?"
"Don't mean sheeit."
http://mccrarey.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/dont-mean-shit.jpg
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;972188"What's it all mean, Mister Natural?"
"Don't mean sheeit."
http://mccrarey.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/dont-mean-shit.jpg
OK you win. You are older than me. Or a dead head. Or something.
I can definitely have fun playing in a crazy funhouse from hell, which are explicitly designed as tests for adventurers. However, I also like playing where there is logic to the map and setup - so players can reason out why things are where they are in-character, and can make in-character predictions about the rest of the layout. To the OP, those sound like reasonable principles, but they aren't sufficient for something to really make sense. For example, I enjoyed Sunless Citadel as a module, which I think meets those points pretty well, but there are a lot of things on the map that just leave one scratching one's head about the layout.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;972170Sure, "more tenable" is not "completely tenable". You need something else on top of the underground race, to get to the puzzle box. Before I can have a crazy dungeon, I've got to have more "dungeon" spaces than humans would have, so that those other reasons have a base from which to work. Given a space where dwarves once did the "short humans that liked to carve through rock" thing, it's not hard to repurpose it to something else. All it takes is a little imagination.
Steven - Are you saying that there could be a hypothetical fantasy setup where there could be dungeon-like adventures that make sense? Or are you saying that there could be a fantasy setup that specifically makes existing published D&D dungeons make sense?
I've heard that Earthdawn has some good justification for its dungeon-like adventures. However, I think even with various fantasy justifications, following the consequences won't lead to the same as metagame-designed dungeons.
Quote from: jhkim;972199Steven - Are you saying that there could be a hypothetical fantasy setup where there could be dungeon-like adventures that make sense? Or are you saying that there could be a fantasy setup that specifically makes existing published D&D dungeons make sense?
Neither, though I'm not entirely discounting the possibility that those could happen. Rather that some of us want a little rationalization for our crazy funhouse from hell, but that justification doesn't have to survive a lot of scrutiny. I'm never quite willing to roll with Gronan's route, because that doesn't appeal to me or our group, but what we end up doing might as well be the same thing in the long run. And would be to most outside observers. All we are doing is pasting on that thin rationalization so that we can ignore that it doesn't make sense, but we
want that thin rationalization while we are doing it.
People are strange. What they need to establish as the bare minimum floor for verisimilitude to function, rarely makes a lot of sense. In my case, I can deal with not worrying where the dwarves hid their latrines, but I want the damn dwarves to have been there at some point to dig the tunnels that are now getting a little crazy.
I suppose for other people, my thin rationalization is either too thin to even register, or in some cases an uncanny valley. Why'd you go put in a reason for A, B, C, then ignore the rest of the pertinent factors?
Quote from: Bren;972193OK you win. You are older than me. Or a dead head. Or something.
I'm neither older nor a Deadhead. Just need to be into comics.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;972202People are strange. What they need to establish as the bare minimum floor for verisimilitude to function, rarely makes a lot of sense. In my case, I can deal with not worrying where the dwarves hid their latrines, but I want the damn dwarves to have been there at some point to dig the tunnels that are now getting a little crazy.
I suppose for other people, my thin rationalization is either too thin to even register, or in some cases an uncanny valley. Why'd you go put in a reason for A, B, C, then ignore the rest of the pertinent factors?
Agreed that it's strange and very subjective what holes we accept.
I think it is more of an uncanny valley for me. I would prefer that it just be left undefined who built the dungeon rather than implying a dwarven residence. In particular, if it is described as a dwarven residence, then I'd want the PC's to be able to draw conclusions based on that. i.e. "OK, we've found the dining hall. There should be kitchens nearby with vents for cooking."
Quote from: Voros;972220Just need to be into comics.
Yeah, I read my cousin's R Crumb and Vaughn Bodé comix when I was a kid - a lot of it went over my head but the art was amazing.
Quote from: RPGPundit;972046The physical form of typical D&D dungeons look nothing like ancient tombs, ruins, or other historical underground complexes.
Right, dungeons in a fantasy land of dragons and wizards must conform to precise dimensions of Nottingham's Castle Rock.
Quote from: Dumarest;971681I don't really care as long as the adventure is fun.
You are not of The Body! Landru, help us!
Quote from: Black Vulmea;972335You are not of The Body! Landru, help us!
I've always liked that episode.
Spock:
How often mankind has wished for a world as peaceful and secure as the one Landru provided. Kirk:
Yes. And we never got it. Just lucky, I guess.
Quote from: Azraele;972108I think its important to realize that "logical" is relative to the setting. For example, I wouldn't call someone devoting their life to magic in our world's history "logical",
Well, a large number of very significant people in our world's history did so.
Quotebut its perfectly reasonable to do so in classic D&D. Similarly, though giant underground complexes aren't a staple of our world's history (although as Black Vulmea pointed out, they DO exist)
They do, but almost never look like a D&D dungeon.
Quotethe mechanics of a mystical fantasy universe could make their construction perfectly logical.
In fantasy you can always say "a crazy wizard did it", but if you ignore that particular reason there's still a lot of illogical elements to the physical structure of how most dungeons look like.
I read somewhere that the simple square design of most dungeon corridors and rooms would lead to collapse. Not being even remotely qualified to address that I assume it is true?
Jason Cone's incredible essay The Dungeon as Mythic Underworld is what really "Sold" the concept of Old School megadungeons to me and allowed me to see that they could be just as sublime as they could be ridiculous.
I always took the Orc lairs of the Hobbit, and Moria in Lord of the Rings, as the prototypical dungeons.
Can't remember, aren't they goblins in The Hobbit, not orcs?
Quote from: Voros;972740Can't remember, aren't they goblins in The Hobbit, not orcs?
Same fucking thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc_(Middle-earth)#Middle-earth_terms_for_Orcs), dumbass.
Sorry manchild did you spill your milk or something?
Tolkien mentions that Bilbo is wrong when he thinks a tunnel he's in is too low for really big goblins, because the orcs go around bent over with their hands on the ground.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;972622Jason Cone's incredible essay The Dungeon as Mythic Underworld is what really "Sold" the concept of Old School megadungeons to me and allowed me to see that they could be just as sublime as they could be ridiculous.
Yes, I agree. Great essay. Influences how I think about my persistent megadungeon, which I run at Gary Con, NTRPG Con and GameHole.
Goblins and orcs are the same thing in Tolkien and anyone who doesn't remember that is an abomination!
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;972622Jason Cone's incredible essay The Dungeon as Mythic Underworld is what really "Sold" the concept of Old School megadungeons to me and allowed me to see that they could be just as sublime as they could be ridiculous.
I never read that, but in Arrows of Indra, that's literally true. The Patala Underworld is treated as a world-spanning megadungeon leading all the way down to the entrance to hell.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;972622Jason Cone's incredible essay The Dungeon as Mythic Underworld is what really "Sold" the concept of Old School megadungeons to me and allowed me to see that they could be just as sublime as they could be ridiculous.
The version on page 22 of this: http://www.grey-elf.com/philotomy.pdf or another version?
Quote from: Skarg;973884The version on page 22 of this: http://www.grey-elf.com/philotomy.pdf or another version?
There was a longer and better draft in Knockspell magazine #2. But that one will give you the basic idea.
Ah, thanks!
Quote from: estar;972185I will say it again a Dungeon is no different than any other setting except that it is a maze with rooms with possibly multiple levels. There is no default for a forest, island, nor there is a default for a maze with room. Make it mean what you want it to mean and run with it.
Preach it brotha!
My only assumption about dungeons, after many years of playing, is that any time I assumed something about the dungeon, I found myself having to roll up a new character.
Quote from: RPGPundit;972613Well, a large number of very significant people in our world's history did so.
They do, but almost never look like a D&D dungeon.
In fantasy you can always say "a crazy wizard did it", but if you ignore that particular reason there's still a lot of illogical elements to the physical structure of how most dungeons look like.
I think it's worth noting that in D&D, a crazy wizard is far from the only "crazy" possibility. It could also be a crazy god right? I mean D&D is a world in which the characters can potentially actually interact with gods and demons and all sorts of "extra-planar" entities. I don't personally have any problem at all with the notion of a dungeon being simply a huge puzzle challenge. It could be nothing more than some nutty god's plaything. I envision my mega-dungeon as something close to a living entity. It's a magical space that doesn't function according to any real logic and the deeper you get the weirder it is. Questions like "how is this place ventilated?" and "where do the monsters go poop?" don't bother me much in a world where inter-dimensional gates and bags of holding and alternate planes of existence are part of "reality."
One Tunnels&Trolls megadungeon was built by the dwarf wizard-god Gristlegrim for entertainment. He allows groups of adventurers to go in and slay and monsters and loot treasures while he and his customers watch the goings on. It makes sense in a way.
The question of dungeon "ecology" that always got me wasn't food, drink, or poop (we would actually find piles of manure in dungeons, it's where the DM hid the rot grubs...), it was air. How did fresh air circulate into the depths of the dungeon? Especially with so many creatures breathing it?
Quote from: DavetheLost;977513The question of dungeon "ecology" that always got me wasn't food, drink, or poop (we would actually find piles of manure in dungeons, it's where the DM hid the rot grubs...), it was air. How did fresh air circulate into the depths of the dungeon? Especially with so many creatures breathing it?
I've always assumed that the presence of any kind of air elemental refreshes the local atmosphere. A minor summoning here and there, or just some nozzle-like direct gates from the Plane of Air.
No real-world physics required.
Somewhere deep deep in the dungeon the players enter a huge cavern which they discover has walls that seem to be made of a weird soft, "fleshy" material. These walls constantly undergo a slow, rhythmic expansion and contraction and the players can feel a strong rush of air moving in and out of the cavern around them...
:D It ain't rocket science.
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;977509I envision my mega-dungeon as something close to a living entity. It's a magical space that doesn't function according to any real logic and the deeper you get the weirder it is. Questions like "how is this place ventilated?" and "where do the monsters go poop?" don't bother me much in a world where inter-dimensional gates and bags of holding and alternate planes of existence are part of "reality."
Same here. I have better things to do with my design time than puzzle over ventilation and bathrooms. Admittedly, some people can't or won't suspend disbelief to my extent, but thankfully those people and I don't have to play at the same table.
Quote from: Chainsaw;977519Same here. I have better things to do with my design time than puzzle over ventilation and bathrooms. Admittedly, some people can't or won't suspend disbelief to my extent, but thankfully those people and I don't have to play at the same table.
yeah, "I'm OK with magic and Elves and talking Dragons, but I need to know where the Bugbear's poop goes or I just can't buy in!" lol...
I actually did design a dungeon with ventilation shafts once. Just once though because mapping them out as well as the water sources, sewers, etc turned out to be more trouble than it was worth.
Most of the time in my dungeon crawling days we didn't worry about any of this sort of thing. There were treasures to loot, monsters to fight and traps to avoid and we were content. It was after we moved away from dungeon crawling and into other modes of gaming that really started worrying about this sort of thing.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;972622Jason Cone's incredible essay The Dungeon as Mythic Underworld is what really "Sold" the concept of Old School megadungeons to me and allowed me to see that they could be just as sublime as they could be ridiculous.
"Beyond lay the wilderness of Dungortheb, where the sorcery of Sauron and the power of Melian came together, and horror and madness walked. There spiders of the fell race of Ungoliant abode, spinning their unseen webs in which all living things were snared; and monsters wandered there that were born in the long dark before the Sun, hunting silently with many eyes."
I think the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Coloring Album has a lot of that Mythic Underworld vibe. These pages, where the adventurers are aided by a Ki-Rin, for example.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6044/6262094864_da03762def_o.jpg
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6097/6259586910_b399d54fb9_o.jpg
I rather like the idea of the "funhouse" dungeon as a
battleground where the forces of "good" and the forces of "evil" meet between the overworld and the underworld. Traps and tricks are there to hinder and hurt the adventureres, treasure is there to help them, and the opposing forces try to corrupt each other's influence.
A DM doesn't even have to explicitly make the idea part of the adventure. A bunch of adventurers may go into the dungeon simply out of greed. But the reason is there, and keeping it in the back of the mind, it can influence the placement and design of a funhouse dungeons features and lore.
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;977520yeah, "I'm OK with magic and Elves and talking Dragons, but I need to know where the Bugbear's poop goes or I just can't buy in!" lol...
McDonalds' on the seventh level...
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;977509I think it's worth noting that in D&D, a crazy wizard is far from the only "crazy" possibility. It could also be a crazy god right?
Sure, it could be any number of creators, as long as they're insane.
It was back in the thread, but II'd like to point out that morale rules aren't part of the dungeon, but of the system you're using it with;).
And regarding the current topic of realism, I always try to make any dungeons I write as realistic as I can, but that's because thinking about this helps me find more interesting ideas. Then again, I seldom create actual dungeons, but even the lair of some warriors you need to take out might well contain a serious number of traps and other dungeon-like attributes:D!