I saw there were a couple of recent threads about megadungeons on here. As I've never understood the appeal, I'm curious to know: What do you like about megadungeons?
They are a setting consisting of a maze with rooms filled with monsters and treasure. Like all settings they can be good, bad, or so so. Recent years have seen an uptick because the variety has grown to the point where many can say "you know I can see how to make and or us one."
The same thing with hexcrawl formatted setting or how to an leer edition of a RPG in a campaign.
As a general rule, megadungons tend to get tougher as you go deeper. This gives players control over their own fates to a degree you don't find in small dungeons (which are almost always around their own level) or hex crawls (where difficulty is more or less random and players have no idea what to expect). A good sandbox might have a large area and several smaller dungeons that are differing levels that required players to do scouting and observation before entering, but a lot of them were either just all over the place incoherently or compressed the level range of the game to about 1-6 or so, which means missing out on a lot of fun (IMHO). (As an aside, a number of modern OSR games do that, most notably LotFP, they try to make hex crawling easier by making all characters suck and thus all monsters suck too)
There's also a degree of pressing your luck. How far do they go? There's tension involved as the party goes farther in, the fewer resources they have on the way out. Again, in small dungeons they can probably clean them out in one session and a mid sized in 2-4. In hex crawls, they generally move a fixed number of hexes a day then rest, like a board game. But you can't really clear out a megadungeon.
There's also more room for strange and interesting stuff that wouldn't make sense elsewhere. Little dungeons often have to cut out that. Hex crawls are usually just random incoherent stuff that bears no relation from one hex to another, or maybe the occasional tenuous connection.
And lastly, you don't see this anymore, really, but back in the day dungeons weren't so static. Your DM might be running the same dungeon for 15-20 people and various times. You could run into their traces (or bodies) and sometimes they would alter the dungeon to interact with other players (the magic mouth spell for instance, was basically for this)
The best thing about megadungeons is that no one can truly 'defeat' them (go everywhere/beat everything). So, no matter how long you play in them, you will always have the sense that there is more you couldn't reach. This creates a sense of mystery and yearning that is the source of all the real excitement in the game. Everyone who has a soul and likes table top fantasy rpg's remembers the moment when they first visualized a character entering a dangerous, dark, mysterious dungeon. Megadungeons keep that feeling alive even when you've played the game for years. Moria is still Moria even after Gandalf's been through it a dozen times - it still confuses and scares him, and always will. 'Normal' 30 room dungeons can't do that. You empty them and move on.
Quote from: Dumarest;998008I saw there were a couple of recent threads about megadungeons on here. As I've never understood the appeal, I'm curious to know: What do you like about megadungeons?
I used to quite dislike & never use them - I'm a bit claustrophobic IRL and I hate the idea of being stuck in a dungeon for a whole campaign. I still don't much like the idea that "the dungeon IS the campaign" - I like a lot of wilderness exploration and politics/war. But I've come to really appreciate the power of what James Maliszweski called the "tentpole megadungeon" as default activity in a sandbox campaign - it's always there, it always offers adventure, risk & reward. Neither players nor GM need ever be stuck for what to do now - the dungeon always beckons.
Justin Alexander discussed the importance of a default activity in a long term RPG, and I find it's extremely true. It takes a lot of pressure off the GM to come up with plots; it takes pressure off the players to 'find the fun' - if they're not sure what to do now, they go to the megadungeon.
The design with stacked levels suitable for PCs from 1st to say 10th level also works well; giving players a lot of choice in the threat level they choose to face, and allowing for smaller & larger PC groups - eg 2 3rd level PCs may choose to stay on level 1, where 6 PCs might go to level 3 or 4. This works best with gold for xp & more gold on lower levels, though killing bigger monsters on lower levels also gives more XP. DMDavid just posted a good discussion - http://dmdavid.com/tag/the-story-of-the-impossible-luck-that-leads-dd-parties-to-keep-facing-threats-they-can-beat/
So currently my ideal sandbox game has a detailed wilderness with multiple seeded dungeons and at least one megadungeon within a half day of the starter town. My Ghinarian Hills Wilderlands sandbox actually has three big dungeons (Dyson's Delve, Caverns of Thracia, Stonehell) within 8 miles or so of the starter town Selatine.
I find you can't have too many megadungeons.
Quote from: estar;998015They are a setting consisting of a maze with rooms filled with monsters and treasure. Like all settings they can be good, bad, or so so. Recent years have seen an uptick because the variety has grown to the point where many can say "you know I can see how to make and or us one."
The same thing with hexcrawl formatted setting or how to an leer edition of a RPG in a campaign.
So, no answer from Estar then.:rolleyes:
Quote from: Dumarest;998008I saw there were a couple of recent threads about megadungeons on here. As I've never understood the appeal, I'm curious to know: What do you like about megadungeons?
I never found them appealing... I don't like the sense of claustrophobia, odd puzzles, treasure hunting, non-sensical (sometimes) and constant killing. That's not to say they aren't fun or bad. It's just not my thing.
But I suppose they are pretty easy to GM and everything is laid out for you. So the prep time is minimal. Of course you can tailor them to suit the players style. I'd probably feel a bit better with a hex crawl.
Quote from: Dumarest;998079So, no answer from Estar then.:rolleyes:
My point is that there nothing special about a megadungeon other than it a maze with rooms filled with monster & treasure. What makes it interesting is as varied as drawing landforms on a piece of hex paper or graph paper. It is distinguished from something like Steading of the Hill Giant Chief by it's scope. Just like there is a difference between a fantasy setting like Greyhawk or knowing what in Hex AA29 or what in the village of Hommlett.
To me it is not a great mystery, there are numerous example of how to make megadungeons work as the sole setting of a campaign. Enough that is more likely for people today to go "mmm, you know, I can do that myself."
But maze with rooms filled with monsters and treasure is not going to impart any type of specific feel to the campaign. Nor it will make the campaign inherently interesting. No more than a bunch of random green and brown blogs on a hex grid will make a campaign inherently interesting.
The work one has to do to make any fantasy campaign interesting is the exact same prep you will need to make a megadungeon interesting. That the point I am driving at here.
Obviously because the setting is predominately a maze with rooms the axioms of making a good dungeon layout weighs more heavily then a more traditional setup. I.e. linear layouts are more boring than branches which are more boring than loops which are more boring than multiple loops.
It is the same type of answer I would give if the question was phrased like
QuoteI saw there were a couple of recent threads about desert setting on here. As I've never understood the appeal, I'm curious to know: What do you like about desert settings?
Quote from: Dumarest;998008I saw there were a couple of recent threads about megadungeons on here. As I've never understood the appeal, I'm curious to know: What do you like about megadungeons?
Well, I hate the term "megadungeon," but that's personal taste.
Greyhawk and Blackmoor dungeon were "The Fun House From Hell." It mixed the gonzo, the frightening, the claustrophobic, and the constant tension of never knowing what was next. We'd finish a three hour session and I'd be wringing wet from nervous sweat; one wrong move and you could all die.
And the dungeon was where you got the exotic; the lost artifact, the bound demon goddess, the forest where gems grew on trees.
Outdoor adventures for XP, dungeon crawls for interesting/bizarre stuff and magic.
Quote from: JeremyR;998021As a general rule, megadungons tend to get tougher as you go deeper. This gives players control over their own fates to a degree you don't find in small dungeons (which are almost always around their own level) or hex crawls (where difficulty is more or less random and players have no idea what to expect). A good sandbox might have a large area and several smaller dungeons that are differing levels that required players to do scouting and observation before entering, but a lot of them were either just all over the place incoherently or compressed the level range of the game to about 1-6 or so, which means missing out on a lot of fun (IMHO). (As an aside, a number of modern OSR games do that, most notably LotFP, they try to make hex crawling easier by making all characters suck and thus all monsters suck too)
There's also a degree of pressing your luck. How far do they go? There's tension involved as the party goes farther in, the fewer resources they have on the way out. Again, in small dungeons they can probably clean them out in one session and a mid sized in 2-4. In hex crawls, they generally move a fixed number of hexes a day then rest, like a board game. But you can't really clear out a megadungeon.
There's also more room for strange and interesting stuff that wouldn't make sense elsewhere. Little dungeons often have to cut out that. Hex crawls are usually just random incoherent stuff that bears no relation from one hex to another, or maybe the occasional tenuous connection.
And lastly, you don't see this anymore, really, but back in the day dungeons weren't so static. Your DM might be running the same dungeon for 15-20 people and various times. You could run into their traces (or bodies) and sometimes they would alter the dungeon to interact with other players (the magic mouth spell for instance, was basically for this)
All of this.
RE the Magic Mouth -- one of my groups of players spent about four hours of game time going around the dungeon, starting with the main stairway at about the third level, putting up Magic Mouths. One was triggered by the presence of a certain player, and then others would be triggered by one of the other Magic Mouths.
SO that a month later, on the third or fourth level, a Magic Mouth suddenly starts screaming "ATTENTION ALL MONSTERS! ATTENTION ALL MONSTERS! DICKIE HURTZ IS IN THE CASTLE!" repeated twice. Then sixty feet away, some other magic mouths started repeating it. And on and on...
Quote from: estar;998098My point is that there nothing special about a megadungeon other than it a maze with rooms filled with monster & treasure. What makes it interesting is as varied as drawing landforms on a piece of hex paper or graph paper. It is distinguished from something like Steading of the Hill Giant Chief by it's scope. Just like there is a difference between a fantasy setting like Greyhawk or knowing what in Hex AA29 or what in the village of Hommlett.
To me it is not a great mystery, there are numerous example of how to make megadungeons work as the sole setting of a campaign. Enough that is more likely for people today to go "mmm, you know, I can do that myself."
But maze with rooms filled with monsters and treasure is not going to impart any type of specific feel to the campaign. Nor it will make the campaign inherently interesting. No more than a bunch of random green and brown blogs on a hex grid will make a campaign inherently interesting.
The work one has to do to make any fantasy campaign interesting is the exact same prep you will need to make a megadungeon interesting. That the point I am driving at here.
Obviously because the setting is predominately a maze with rooms the axioms of making a good dungeon layout weighs more heavily then a more traditional setup. I.e. linear layouts are more boring than branches which are more boring than loops which are more boring than multiple loops.
It is the same type of answer I would give if the question was phrased like
Right, so no answer to the question but instead a brief nonresponsive lecture about different types of gaming. Put away the soapbox. Nobody's forcing you to answer what you like about megadungeons.
Quote from: The Exploited.;998083I never found them appealing... I don't like the sense of claustrophobia, odd puzzles, treasure hunting, non-sensical (sometimes) and constant killing. That's not to say they aren't fun or bad. It's just not my thing.
But I suppose they are pretty easy to GM and everything is laid out for you. So the prep time is minimal. Of course you can tailor them to suit the players style. I'd probably feel a bit better with a hex crawl.
Everything is laid out for you if you buy them. For people who create their own campaigns, they are a big investment. There are two in the area that is my sandbox. One was partly explored in the campaign that preceded this one. The current characters know about it and might look into it eventually. There's still a lot to do and find there. The other is several hundred miles away and was last visited at the turn of the century. However, it was about halfway explored back then and a lot of the dangers overcome. However, the Eastern Skumbaggi Goblins have since moved their HQ into the upper levels.
I don't think I'll create another megadungeon.
A megadungeon isn't something I use much anymore. But there are more than a few things to like about megadungeons.
1. They are fun for the GM to create.
2. They are fun for players to explore. (As a player I like mapping.)
3. They provide a startup point of entry for new GMs. (A dungeon is easier to create than a coherent large city or nation state.)
4. A megadungeon is scalable. It can start with one or two levels and grow as the GM has time to create more and as the players require a greater area to explore.
5. Progress exploring a megadungeon is easily measurable.
6. Risk to the PCs is roughly measurable. (If the GM used something like the OD&D approach of difficulty increasing with level.)
7. Dungeon exploration is a default source of something to do.
8. A megadungeon provides a good source of adventure for single sessionss with an an ad hoc, pickup group of PCs.
Quote from: Dumarest;998008I saw there were a couple of recent threads about megadungeons on here. As I've never understood the appeal, I'm curious to know: What do you like about megadungeons?
Not much. I want my set-pieces like dungeons to have context. Now that said - most boxed megadungeons have their own reasons for existing that tend to not mesh with my games, but never let that stop me from re-purposing a cool map.
But I can only think of twice where I've ever done it... so yeah. Not a big fan. Not a hater either. Just have no use for them.
Quote from: Dumarest;998008I saw there were a couple of recent threads about megadungeons on here. As I've never understood the appeal, I'm curious to know: What do you like about megadungeons?
I'm overlapping a little with some previous answers, but from a slightly different slant: To me as usually a GM, they are like "comfort food". I'm not going to do my best work in a megadungeon, but I'm not going to botch it, either. It's a thing to do when I'm tired from real-life, and just need some material. I'd rather run a good mega--dungeon session than something more ambitious that I didn't have the time or energy to pull off. But absent that, I'd rather aim a little higher. For the same reason, I think it's a
little easier to publish a workable, useful megadungeon than it is something more ambitious.
Not saying that a GM using a megadungeon can't aim high, but I don't find that particular goal very interesting. On the rare occasions when I use one, it's for "high floor, low ceiling," explicitly.
Any setting that big is usually more attention paid to a particular thing than I want, as I prefer a lot of variety in the setting environments. I find, for example, settings concentrated in a single city to have the same problem.
For my purposes, maybe the best thing about a megadungeon is that the players will never even come close to exploring it, because we won't spend that much time in it.
If you can manage a large enough player base to have multiple exploring parties, the rumors and legends the players swap are worth it for that alone.
Quote from: Dumarest;998146Right, so no answer to the question but instead a brief nonresponsive lecture about different types of gaming. Put away the soapbox. Nobody's forcing you to answer what you like about megadungeons.
Your OP had the following
Quote from: Dumarest;998008I saw there were a couple of recent threads about megadungeons on here. As I've never understood the appeal, I'm curious to know: What do you like about megadungeons?
My answer is that the appeal of megadungeon is the same as fantasy settings in general. You can have megadungeons that have cities, you can have megadungeons with underground wilderness like with Vault of the Drow, any you can do with a hex grid of green and brown blobs you can do with a maze with rooms.
People don't like megadungeons they like specific setting that are in the form of a mega dungeon. For example I like the Barrowmaze, Dwimmermount, and my own Majestic Fastness. I ran Tegal Manor successfully but it a bit too gonzo for me to do again but it was fun for the one time But the appeal of each is unique to the setting each depicts.
Barrowmaze doesn't have a lived in feel but it wonderful at depicting a vast necropolis with a overarching menace and mystery to solve. Dwimmermount does have a lived in feel and a sense of history that I like. My own Majestic Fastness can summed up as a vast hidden city of evil with a few mysteries tucked away in its deepest reaches. One thing that Tegal Manor does well is it minimalist presentation. The map and text work hand and hand to give a referee plenty to riff off as the players explore.
I don't like the Worlds Largest Dungeon nor do I like Castle Whiterock. While I admire the effort that went into the Castle of the Mad Archmage and own it, it not my cup of tea. Nor find Castle Blackmoor as detailed in the First Fantasy Campaign particularly inspiring.
Again your OP wasn't just about what people like about megadungeon, it was also about you understanding the appeal. My answer still stand, a megadungeon is a setting, it will appeal or not appeal on the same basis you use to decide whether you like Harn, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk or dozens of other setting depicted as blobs or green and brown. That the fact is set within mazes with rooms doesn't make it special.
For Gronan talks about how dynamic they can be and how players can alter them that have an impact on other groups and in later campaign. That was something I did with the urban locales and wildernesses of the Majestic Wilderlands. It not a feature of specific to megadungeon campaigns.
If you want to use to try using megadungeons my suggestion is to make your own by getting a copy of Tegel Manor from Goodman Games, look at its minimalist format, then draw your maps with notes like Tegel , and write your text with enough hints and Mnemonics so when read later your thoughts about the area come back to you. This way you are not stuck making hundreds of pages of notes and can probably sketch out something usable and extensive enough with one or two weeks worth of evening prep.
Quote from: Dumarest;998008I saw there were a couple of recent threads about megadungeons on here. As I've never understood the appeal, I'm curious to know: What do you like about megadungeons?
I like mapping (in fact I'm writing a piece about different mapping techniques/strategies for The Twisting Stair #3), and exploring, so mega-dungeons are great for that. I enjoy well-designed, challenging dungeon levels that make me work hard to explore and "solve" them---whether that's monsters, traps, tricks, enigmas, centerpiece encounters (like the Great Stone Face in Castle Greyhawk), etc.
But the exploration and mapping across a big, well-connected dungeon is great fun as an adventure for me and my regular or semi-regular crews of players (here at home or at GaryCon and North Texas RPG Con).
Quote from: Bren;998151But there are more than a few things to like about megadungeons.
1. They are fun for the GM to create.
2. They are fun for players to explore. (As a player I like mapping.)
8. A megadungeon provides a good source of adventure for single sessionss with an an ad hoc, pickup group of PCs.
Agreed, all-around.
Quote from: Bren;9981517. Dungeon exploration is a default source of something to do.
I also think that a well-designed mega-dungeon with engaged, active players is really easy to run---the default "something to do" builds nicely out of the previous sessions' play and guides the players' planning for where to go/what to do next.
Allan.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998130Well, I hate the term "megadungeon," but that's personal taste.
Curious about what you dislike about the term, Michael?
Allan.
It's a DUNGEON. It's Greyhawk DUNGEON. Blackmoor DUNGEON. Et cetera.
"Megadungeon" is a meaningless, confusing neologism.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998394It's a DUNGEON. It's Greyhawk DUNGEON. Blackmoor DUNGEON. Et cetera.
"Megadungeon" is a meaningless, confusing neologism.
That's a weird issue. It's like saying "I don't like the word car. It's a Toyota. It's a Nissan." There's nothing very confusing about the term "megadungeon." It's a really really big dungeon.
As far as the appeal of a mega dungeon...well, D&D is pretty heavily concerned with the notion of tomb-raiding taken to ridiculous extremes. The idea of raiding the "mother of all tombs" is sort of appealing in that sense. Personally, I think in the context of the sort of world the game implies, a "mythic underworld" makes perfect sense. I mean why wouldn't Nyarlathotep (for instance) set up and run his own massive and insane little rat maze to enthrall and beguile adventurers?
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998394It's a DUNGEON. It's Greyhawk DUNGEON. Blackmoor DUNGEON. Et cetera.
"Megadungeon" is a meaningless, confusing neologism.
All I know there is a distinct difference in scope and tone between Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Jakalla, the Underdark of the D series and Tegel compared to Search of the Unknown and Keep on the Borderlands.
That the tournament style detail of One to three level dungeons don't scale well to the scope encompassed by the aforementioned dungeons necessitating a different approach to prepping them.
Those are "tombs" or "ruins" or something.
"Dungeon" came first. Call them "mini dungeons" if you have to rather than the term "megadungeon." It's like nails on a blackboard.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998453Those are "tombs" or "ruins" or something.
"Dungeon" came first. Call them "mini dungeons" if you have to rather than the term "megadungeon." It's like nails on a blackboard.
I remember back in the 70s people saying "I'm running my dungeon today." or "I'm playing in Fred's dungeon today."
Unfortunately that use of the term did not hold across the gamers who came into the game in the 80s and played mostly modules. For them, dungeon, may just imply the 1-10 pages of maps in a module. So as the OSR got steam and started looking back at how the game was played in the 70s, or at what was implied by the actual rules for play, people were looking for a term to distinguish the "dungeon" of the 70s from the "dungeon" of the modules. I have no idea what the first use of mega-dungeon is (and some folks use that term for a module dungeon that is more than 2 or 3 pages of maps...), but I find it's a useful term because the communities I converse in all use the term to talk about huge multi-level dungeons. I've also heard the term "campaign dungeon."
Frank
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998453Those are "tombs" or "ruins" or something.
"Dungeon" came first. Call them "mini dungeons" if you have to rather than the term "megadungeon." It's like nails on a blackboard.
Well OK. I don't suffer from the issue you do...:D
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998453Those are "tombs" or "ruins" or something.
"Dungeon" came first. Call them "mini dungeons" if you have to rather than the term "megadungeon." It's like nails on a blackboard.
Therein lies the issue. Since the renewed interest in a huge sprawling dungeon or dungeon as a primary setting is recent it what gets a new term.
Yeah, and megadungeons are still the more rare of the dungeon types. You have lots and lots of regular dungeons, and then on a few occasions you have megadungeons. If megadungeons were the norm and smaller dungeons the rarer case then sure, "minidungeons" would make sense.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998453Those are "tombs" or "ruins" or something.
"Dungeon" came first. Call them "mini dungeons" if you have to rather than the term "megadungeon." It's like nails on a blackboard.
I agree that the word "tomb" connotes a smaller size dungeon, but a "ruin" might be the ruin of a house, tower, fort, town, city, or even a megalopolis. So ruin doesn't work to differentiate size or scale.
Whether one prefers to call things dungeons and megadungeons or mini-dungeons and dungeons is a matter of complete indifference to me. I think we all understand that
mini-dungeon < dungeon < megadungeon
with the caveat that one, but not both, inequalities may actually be a less than or equal to.
You know, the fact that I don't happen to like the word "megadungeon" is REALLY not worth all the energy that's been expended on it.
Hey man. It's an RPG forum man. Like nothing here is worth the energy we're expending on it. :D
What I like:
As a player, I have a high degree of control over my risk. While risk is lumpy on a given level, there is usually a range to the lumpiness. This isn't true of the wilderness, as I am used to running it and seeing it run. The wilderness is not level-scaled in any way.
Since this is a self-contained area, reality can be warped however the DM pleases without the necessity of consistency or fitting it into a broader whole. I can sit back and enjoy the b-side of the DM's mind.
I can get out of the pool any time I choose. Yes, I could leave another adventure in the same way but in the default dungeon set-up there are no expectations of commitment, ever. (I may become committed, by geas or quest, etc., or choose to commit myself - but pending a change the default is I can leave when I want.)
Dungeon combat when chanced is often highly tactical, as there's almost always elevation in the immediate area
It's a stalking horse for my own player skill. Can I survive if I plump a level or two deeper than my own character level?
Several people mentioned they like mapping.
Who maps? Players? DM?
If its the players is it based on verbal description? Do they get it wrong? If they do do you tell them or just let them get lost.
Bad maps seem like a great way to increase the sense of risk and clostriaphopia. Make it more accurate to what spelunking is actually like. But, completely destroy player DM comunication and trust. Unless you had increadibly high comunication skills and trust on both sides to start with.
Quote from: Headless;998523Several people mentioned they like mapping.
Who maps? Players? DM?
If its the players is it based on verbal description? Do they get it wrong? If they do do you tell them or just let them get lost.
Bad maps seem like a great way to increase the sense of risk and clostriaphopia. Make it more accurate to what spelunking is actually like. But, completely destroy player DM comunication and trust. Unless you had increadibly high comunication skills and trust on both sides to start with.
Referee verbally narrates, players map.
It does indeed increase the sense of risk and claustrophobia; see my comment above about being wringing wet with nervous sweat. "Did we get teleported or does our map suck?"
I have not observed that it harms referee /player communication or trust at all.
I only ever liked one 'megadungeon', and that was AD&D 2e's Undermountain. For the most part, I find the idea of a random series of rooms with an Orc, Goblin and a Troll, that somehow don't interact (What you don't think the Troll would have eaten the other two by the time the PC's arrive??) a little disconcerting. Then again, I am one of those new age freaks who likes context for his tomb or ruin. And that's what helped make Undermountain's gonzo acceptable to me.
There IS a reason as to why it exists, a Mad Wizard did it. Who may or may not be alive, but there's enough of his magic to pull in the next group of unlucky monsters and/or treasure to play with.
Quote from: Headless;998523Who maps?
One or more players. Based on a verbal description. And if they get it wrong their map is wrong. And no the DM doesn't tell them. And yes it does require an acquired ability by the DM to consistently describe the rooms, halls, and such and an acquired ability by the player(s) to listen carefully and then translate that into a drawing.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;998573For the most part, I find the idea of a random series of rooms with an Orc, Goblin and a Troll, that somehow don't interact (What you don't think the Troll would have eaten the other two by the time the PC's arrive??) a little disconcerting.
We were taught to have a lot of empty space between encounter rooms. Interestingly, as early as 1975 people were bitching "Apparently Gygax thinks empty rooms are fun!"
Also, the fiction that drew the largest number of people into the hobby during those first years when it was growing exponentially had scenes set in beyond-epic megadungeons. Goblin Gate is dozens of miles long, and Moria is basically infinite. So, the concept of the megadungeon as an infinite underworld you dip into and then escape is deep in our hobby's DNA.
As a related aside, our hobby's greatest shame is that not one seems to have ever attempted to create a real detailed dungeon based on Moria. It is sitting right in front of us. It is the original, platonic ideal of the dungeon, yet we are such chicken shits that we've never taken it on. I don't count ICE's take on it, or the boxed set for the Lord of the Rings rpg. Those are both good products, but they both take the low road and describe it in abstract terms or through random tables you are supposed to use to fill things in. Maybe someday the hero will be born who does this for real.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998631We were taught to have a lot of empty space between encounter rooms. Interestingly, as early as 1975 people were bitching "Apparently Gygax thinks empty rooms are fun!"
The issue that I have is that why doesn't the troll leave the room to eat? Again, it's a me thing.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998631We were taught to have a lot of empty space between encounter rooms. Interestingly, as early as 1975 people were bitching "Apparently Gygax thinks empty rooms are fun!"
A fair number of empty rooms was the expected outcome if one used the random method in the rules for determining if a room was empty or not. And we (me and the other high school and junior high students I gamed with way back when) always created some linkages between the inhabitants in certain nearby rooms. This stuff all seemed pretty obvious common sense to us at the time. Plus empty rooms made opening the door to a room more suspenseful than it would have been if every room was occupied. Plus the added tactical opportunities afforded by empty rooms.
Quote from: Larsdangly;998659As a related aside, our hobby's greatest shame is that not one seems to have ever attempted to create a real detailed dungeon based on Moria. It is sitting right in front of us. It is the original, platonic ideal of the dungeon, yet we are such chicken shits that we've never taken it on.
Based on what we see in the fiction (bunch of goblins, some dead dwarves, a few trolls, and one balrog) Moria would make a rather dull megadungeon.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;998664The issue that I have is that why doesn't the troll leave the room to eat? Again, it's a me thing.
Because adventurers are the troll version of pizza delivery. :D And who said the troll didn't leave the room. Where do you think wandering monsters came from?
Quote from: Larsdangly;998659Also, the fiction that drew the largest number of people into the hobby during those first years when it was growing exponentially had scenes set in beyond-epic megadungeons. Goblin Gate is dozens of miles long, and Moria is basically infinite. So, the concept of the megadungeon as an infinite underworld you dip into and then escape is deep in our hobby's DNA.
As a related aside, our hobby's greatest shame is that not one seems to have ever attempted to create a real detailed dungeon based on Moria. It is sitting right in front of us. It is the original, platonic ideal of the dungeon, yet we are such chicken shits that we've never taken it on. I don't count ICE's take on it, or the boxed set for the Lord of the Rings rpg. Those are both good products, but they both take the low road and describe it in abstract terms or through random tables you are supposed to use to fill things in. Maybe someday the hero will be born who does this for real.
There is an adventure set in Moira in an issue of White Dwarf that is quite good although it doesn't attempt to detail the whole thing obviously.
Quote from: Bren;998672Because adventurers are the troll version of pizza delivery. :D And who said the troll didn't leave the room. Where do you think wandering monsters came from?
I think his point is if the troll left the room why wouldn't it have killed the goblins?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;998664The issue that I have is that why doesn't the troll leave the room to eat? Again, it's a me thing.
Who says it doesn't?
Quote from: Voros;998950I think his point is if the troll left the room why wouldn't it have killed the goblins?
Maybe it did kill some. Or maybe goblin just isn't as tasty as adventurer.
I always figured that D&D trolls' rubbery physique (I think that's how they were originally described) and magical regeneration meant that they didn't need to eat very often. So they might patiently gnaw a few old bones while waiting for something tasty to drop in.
And how far away are the goblins? See previous comment about empty rooms.
So trolls have smaller hunting grounds than a cat? Okay.
Quote from: Bren;998967Maybe it did kill some. Or maybe goblin just isn't as tasty as adventurer.
I always figured that D&D trolls' rubbery physique (I think that's how they were originally described) and magical regeneration meant that they didn't need to eat very often. So they might patiently gnaw a few old bones while waiting for something tasty to drop in.
So the goblins had some of their fellow eaten and decided to just keep hanging out within a few hundred feet of the troll instead of moving on?
You're trying desperately to explain it away. If this was a huge cavern complex and there were miles and miles between them if would make more believable but that wasn't the example given.
I don't think dungeons need to make sense and this is perfect example why, common sense applied to most renders them highly unlikely, to put it mildly.
Megadungeons have the benefit of being the main campaign focus.
What are we doing this week? Going to the dungeon.
Then what? We leave the dungeon and recover.
Then what? We go back to the dungeon.
For some groups, that kicks ass. I have run Tunnels & Trolls with mini-mega-dungeons and the players had a grand time.
I've always wanted to run Gamma World as a mega-dungeon. Of course, that's the setting for Metamorphosis Alpha.
If a troll is next to goblins on a permanent basis, they have some kind of relationship; eg the goblins bring food for protection/to be left alone. It's not complicated.
Quote from: Dumarest;998008I saw there were a couple of recent threads about megadungeons on here. As I've never understood the appeal, I'm curious to know: What do you like about megadungeons?
From a GM perspective, it is an all you can eat adventurer buffet!
That and in designing one, I enjoy the challenge of getting the ecology and politics of the different groups inhabiting it correct. Backstory as well is fun to create, why was it started in the first place? Why haven't the different humanoid tribes in the megadungeon banded together and taken over the local area?
As a Player, I like it because everything is all in one place. Want a higher level challenge? Go deeper.
Quote from: Voros;999016So the goblins had some of their fellow eaten and decided to just keep hanging out within a few hundred feet of the troll instead of moving on?
You're trying desperately to explain it away. If this was a huge cavern complex and there were miles and miles between them if would make more believable but that wasn't the example given.
I don't think dungeons need to make sense and this is perfect example why, common sense applied to most renders them highly unlikely, to put it mildly.
Yes, they are highly unlikely. So is the casting a fireball spells. None of it really needs to make any sense.
However, if I were creating my own megadungeon it would essentially be a "toy" managed by a god or deity of some sort (hence my mention of Nyarlathotep earlier) who takes pleasure in watching adventuring parties make their way through his maze. This entity runs the dungeon - he places the monsters, feeds them as needed, moves them around...lets them out for fresh air once in a while, resets the traps, restocks cleared areas and places the tempting treasures...but he isn't a completely nefarious being. He has a sense of "fair play" to a degree. If he wanted to, he could destroy the adventurers without much effort but he'd rather set challenges before them that they might be able to handle and see how far they can get in his funhouse. He's happy to let factions take form and what not. It's like his "Sim City" :) He just wants to set things up and then watch the show.
I wonder if the poor OP has given up yet.
My point was that I love Undermountain because they went out of their way to explain why. That to me is what makes a good dungeon, mega or otherwise. Context.
Quote from: Voros;999016You're trying desperately to explain it away.
I'm not desperate. Several possible explanations have been provided by several different people. You have chosen to discount every single one of them both individually and in combination. Clearly there isn't any productive discussion to be had with you on this topic.
Quote from: S'mon;999025If a troll is next to goblins on a permanent basis, they have some kind of relationship; eg the goblins bring food for protection/to be left alone. It's not complicated.
That is the most likely explanation.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;999070I wonder if the poor OP has given up yet.
Not visibly. I venture he's voraciously viewing the voluminous verbiage vouchsafing valuable vying versions vaguely verifying the various verdicts.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;999073My point was that I love Undermountain because they went out of their way to explain why. That to me is what makes a good dungeon, mega or otherwise. Context.
Good post. Saying what you like and why you like it is just what the OP was asking.
And I personally am OK with the "Fun House From Hell." I like it because it's bizarre. Not everybody likes it. They don't have to.
Quote from: Bren;999076I'm not desperate. Several possible explanations have been provided by several different people. You have chosen to discount every single one of them both individually and in combination. Clearly there isn't any productive discussion to be had with you on this topic.
THIS topic? Shitting up discussions is his major schtick.
Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;999049Yes, they are highly unlikely. So is the casting a fireball spells. None of it really needs to make any sense.
However, if I were creating my own megadungeon it would essentially be a "toy" managed by a god or deity of some sort (hence my mention of Nyarlathotep earlier) who takes pleasure in watching adventuring parties make their way through his maze. This entity runs the dungeon - he places the monsters, feeds them as needed, moves them around...lets them out for fresh air once in a while, resets the traps, restocks cleared areas and places the tempting treasures...but he isn't a completely nefarious being. He has a sense of "fair play" to a degree. If he wanted to, he could destroy the adventurers without much effort but he'd rather set challenges before them that they might be able to handle and see how far they can get in his funhouse. He's happy to let factions take form and what not. It's like his "Sim City" :) He just wants to set things up and then watch the show.
I can grok that. I even like the idea a lot.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1734[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Christopher Brady;999073My point was that I love Undermountain because they went out of their way to explain why. That to me is what makes a good dungeon, mega or otherwise. Context.
I love undermountain because the map set is fucking great, particularly if you own both boxed sets and Skullport. Also, the room entries are too long, but they are actually pretty creative. And there is a lot of undescribed real estate so you have a lot of space to fill in. And it is functionally infinite; no one is 'finishing' this thing.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;999070I wonder if the poor OP has given up yet.
Ha ha, I'm still reading, I'm just curious about the appeal to different people. I haven't played any that I thought were especially great and usually would rather adventure overland and in various smaller ruins, temples, dungeons, spelunkable caverns, and cities that make more sense to me, but I can see the appeal of the funhouse in small doses. I get stuck as ref at least 90% of the time so it's not as if I'm being forced into Dwimmermount any time soon.
Quote from: jeff37923;999084I can grok that. I even like the idea a lot.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1734[/ATTACH]
Cool illustration.
Quote from: Bren;999076Not visibly. I venture he's voraciously viewing the voluminous verbiage vouchsafing valuable vying versions vaguely verifying the various verdicts.
I'm incredibly involved in investigating the interesting and interminable, insurmountable input of illustrious and iconic individuals independently illuminating the issue.
We belong, we belong, we belong, we belong
To the Merry Marvel Marching Society.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;999107We belong, we belong, we belong, we belong
To the Merry Marvel Marching Society.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1736[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Larsdangly;999087I love undermountain because the map set is fucking great, particularly if you own both boxed sets and Skullport. Also, the room entries are too long, but they are actually pretty creative. And there is a lot of undescribed real estate so you have a lot of space to fill in. And it is functionally infinite; no one is 'finishing' this thing.
That's my second favourite thing about it.
Quote from: jeff37923;999084I can grok that. I even like the idea a lot.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1734[/ATTACH]
Cool illo and here's a fun idea... The "god" who runs the dungeon, he buys Dwarven Forge in our world and uses them to craft his fantasy world... "You find a new clue to a new section of the dungeon" (The "god" just purchased a new set of Dwarven Forge to build more dungeon...
As to justifying the dungeon, I've found with RPG that if you go too far in trying to justify stuff, you quickly find something that breaks. That is actually the fuel for my return to OD&D and Books 1-3 Classic Traveller. Stop trying to add stuff to the game to make it "more realistic" or whatever...
Frank
Frank
One thing I DON'T like in a megadungeon is a 'do it yourself' mapping kit for filling in details. For example, ICE's Moria does this as a way of describing all the secondary hallways, rooms, guard posts, traps, etc. All that stuff is effectively treated like random encounters. This just feels lazy to me. Random encounter tables are fine; creatures move around and could be almost anywhere on any given day. But constructed things (hallways, rooms, fortifications, doors, traps) mostly stay put. The only reason they are described with tables is that someone looked at the scale of their project and decided, 'not only am I unable to map this by hand, I can't even deal with using a random table to fill it in myself instead of asking each customer to do it for me'. It's just fucking lazy. If I am going to make my own map I certainly don't want to pay you for a page worth of obvious tables to guide me through the process!
On a related point, modern PC's are so powerful and ubiquitous, someone could use random tables to fill in every last detail of a Moria-scale dungeon very quickly. I wonder why no one has done something like that?
Quote from: Larsdangly;999551On a related point, modern PC's are so powerful and ubiquitous, someone could use random tables to fill in every last detail of a Moria-scale dungeon very quickly. I wonder why no one has done something like that?
Your work is cut out for you!
I've thought of doing it, but it seems like a 50 year old with a couple of free hours per week is the wrong pick for that sort of project.
I think just the scale/scope of it is appealing. Mind you, I'm less inclined to the megadungeon than many other old-schoolers.