# The Lost Art of Dungeon-Crawling



## wicked cool (Apr 13, 2021)

Call me crazy but I think they should model dungeons after  Skyrim dungeons

Skyrim dungeons are 3-4 things
1 - a tomb with a theme. Usually Draugr but sometimes something takes out the draugr and makes it a layer
2 -a mine 
3-a dwarven/Dwemer abandoned city
4-a dug out bunker type area under a building

Most are short but at times deadly and have a theme. days of the 100 room dungeons filled with dragons mixed in with all sorts of creatures should be done away with 

the starter box adventure dungeons work because they are smaller crawls


----------



## kenada (Apr 13, 2021)

Something not mentioned that old-games also do is not assume that the creatures in the dungeon are there for PCs to fight. When the PCs encounter them, you make a reaction roll to determine how it reacts. In B/X for example, creatures only attack immediately when you roll a 2 on 2d6. When creatures aren’t automatically hostile, PCs can interact with them and negotiate with them. If you put multiple factions in the dungeon, PCs can scheme with them or manipulate them against each other. It adds another dimension to play beyond just having a bunch of creatures standing around in rooms (or hallways or wherever) waiting for the PCs to kick in the door and kill them for their treasure.

You can take this a step further with tools like adversary rosters, which decouple creature listings from the key. If the party gets into a loud fight, you can look at your roster, see who is nearby, and have them respond to the commotion. You can see an example of this in the adventures Necrotic Gnome publishes for Old-School Essentials, which labels the creatures on the map. As the PCs navigate through the dungeon, you can see where creatures are in relation to them and have them respond as appropriate depending on what the PCs do. That doesn’t even have to mean combat if you’re using reaction rolls. The kobolds in the room over might just be curious, and now the PCs have an opportunity to make new friends.


----------



## tmanbeaubien (Apr 13, 2021)

wicked cool said:


> Call me crazy but I think they should model dungeons after  Skyrim dungeons
> 
> Skyrim dungeons are 3-4 things
> 1 - a tomb with a theme. Usually Draugr but sometimes something takes out the draugr and makes it a layer
> ...



For this kind of dungeon, there's no requirement that the PCs explore the whole thing now or ever. It's kind of a variation on a city if it is done well. You might just visit the top layer for some reason, get what you need and leave. But the knowledge that there's more levels, more stuff, etc might call the PCs back if they are interested.


----------



## iserith (Apr 13, 2021)

I think there are a couple of reasons why dungeons have fallen out of favor.

First, the latest version of the game isn't the greatest at supporting this type of play. It's okay, but I think it requires a bit of hacking to really make it shine in dungeon delving.

But more importantly, I've noticed a shift in what is presented that seems to be centered around prep time. A fully-stocked adventure location takes more time to prepare than just winging it with city or overland encounters or shorter, linear plot-based adventures. It's simply easier to prep the latter, so more people are likely to do those kinds of adventures than a dungeon of more than 5 rooms or even a megadungeon.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Apr 13, 2021)

Corone said:


> *Don’t Construct It with Only One Path*​



This one I disagree with.  Generally you are correct.  I think a linear dungeon with one clear cut objective where there is little or nothing for the players to decide other than accomplishing a goal has its place in the game as a dungeon.   Though it has to be used very sparingly.


----------



## GMMichael (Apr 13, 2021)

Corone said:


> . . .While almost everything in those adventures was dangerous, there was magic and mystery in the rooms you found. There were rooms with strange orbs suspended from the ceiling; mysterious indoor gardens full of medicinal plants, poison and monsters; ghostly feasts that share a tragic history; and mysterious keys guarded with fiendish traps. . .
> 
> . . . Way back in the early 80s we discovered city adventuring. . .



For anyone wanting an online example, you can get orbs, gardens, and traps here: The Wonderful World of Eamon

Back in the early 80s, I discovered He-Man.  That was full of role-play opportunities, so I guess I was "back" to dungeon adventuring when Hero Quest hit the market in the late 80s.



wicked cool said:


> Call me crazy but I think they should model dungeons after  Skyrim dungeons



You're crazy.  Skyrim dungeons are too well-lit, and they typically comprise one path that conveniently loops around to the entrance.  If I were a player in a campaign featuring Skyrim dungeons, I'd be a dwarf engineer, and spend my time restoring the dungeons to a respectable, interest-fostering state.


----------



## wicked cool (Apr 13, 2021)

GMMichael said:


> For anyone wanting an online example, you can get orbs, gardens, and traps here: The Wonderful World of Eamon
> 
> Back in the early 80s, I discovered He-Man.  That was full of role-play opportunities, so I guess I was "back" to dungeon adventuring when Hero Quest hit the market in the late 80s.
> 
> ...



well they work in the starter box adventures (maybe less torches lol) but they serve a purpose (to keep draugr in). Same thing goes for dungeons-they should have a purpose not just the cave on the side of the mountatin turns into this elaborate complex filled with all sorts of critters


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 13, 2021)

kenada said:


> Something not mentioned that old-games also do is not assume that the creatures in the dungeon are there for PCs to fight. When the PCs encounter them, you make a reaction roll to determine how it reacts. In B/X for example, creatures only attack immediately when you roll a 2 on 2d6. When creatures aren’t automatically hostile, PCs can interact with them and negotiate with them. If you put multiple factions in the dungeon, PCs can scheme with them or manipulate them against each other. It adds another dimension to play beyond just having a bunch of creatures standing around in rooms (or hallways or wherever) waiting for the PCs to kick in the door and kill them for their treasure.
> 
> You can take this a step further with tools like adversary rosters, which decouple creature listings from the key. If the party gets into a loud fight, you can look at your roster, see who is nearby, and have them respond to the commotion. You can see an example of this in the adventures Necrotic Gnome publishes for Old-School Essentials, which labels the creatures on the map. As the PCs navigate through the dungeon, you can see where creatures are in relation to them and have them respond as appropriate depending on what the PCs do. That doesn’t even have to mean combat if you’re using reaction rolls. The kobolds in the room over might just be curious, and now the PCs have an opportunity to make new friends.



I think this is the thing.

Dungeoncrawls that are dynamic with varying encounters and possibilities are infinitely more interesting than the kick in the door, kill all the things, repeat variety. Interesting dungeoncrawls almost require a more combat as war, lots of flasks of oil, and 10’ poles approach. Does 5E even have the procedures for a dungeoncrawl?


----------



## Stormonu (Apr 13, 2021)

Dungeons never left my games, but I think the real change has been that megadungeon or neverending series of dungeons (“world of dungeons”) where trekking to and back from town is a mere scene transition is pretty much a thing of the past.

Still, it never hurts to have a dungeon make sense - both from its occupants to its form and function, even if it no longer fulfills the original reason it was built for.

One of the biggest mistakes I STILL see in dungeon design is “How did they even get in here?” - when placing occupants into your dungeon, take a moment to consider how they get into and out of the area they’re in.  For example, if the BBEG is on the other side of a corridor with a spiked pit trap, how does get back to his sleeping/eating/planning quarters without falling afoul of his own trap?  For that matter, how do his minions get to him to advise him on the state of his plans for world domination?  How can he even go and check for himself?


----------



## Sunsword (Apr 13, 2021)

Respectfully, I don't think dungeons have fallen out of fashion at all. For 5E there are Princes of the Apocalypse, the Underdark in Out of the Abyss, Tales from the Yawning Portal, Tomb of Annihilation, Dungeon of the Mad Mage. In the OSR there are tons and tons of dungeons, plus older D&D products from the D&D classics.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 13, 2021)

Alternate Take:

Step 1: Decide what the dungeon was back when it was built and draw the map based on that.
Step 2: Decide what powers have come and gone in the intervening years/centuries/millenia/epochs and add traps, tricks, troubles and weirdness based on that.
Step 3: Decide separately who is in the dungeon now and to what end, and stock creatures based on that.
Step 4: Decide why the PCs are there and motivate their exploration based on that.

Now you have a dynamic environment with a history, some weirdness and some ties to the current setting, as well as a reason (or reasons) for the PCs to explore it. And if by chance you are running a sandbox and the PCs miss the dungeon, you don't have to scrap all the work. Just add the "current occupants" to the historical list and add the dungeon to the next campaign sandbox.


----------



## univoxs (Apr 13, 2021)

Make every room be useful is not needed. Having a few dead rooms with nothing of interest is okay as it can ratchet up the tension if used properly.  Say there are four small rooms that are symmetrical and one out of the four has a trap in it! It is a good way to catch the party off guard.


----------



## el-remmen (Apr 13, 2021)

Something I like about "old dungeon" style adventures, is that their design flaws or oversights are actually spaces for my own designs and motivations for how I am using the module or whatever.

For example, in _N1 - Against the Cult of the Reptile God _in the swamp lair dungeon near the end of the module, there is jus ta harpy in a big room, with no explanation how she got there or what her relationship to the big bad might be. . .  I was able to make the harpy a cursed woman with a link to an earlier adventure I ran and changed that part of the dungeon to a tunnel leading to an old temple sunken into the swamp, and partially open to the sky, allowing the harpy to come and go, and providing the PCs with a second and more distant way in and out of the dungeon (if for example they need to take a rest). The connection to the previous adventure also provided a means of circumventing the harpy fight by breaking her curse and getting some info from her.

Lastly, the presence of the harpy lair became something that the big bad tolerated for now as a way to defend that way in and out of the dungeon and a place to send prisoners to be charmed and eaten - but also explains why the minions avoid that area of the dungeon.


----------



## grimslade (Apr 13, 2021)

Dungeons haven't gone anywhere, they just stopped being random loot tables connected on a map.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 13, 2021)

Maybe the mainstream has dropped them (not helped by the woeful lack of dungeon crawl proceduresbut they are alive and well, lots of modern examples from the small (like hole in the oak, to the large (barrow maze, stonehell etc).

Every room should have a purpose: This includes empty rooms, as resting spots. Empty rooms are also never actually empty (they need dungeon decor).

keep track of time and resources, the ticking clock with the threat of wandering monsters builds tension into the exploration. 

Old modules had long windy corridors. Why? To help break line of sight when fleeing or planning ambushes.

Claims of them being boring hack and slash fests misunderstand how they worked with the classic rules (monster reactions, not every combat was or should’ve been combat). Nor were they just ever meant to be random loot tables on a map...

Dungeons need to make sense. Do they? They can represent the mythic underworld, dreamy logic and bizarre encounters abound.

There needs to be interaction, things that can be poked and prodded that might change the environment or effect the characters.

They are easier to prep for as they exist in a constrained environment, allowing a more controlled sandbox environment for the players.  Though they should never be linear.

Also, Jacquay that dungeon! Stick a river in the middle kind of thing.  The 5e starter dungeon had this even if the accompanying adventure was mediocre.


----------



## TheAlkaizer (Apr 13, 2021)

wicked cool said:


> Call me crazy but I think they should model dungeons after  Skyrim dungeons
> 
> Skyrim dungeons are 3-4 things
> 1 - a tomb with a theme. Usually Draugr but sometimes something takes out the draugr and makes it a layer
> ...



I actually think the opposite!

The amount of things you can do in Skyrim in a set amount of time is much higher than in D&D. In 30 minutes, you can probably go through at least one or two of these dungeons. In D&D, just by the nature of the game, it would at least take you an hour or two. You don't have the same capacity for a quantity of content. This is also why, in my opinion, killing the same enemy a hundred time to level up works in a video game but works a bit poorly in a game like D&D. It takes too much time (it's also a bit boring).

So if your time is limited, every dungeon should be unique, memorable and excite the players by stimulating their creativity and agency. Skyrim dungeons are the opposite. They're bite-sized, they're quite generic and the loot in them is more interesting than the dungeons themselves.

I will agree that short and very thematic are definitely a good approach! I like a two-three rooms dungeon in Dungeons & Dragons. Takes less than an hour and the players can be on their way.


----------



## kenada (Apr 13, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Does 5E even have the procedures for a dungeoncrawl?



Not in the traditional sense, but 5e is pretty easy to hack. Pathfinder 2e has exploration mode, which comes close, but it lacks a few things I consider important (reaction rolls, morale). PF2’s chase subsystem can be used to handle retreats, but it’s not designed specifically for that purpose.



Stormonu said:


> One of the biggest mistakes I STILL see in dungeon design is “How did they even get in here?” - when placing occupants into your dungeon, take a moment to consider how they get into and out of the area they’re in.  For example, if the BBEG is on the other side of a corridor with a spiked pit trap, how does get back to his sleeping/eating/planning quarters without falling afoul of his own trap?  For that matter, how do his minions get to him to advise him on the state of his plans for world domination?  How can he even go and check for himself?



There is a portcullis trap in a dungeon my PCs have been exploring. I figured the occupants would want to go in and out through that passage, so I put a stick with a hook nearby they could use to prop the trap open while they passed. When my PCs found it, they wouldn’t touch it. They figured it had to be cursed or dangerous in some way.


----------



## el-remmen (Apr 13, 2021)

What is rule format for "the procedures for a dungeon crawl?" (aside from morale, I guess which I only ever used briefly and discarded for just my sense of what kind of behavior makes sense based on what I know about the creatures and context and never seemed unique to dungeon-delving to me)

I have played every edition of D&D at least once and am having trouble remembering the rules for these "procedures." Exploring dungeons have basically remained the same in my games except for the kinds of dice you roll and what they might be called for the equivalent of perception check or looking for secret doors, etc. . .


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 13, 2021)

el-remmen said:


> What is rule format for "the procedures for a dungeon crawl?" (aside from morale, I guess which I only ever used briefly and discarded for just my sense of what kind of behavior makes sense based on what I know about the creatures and context and never seemed unique to dungeon-delving to me)
> 
> I have played every edition of D&D at least once and am having trouble remembering the rules for these "procedures." Exploring dungeons have basically remained the same in my games except for the kinds of dice you roll and what they might be called for the equivalent of perception check or looking for secret doors, etc. . .



B/X breaks the sequence down. A turn last 10 minutes. Torches last an hour.  Different actions take a turn (such as move your movement rate, mapping the room, searching for secret doors).  Every 2 turns (more or less depending on dungeon) make an wandering encounter check


----------



## Jeff Carpenter (Apr 13, 2021)

One of the problems with many dungeons is that they can fall into the '15 minute adventuring day" problem if they don't have dynamic adversaries or some sort of time limit.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 13, 2021)

Jeff Carpenter said:


> One of the problems with many dungeons is that they can fall into the '15 minute adventuring day" problem if they don't have dynamic adversaries or some sort of time limit.



Dungeon delves are supposed to be short, strike missions with a clear party goal.
If however you have the 15 minute day, This is because all the procedures aren’t used properly. 
If the party is resting in the dungeon, are you making the wandering monster checks?

Have the party exhausted all their spells and items? Then why are they engaging in so much combat? Parley, bribe and sneak!

They could try to flee the dungeon, but then they might be subject to more wandering checks. If they make it back to safety, what are the dungeon denizens doing? They should be recruiting, shoring up defences, setting ambushes. The rooms are not static.

15 or even 5 minute work day complaints lay the blame solely at the GMs door...


----------



## Morrus (Apr 13, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> This one I disagree with.  Generally you are correct.



Some people just have to disagree, even when they think somebody is correct.


----------



## kenada (Apr 13, 2021)

el-remmen said:


> What is rule format for "the procedures for a dungeon crawl?" (aside from morale, I guess which I only ever used briefly and discarded for just my sense of what kind of behavior makes sense based on what I know about the creatures and context and never seemed unique to dungeon-delving to me)
> 
> I have played every edition of D&D at least once and am having trouble remembering the rules for these "procedures." Exploring dungeons have basically remained the same in my games except for the kinds of dice you roll and what they might be called for the equivalent of perception check or looking for secret doors, etc. . .



I’m linking Old-School Essentials because the SRD is available freely online, but it’s B/X. The dungeon procedure breaks down exploring a dungeon into turns and specifies what you do over the course of a turn. It’s very prescriptive compared to “modern” games. The point of having it is to provide a framework for exploration-based gameplay. It sets baseline assumptions, and it presents players with decisions they have to make while they explore. Because time isn’t hand-waved, they aren’t necessarily going to be able to do everything they want.

Reaction rolls, morale checks, and escape procedures are also important. Reaction rolls ensure that not every encounter is combat, which gives the PCs opportunities to prevent conflicts before they happen (possibly even making new friends). Morale checks provide a way to end combat without having to kill everyone. If the PCs know you are rolling them, they can focus on that when killing everything might not be feasible (e.g., target a leader). Escape procedures are important because they assure players that they can recover from a mistake (picking a fight you can’t win). For example, compare my last session and similar situations that happened in 5e and PF2.

The Alexandrian wrote an article about the loss of these procedures that digs into the history a bit.


----------



## Orius (Apr 13, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> keep track of time and resources, the ticking clock with the threat of wandering monsters builds tension into the exploration.
> 
> Old modules had long windy corridors. Why? To help break line of sight when fleeing or planning ambushes.




And as part of resource management, not just the wandering monsters, but:



transmission89 said:


> B/X breaks the sequence down. A turn last 10 minutes. Torches last an hour.  Different actions take a turn (such as move your movement rate, mapping the room, searching for secret doors).  Every 2 turns (more or less depending on dungeon) make an wandering encounter check




So that torch lasts 6 turns, and there's a limited amount of space the party can explore in a turn.  And actions like you said, are based on turns in the old editions, but even 3e still had stuff based on 10 minute intervals.  Those long corridors are in the old modules to burn out torches or deplete lantern oil and make the party take time to explore things.



Morrus said:


> Some people just have to disagree, even when they think somebody is correct.




They probably got stuck with a _ring of contrariness _or something.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Apr 13, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Some people just have to disagree, even when they think somebody is correct.



You're kind of making it sound like I was disagreeing just to disagree, which isn't the case.  I'm not sure what your point is here?


----------



## Morrus (Apr 13, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> You're kind of making it sound like I was disagreeing just to disagree, which isn't the case.  I'm not sure what your point is here?



Nah, you got it first time! 
If you’re gonna say funny things, don’t be surprised when people laugh!


----------



## el-remmen (Apr 13, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> B/X breaks the sequence down. A turn last 10 minutes. Torches last an hour.  Different actions take a turn (such as move your movement rate, mapping the room, searching for secret doors).  Every 2 turns (more or less depending on dungeon) make an wandering encounter check






kenada said:


> I’m linking Old-School Essentials because the SRD is available freely online, but it’s B/X. The dungeon procedure breaks down exploring a dungeon into turns and specifies what you do over the course of a turn. It’s very prescriptive compared to “modern” games. The point of having it is to provide a framework for exploration-based gameplay. It sets baseline assumptions, and it presents players with decisions they have to make while they explore. Because time isn’t hand-waved, they aren’t necessarily going to be able to do everything they want.
> 
> Reaction rolls, morale checks, and escape procedures are also important.  <snip>




Ah, okay. . . I guess in my experience DMs (including myself) mostly. .. well, hand-waved might be too strong a term. . . but applied that stuff as needed and just kept a vague sense of time passing to keep track of what other monsters/npcs might be doing in the rest of the dungeon, come to that area, or hear something is up. . . etc. . .

All of that stuff still exists in my games just not in the same prescriptive form. Regularly in dungeon environment, when the party encounters a room of interest, the party sets the best searchers to search, the warrior who might not be so good at searching but has a decent perception score to stand guard, while the wizard examines the strange runes or whatever and as DM I tell them how much time is passing and what if anything they hear/see while this is happening. The result is the same in my eyes.



kenada said:


> The Alexandrian wrote an article about the loss of these procedures that digs into the history a bit.




I'll check this out when I get a chance. Thanks!


----------



## Wrathamon (Apr 13, 2021)

I guess I am confused a bit. Almost every one of wotc adventures have been heavy in dungeons.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 13, 2021)

el-remmen said:


> Ah, okay. . . I guess in my experience DMs (including myself) mostly. .. well, hand-waved might be too strong a term. . . but applied that stuff as needed and just kept a vague sense of time passing to keep track of what other monsters/npcs might be doing in the rest of the dungeon, come to that area, or hear something is up. . . etc. . .
> 
> All of that stuff still exists in my games just not in the same prescriptive form. Regularly in dungeon environment, when the party encounters a room of interest, the party sets the best searchers to search, the warrior who might not be so good at searching but has a decent perception score to stand guard, while the wizard examines the strange runes or whatever and as DM I tell them how much time is passing and what if anything they hear/see while this is happening. The result is the same in my eyes.
> 
> ...



This is true, it can be hand waived, but one can then start running into problems like the 5 mwd or the players resorting to hack and slash.

This isn’t a problem if you’ve already got the ideas in the sequence down pat and can tweak and adapt. As later editions just assume that knowledge, or just plain don’t explain it, new GMs ran into these problems. Then newer editions tried to patch these problems, morphing and changing the rules so they’ve ended up quite different to classic d&d.

Whether you think these changes are good or bad is down to you.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 13, 2021)

Wrathamon said:


> I guess I am confused a bit. Almost every one of wotc adventures have been heavy in dungeons.



Most of them aren't centered on dungeon exploration as the primary mode of play, though, which is what I think the OP is lamenting. Lots of short, linear dungeons don't make an adventure "dungeon based." The only one I can think of that is dungeon based is Princes of the Apocalypse. I don't count Out of the Abyss because it is more of an underground wilderness environment than a traditional dungeon.

Duh -- almost forgot Dungeon of the Mad Mage, but in my defense it IS pretty forgettable and not a great dungeon.


----------



## iserith (Apr 13, 2021)

Reynard said:


> Most of them aren't centered on dungeon exploration as the primary mode of play, though, which is what I think the OP is lamenting. Lots of short, linear dungeons don't make an adventure "dungeon based." The only one I can think of that is dungeon based is Princes of the Apocalypse. I don't count Out of the Abyss because it is more of an underground wilderness environment than a traditional dungeon.
> 
> Duh -- almost forgot Dungeon of the Mad Mage, but in my defense it IS pretty forgettable and not a great dungeon.



Yes, and just because these are being produced doesn't mean most groups are playing them. A lot of people don't like dungeon crawls because of how they experienced them in the past, particularly with systems that didn't exactly support that experience to its fullest (including this edition). There's often a perception that dungeon crawling doesn't have any "roleplaying" in it, which is nonsense of course, but being nonsense doesn't really stop people from thinking it's the case once they've formed an opinion.

As well, plenty of people like to create their own content and since dungeons are prep-heavy compared to throwing together a few plot points and some monsters/NPCs, this creates an incentive to do something other than dungeons. People only have so much time to work on prep.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 13, 2021)

iserith said:


> Yes, and just because these are being produced doesn't mean most groups are playing them. A lot of people don't like dungeon crawls because of how they experienced them in the past, particularly with systems that didn't exactly support that experience to its fullest (including this edition). There's often a perception that dungeon crawling doesn't have any "roleplaying" in it, which is nonsense of course, but being nonsense doesn't really stop people from thinking it's the case once they've formed an opinion.
> 
> As well, plenty of people like to create their own content and since dungeons are prep-heavy compared to throwing together a few plot points and some monsters/NPCs, this creates an incentive to do something other than dungeons. People only have so much time to work on prep.



But they aren’t prep heavy? They are (or at least can be) far easier to develop than other kinds of adventures because you are creating an environment that inherently limits player choice compared to the wide expanse or numerous variables of a town or city.


----------



## el-remmen (Apr 13, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> As later editions just assume that knowledge, or just plain don’t explain it, new GMs ran into these problems. Then newer editions tried to patch these problems, morphing and changing the rules so they’ve ended up quite different to classic d&d.
> 
> Whether you think these changes are good or bad is down to you.




Hmmm. I wonder if more examples of play (always my favorite parts of earlier edition books) would help guide DMs/players in that direction.

I've never had the "5 min work day" problem in any of my games.


----------



## el-remmen (Apr 13, 2021)

iserith said:


> There's often a perception that dungeon crawling doesn't have any "roleplaying" in it, which is nonsense of course




As is the notion that combat has no role-playing. . . some of the most intense actor-like role-playing I've ever seen was during combat.


----------



## iserith (Apr 13, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> But they aren’t prep heavy? They are (or at least can be) far easier to develop than other kinds of adventures because you are creating an environment that inherently limits player choice compared to the wide expanse or numerous variables of a town or city.



They're prep heavy compared to just improvising in a town or city which is pretty easy since there are many touchstones there inherently. One doesn't really need any prep for that. Don't even need a map.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 13, 2021)

iserith said:


> They're prep heavy compared to just improvising in a town or city which is pretty easy since there are many touchstones there inherently. One doesn't really need any prep for that. Don't even need a map.



Yeah, I kinda see that.  Though you best be having a list of names to pull out ready (and prepared for) .
“Again? This is the 5th Dave we’ve met. Why is his surname his profession? Why is the Blacksmiths just called “the Blacksmiths”?

There are shortcuts though to help.

1) Whenever you see a map you like, beg, borrow or steal it.
2)  whenever the mood takes you, scribble a small dungeon on a gridded index card (that way you build up a library to pull out.
3) You might only need one or two dungeons. Change the set dressing, change the enemies, close off or open up different corridors. Yesterday’s kobold lair can become today’s dwarven mine!


----------



## iserith (Apr 13, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Yeah, I kinda see that.  Though you best be having a list of names to pull out ready (and prepared for) .
> “Again? This is the 5th Dave we’ve met. Why is his surname his profession? Why is the Blacksmiths just called “the Blacksmiths”?
> 
> There are shortcuts though to help.
> ...



I mostly run dungeons myself, so I've done what I can to make my prep easier. But most folks haven't or won't do this in my experience, so dungeon crawls are not so common. I play in and observe a lot of games and dungeons are definitely not on the menu very often.

I also think this is why if you tune into any stream or jump into any game, you are often going to see PCs shopping. It requires no prep from the DM and kills a good amount of session time. Portray a couple quirky, cagey NPC merchants with cringey accents and you're good. Way easier than drawing up a map, stocking with monsters, coming up with exploration challenges like traps, creating a wandering monster table, making monster factions for dynamic play, adding all the fantastical elements and trappings, making sure the map isn't linear and offers a lot of meaningful choices, etc.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 13, 2021)

iserith said:


> I mostly run dungeons myself, so I've done what I can to make my prep easier. But most folks haven't or won't do this in my experience, so dungeon crawls are not so common. I play in and observe a lot of games and dungeons are definitely not on the menu very often.
> 
> I also think this is why if you tune into any stream or jump into any game, you are often going to see PCs shopping. It requires no prep from the DM and kills a good amount of session time. Portray a couple quirky, cagey NPC merchants with cringey accents and you're good. Way easier than drawing up a map, stocking with monsters, coming up with exploration challenges like traps, creating a wandering monster table, making monster factions for dynamic play, adding all the fantastical elements and trappings, making sure the map isn't linear and offers a lot of meaningful choices, etc.



Yeah, I see that. It makes me cringe. I mean, fair enough if people enjoy it, all power to them, just fantasy shop simulator isn’t for me.


----------



## Sunsword (Apr 13, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> I think this is the thing.
> 
> Dungeoncrawls that are dynamic with varying encounters and possibilities are infinitely more interesting than the kick in the door, kill all the things, repeat variety. Interesting dungeoncrawls almost require a more combat as war, lots of flasks of oil, and 10’ poles approach. Does 5E even have the procedures for a dungeoncrawl?



The exploration rules apply I don't think anything more needs to be developed.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 13, 2021)

There are 2 kinds of dungeons: the dungeon you explore as part of some other adventure, and the dungeon that IS the adventure. For the former, I tend to use a loose "five room dungeon" format (even if there are a lot of actual rooms, there are only a handful of things that matter) that can be easily improvised in play off a few notes. In the latter case, I really think you want a well prepped, well stocked, interesting and dynamic location.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 13, 2021)

Sunsword said:


> The exploration rules apply I don't think anything more needs to be developed.



The 5E exploration rules are designed to get you quickly from one plot point to the next, and lots of class abilities obviate what few complications can be presented. As it is, underground exploration is supported by a handful of vaguely worded proficiencies and that means the GM has to work pretty hard to keep the game from devolving into a bunch of ability checks. I think 5E could stand to include some procedures along the lines of the PF2 exploration mode activities.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 13, 2021)

Sunsword said:


> The exploration rules apply I don't think anything more needs to be developed.



What exploration rules? That’s the point. It has none really for dungeons.


----------



## GMMichael (Apr 13, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> “Again? This is the 5th Dave we’ve met. Why is his surname his profession? Why is the Blacksmiths just called “the Blacksmiths”?



The blacksmith's is called the blacksmith's because you're in a town, not a city.  Dave isn't a name.  "I am called Dave" translates loosely to, "oh god, another opportunist."

I find that I have a complete game session prepped with only three encounters: a fight, a puzzle, and a discussion.  Any of these can morph into another.  PCs provide all the additional prep needed, intentionally or otherwise.  Conveniently, the main difference between a dungeon and a settlement, using these three encounters, is that the loiterers in the dungeon attack on sight, while those in the settlement do not.


----------



## wicked cool (Apr 13, 2021)

back to my skyrim argument

bleak falls barrow

outside entrance-possible badnits waiting
room 1 inside-some bandits
room 2-tougher bandit and a puzzle trap
room 3-some skeevers (giant rats) and a wounded giant spider behind some webbing plus ensnared the bandit leader 
room 4-the draugr (skeletons/zombie things) plus a spike trap
room 5-draugr plus an oil trap
room 6 -a troll
room 7 -a tougher draugr

level 2 a blade trap plus the the boss fight

now theres some corridors and sneaking but this is a tidy little adventure that can be cleared in 1 night (turn the troll into something else). theres tons of these that could easily be changed up converted to 5E and make much more sense/more fun than many of the official stuff


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 13, 2021)

GMMichael said:


> The blacksmith's is called the blacksmith's because you're in a town, not a city.  Dave isn't a name.  "I am called Dave" translates loosely to, "oh god, another opportunist."
> 
> I find that I have a complete game session prepped with only three encounters: a fight, a puzzle, and a discussion.  Any of these can morph into another.  PCs provide all the additional prep needed, intentionally or otherwise.  Conveniently, the main difference between a dungeon and a settlement, using these three encounters, is that the loiterers in the dungeon attack on sight, while those in the settlement do not.



That’s not convention though. A large portion of dungeon inhabitants wouldn’t be attacking on sight. That’s why you have the reaction rolls.

Thus meaning you can have all 3 types of encounter in the dungeon just as easily.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 13, 2021)

wicked cool said:


> back to my skyrim argument
> 
> bleak falls barrow
> 
> ...



Oh god, skyrim dungeons (the vast majority) were awful bland affairs. And what you’ve laid out here doesn’t sell it. It’s an awful design that puts people off dungeon crawls. You’ve listed a chain of rooms with non stop fights, 1 puzzle and a couple of traps. No thank you.


----------



## payn (Apr 13, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Oh god, skyrim dungeons (the vast majority) were awful bland affairs. And what you’ve laid out here doesn’t sell it. It’s an awful design that puts people off dungeon crawls. You’ve listed a chain of rooms with non stop fights, 1 puzzle and a couple of traps. No thank you.



What is it missing?


----------



## el-remmen (Apr 13, 2021)

payn said:


> What is it missing?




I didn't play much Skyrim, but from the description, my guess is: sense of "living" place that exists outside of the PCs arrival?


----------



## kenada (Apr 13, 2021)

Reynard said:


> There are 2 kinds of dungeons: the dungeon you explore as part of some other adventure, and the dungeon that IS the adventure. For the former, I tend to use a loose "five room dungeon" format (even if there are a lot of actual rooms, there are only a handful of things that matter) that can be easily improvised in play off a few notes. In the latter case, I really think you want a well prepped, well stocked, interesting and dynamic location.



I was going to say the same thing, but you beat me too it. I’d include city adventures as well. If you want to run one full of intrigue and secrets to uncover, that’s going to take more prep than improvising a few NPCs because that’s what the story needed at the moment. It’s at least comparable to creating a dungeon (for exploration). Or you use a procedure to generates that kind of content, but D&D lacks those too.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 13, 2021)

payn said:


> What is it missing?



Oh jeez. Everything. If you wanted to make a short one and done dungeon in a session, chop at least half those fights, preferably more.

There should be a couple of empty rooms (empty in the sense of encounters/traps/tricks). These should have dungeon decor, creating some environmental story telling.

Decent puzzles (no those crappy claw symbols with the spinning door doesn't count as a puzzle).
There should be one room with something interactive. Something the players can poke, push, pull prod. A magic pool, a talking bronze head, something, anything.

There should be a room with a “role playing element”. Some one or something to talk to, an adventurer stranded from his party, a goblin chieftain with a proposition.

There should be exploration, a secret door, revealing a different route , leading to a cache of treasure.

There could also be environmental hazards as well as traps. How are we going to cross that ravine? How could we best scale this rock wall?

Something Unique to the dungeon. That sells the theme of the dungeon. It could be a magical item, The sacred tree at the heart of it, whatever, you get the point.

Choice, branching paths with meaningful choices, skyrim dungeons are notoriously linear. Give the players meaningful options.

Anything, but this linear, boring hack and slash fest.


----------



## kenada (Apr 13, 2021)

payn said:


> What is it missing?



It’s basically just a sequence of fights. A proper dungeon crawl engages all three pillars (not just combat). That’s what the various procedures (exploration, reaction, etc) work together to facilitate.


----------



## delericho (Apr 13, 2021)

I think part of the problem is that dungeons are superficially easy to do, but surprisingly hard to do _well_. Which means that there are an awful lot of poor ones out there, and finding the good ones can be a real challenge. So most people have a few bad experiences, and they get a bad reputation.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 13, 2021)

delericho said:


> I think part of the problem is that dungeons are superficially easy to do, but surprisingly hard to do _well_. Which means that there are an awful lot of poor ones out there, and finding the good ones can be a real challenge. So most people have a few bad experiences, and they get a bad reputation.



Yup, I’d agree with this. This style of play has been poorly represented in modern editions, leading to a knowledge loss in the “mainstream”.  There is a wealth of knowledge and advice out there for the curious DM, but most aren’t interested as combined with the knowledge deficit in the new books, the shift in focus to “character development” and “personalised experience” has shifted DM research time to articles of that nature.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 13, 2021)

My general problem with dungeons is that the more engaging they become, the harder it becomes to maintain verisimilitude outside of using a small array of tropes.  

There simply aren't many NPCs that have rationales to stock inaccessible locations with traps and put in puzzles (for some reason), leave occasional magic items in out-of-the-way places (as opposed to, ya know, using them), and have different types of monsters locked up and somehow maintained.


----------



## payn (Apr 13, 2021)

kenada said:


> It’s basically just a sequence of fights. A proper dungeon crawl engages all three pillars (not just combat). That’s what the various procedures (exploration, reaction, etc) work together to facilitate.



So the traps and puzzles dont count as exploration? The caught thief who asks you to help him get free and get the treasure from the spider room isnt social pillar?


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 13, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> My general problem with dungeons is that the more engaging they become, the harder it becomes to maintain verisimilitude outside of using a small array of tropes.
> 
> There simply aren't many NPCs that have rationales to stock inaccessible locations with traps and put in puzzles (for some reason), leave occasional magic items in out-of-the-way places (as opposed to, ya know, using them), and have different types of monsters locked up and somehow maintained.



I accept this is a valid concern of some. Though Two rebuttals here:

1) to some extent, verisimilitude can go hang. You can embrace the mythic underworld nature of dungeons should you wish. There is a logic, but it’s a distorted one.

2) Broaden your definition of a dungeon to maintain verisimilitude. A dungeon doesn’t have to be a literal dungeon.


----------



## iserith (Apr 13, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> 1) to some extent, verisimilitude can go hang. You can embrace the mythic underworld nature of dungeons should you wish. There is a logic, but it’s a distorted one.



^ I'd give this multiple likes if I could.

Back in the day, dungeons had an almost otherworldly, fever-dream kind of feel. It didn't make sense and you accepted it as such because it was a mythic adventure through the underworld. Then somewhere along the line it lost this and had to be "realistic." No thanks.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 13, 2021)

payn said:


> So the traps and puzzles dont count as exploration? The caught thief who asks you to help him get free and get the treasure from the spider room isnt social pillar?



If we are talking that specific dungeon from skyrim, then no.

There is no real puzzle there (matching a really obvious symbol with a sign/claw with obvious symbols is not a puzzle).

Those traps aren’t exploration. You’re forced to encounter them and avoid them in that limited corridor.  You aren’t exploring anything.

With the thief, that’s a scripted binary choice, either you kill him, or he gets the treasure and tries to flee. There’s no other meaningful outcomes.

There’s enough to go on to argue that Skyrim is a terrible RPG, let alone transposing it’s sins to the tabletop space.


----------



## payn (Apr 13, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> If we are talking that specific dungeon from skyrim, then no.
> 
> There is no real puzzle there (matching a really obvious symbol with a sign/claw with obvious symbols is not a puzzle).
> 
> ...



Could you expand on how this dungeon could fit the pillars? What would it need to do to be exploration? What counts as a social encounter? Obviously the Skyrim example is limited its not a TTRPG, there is no GM and its only got a single player. How would it translate at the table?


----------



## Helldritch (Apr 13, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> My general problem with dungeons is that the more engaging they become, the harder it becomes to maintain verisimilitude outside of using a small array of tropes.
> 
> There simply aren't many NPCs that have rationales to stock inaccessible locations with traps and put in puzzles (for some reason), leave occasional magic items in out-of-the-way places (as opposed to, ya know, using them), and have different types of monsters locked up and somehow maintained.



Verisimilitude is easy to maintain. I consider old dungeons remnants of an ancient magical empires. Through the ages, many tried to take the dungeon for their own purposes. Some succeeded briefly, others failed and died. Some adventurers died alone in a forgotten room, thus the lone treasure you might sometimes find. Sometimes, these poor souls had time to write a dying message such as:" They got me. But they won't get Wanda, I made sure she could escape. May the gods help her on her way up. Why did we come to this accursed place. No staff of the magi I worth our live. Curse Davingoth for bringing us to this undead infested place..." 

And if the players have not met undead yet, you create expectations and even fear. The point is, dungeon crawling is as exciting and logical as you it to be. And in a world where stone can be shaped magically and walls of stone can be created out of nowhere,  the cost for creating a dungeon is not as prohibitive as one might think. Mud to stone can also be of use. Earth elementals can dig very fast and charmed purple worms and umber hulks can also be used to create tunnels very fast. Then, have a priest or druid shape the stone as you wish... So nope the construction of dungeon in a world of magic is not that of an hassle.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 13, 2021)

payn said:


> Could you expand on how this dungeon could fit the pillars? What would it need to do to be exploration? What counts as a social encounter? Obviously the Skyrim example is limited its not a TTRPG, there is no GM and its only got a single player. How would it translate at the table?



See my post above in my original reply to you. Obviously I gave generic examples, but you could easily  come up with tomb specific examples.


----------



## kenada (Apr 13, 2021)

payn said:


> So the traps and puzzles dont count as exploration? The caught thief who asks you to help him get free and get the treasure from the spider room isnt social pillar?



It’s assumed you fight the bandits, the trolls, and the draugr. There’s no room for negotiation or trying to play them off each other. Also as specified, there are no alternate paths. Solving a puzzle isn’t exploring. Finding an alternate path that lets you bypass a group of troublesome monsters is meaningful exploration.

Compare _Skyrm_ to _Bloodborne_. Even though _Bloodborne_ is somewhat linear overall, there are multiple ways to go about things. Even the first boss of the game depends on what you do. It could be Cleric Beast, but it could also be Father Gascoigne. Suppose you’re going to Cleric Beast first; there are several paths up. You might go right at first, but there’s also a shorter path to the left that lets you skip that _and_ avoid the werewolves (for the most part). That’s meaningful exploration.


----------



## kenada (Apr 13, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> I accept this is a valid concern of some. Though Two rebuttals here:
> 
> 1) to some extent, verisimilitude can go hang. You can embrace the mythic underworld nature of dungeons should you wish. There is a logic, but it’s a distorted one.
> 
> 2) Broaden your definition of a dungeon to maintain verisimilitude. A dungeon doesn’t have to be a literal dungeon.



I’d argue that if there’s a logic to it, then the weird dungeons are needed to maintain verisimilitude.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 13, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> I accept this is a valid concern of some. Though Two rebuttals here:
> 
> 1) to some extent, verisimilitude can go hang. You can embrace the mythic underworld nature of dungeons should you wish. There is a logic, but it’s a distorted one.



I accept that this can be done, especially if you build the campaign around dungeon crawling.  (13th Age, as an example, has dungeons which are literally grown by the fabric of the world into chaotic hellholes to explore.  I like this.)  

But particularly in a sandbox setting, I think site explorations need to have a sense of place.  The dungeon has to have some sort of purpose, unless it's entirely inhabited by non-sentients and was created by natural/magical forces.    



transmission89 said:


> 2) Broaden your definition of a dungeon to maintain verisimilitude. A dungeon doesn’t have to be a literal dungeon.



Sure.  When I say dungeon, assume I mean "site/complex exploration", not a literal dungeon underground.  The focus here is a keyed map, with lots of rooms and linking corriders, not the aesthetic.  A faerie maze could be a dungeon, or a wizard's tower, or an abandoned temple.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 13, 2021)

Helldritch said:


> Verisimilitude is easy to maintain. I consider old dungeons remnants of an ancient magical empires. Through the ages, many tried to take the dungeon for their own purposes. Some succeeded briefly, others failed and died. Some adventurers died alone in a forgotten room, thus the lone treasure you might sometimes find. Sometimes, these poor souls had time to write a dying message such as:" They got me. But they won't get Wanda, I made sure she could escape. May the gods help her on her way up. Why did we come to this accursed place. No staff of the magi I worth our live. Curse Davingoth for bringing us to this undead infested place..."
> 
> And if the players have not met undead yet, you create expectations and even fear. The point is, dungeon crawling is as exciting and logical as you it to be. And in a world where stone can be shaped magically and walls of stone can be created out of nowhere,  the cost for creating a dungeon is not as prohibitive as one might think. Mud to stone can also be of use. Earth elementals can dig very fast and charmed purple worms and umber hulks can also be used to create tunnels very fast. Then, have a priest or druid shape the stone as you wish... So nope the construction of dungeon in a world of magic is not that of an hassle.



Yea, that's the kind of stuff that I don't really like.  I want to know WHY did the magical empire build it?  That's a lot of money and time to invest in a remote facility.  What did they use it for?  Was it magical experimentation?  A living space?  A refuge?  People don't simply build large places and fill them with traps and puzzles just because.


----------



## THEMNGMNT (Apr 13, 2021)

I know it's a common sentiment that the dungeon crawl is dead, but Pathfinder APs are FULL of medium to large sized dungeons. And Paizo is the largest third party publisher of D&D-esque content ever. So I think that there's still a lot of folks playing through dungeons. It's just no longer the exclusive mode of play that it was in the 70s.


----------



## THEMNGMNT (Apr 13, 2021)

In addition to Princes of the Apocalypse, there are several other 5E hardbacks that feature large adventuring environments: Tomb of Annihilation, Storm King's Thunder, Curse of Strahd. Plus the hardbacks that reprint earlier edition adventures, of course.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 13, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> This one I disagree with.  Generally you are correct.  I think a linear dungeon with one clear cut objective where there is little or nothing for the players to decide other than accomplishing a goal has its place in the game as a dungeon.   Though it has to be used very sparingly.



Allow me to disagree with your disagreement. 

Linear-path dungeons IMO are (almost always) awful.  Awful for the players, whose only real choice becomes whether to go forward or retreat; and boring for the DM, who gets to do nothing but run the encounters in neatly scripted order.


----------



## Helldritch (Apr 13, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> Yea, that's the kind of stuff that I don't really like.  I want to know WHY did the magical empire build it?  That's a lot of money and time to invest in a remote facility.  What did they use it for?  Was it magical experimentation?  A living space?  A refuge?  People don't simply build large places and fill them with traps and puzzles just because.



Reasons may vary. Underground magical research facility is but one possibility. They extended the facilities but at some point the Empire crumbled. Then new owners discovered it took custody of the place and they too got killed by invaders. Repeat the process as much as you want. Each owner adding traps of their own. What you have to make sure, is that the dungeon is not linear with many points of entrance and exit. 
Level 2 might lead to level 3 and 6 for example. A pit trap might once has been an elevator going from level 6 to 8. The elevator might also lead to level 7 but since it is now a pit trap, allow a falling character to notice that it is also an access to level 7 (mid fall of course ) might trigger some questioning about that unusually long descent to level 5... Players might wonder if they are truly on level 5 or 6... Did they missed a whole level?

Also, I make sure that some parts of a level are accessible from an other level. For example, the level 4 might be split into 3 areas. Two are connected via a secret passage but the third one might be accessible from a unhidden stair case in level 5. Just searching that weird empty spot on their map will drive players crazy...

Also a level might be sprawled over two sheets and might not perfectly align with the others.  Another level might be smaller. Vary caves and  constructed areas. Some areas might have been cut off from the others through some cave in. The goal of a dungeon is not always to make sense but to surprise players. Also, you might not have a "logic" behind your dungeons, but strangely, your players will guide you to one. So far, it has always happened this way in mine. And guess what? Their own theories are often better than mine! You don't have to be in town or in wilderness to improvise encounters. A dungeon is even better as it will force you to think how did this creature came into that room? Crypt things were a good explanation back in the days.

Dungeons are often a case of SUIM. "Shut Up! It's Magic!"

How long would it take to create a three level dungeon for a wizard of 14th level? With a charmed Umber hulk, less than 2 days for the basic layout. Then using a priest to shape stones into stairwells, slides and slopes and whatever not that long. Clearing rumbles with disintegrate or a charmed purple worm can also work. Elementals can also do trick. With magic, imagination is the limit. Not the money.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 13, 2021)

There's a couple of things raised in the thread thus far which, to me, are (and always have been) in full-on contradiction.

Some of you say things to the effect of "Make sure the dungeon has a viable ecology".  Valid point.  I like it.
Some of you say things to the effect of "Make sure you check for wandering monsters every two turns".  Valid point.  I like it.

BU-U-UT

There's far too many situations where the very existence of all those wandering monsters completely blows up the viable-ecology concept.  Where do they come from?  What do they eat?  Why haven't they slowly whittled away all the permanent dungeon residents?

My own sometimes-used solution* is to, if there's to be wandering monsters, cap their numbers by listing them off and knock 'em off that list once the party has defeated them; to the point where a party might never meet any more once they've beaten the whole list for that dungeon.

Does or could this eventually lead to a 15-minute workday later in the adventure?  Sure.  Is this a problem?  No.  It's what the characters would reasonably do.

* - exception: if the dungeon contains an actual monster-spawner e.g. an open gate to another plane, those wanderers are just gonna keep on coming until the source is shut off.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Apr 13, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> Allow me to disagree with your disagreement.
> 
> Linear-path dungeons IMO are (almost always) awful.  Awful for the players, whose only real choice becomes whether to go forward or retreat; and boring for the DM, who gets to do nothing but run the encounters in neatly scripted order.



I dont necessarily disagree with your disagreement; Im sure it could be very boring, and one dimentional depending on the particular table.  Its not for everyone.  OTOH if planned and run correctly they can work and be very fun, Ive ran and played them.  Sometimes a quick 2 minute setup by the DM where the players can jump right in is a welcomed change from multiple options. The key is that the adventure needs a specific  goal, the encounters have to make sense, be interesting, and not just a bunch of random encounters strung together.  To be clear Im not saying taking away players decision making entirely within encounters, but rather the goal being fixed and the dungeon or area in which the players need to achieve the goal be linear.


----------



## el-remmen (Apr 13, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> There's far too many situations where the very existence of all those wandering monsters completely blows up the viable-ecology concept.  Where do they come from?  What do they eat?  Why haven't they slowly whittled away all the permanent dungeon residents?




Oh yeah! In a well-designed dungeon, most of the wandering monsters should be from keyed locations going around to do their thing (guard duty, bathing, hunting, raid on another community of humanoids living there, etc) with a handful being true wanderers who found their way in and will leave again or who are new arrivals and maybe don't have a set lair yet. 

The first kind should be marked off and the descriptions of their keyed encounters should say stuff like, "If the party has not encounter these norkers when they were on their way back from gathering algae for their meal. . . etc.. ."


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 13, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> My own sometimes-used solution* is to, if there's to be wandering monsters, cap their numbers by listing them off and knock 'em off that list once the party has defeated them; to the point where a party might never meet any more once they've beaten the whole list for that dungeon.



Yea, I like that.  I can't imagine building a site without planning what would live in there.  Having a set of inhabitants that are in random/unkeyed locations just makes sense, and can fulfill the game need of encounters providing pressure outside of new locations.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Apr 13, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> * - exception: if the dungeon contains an actual monster-spawner e.g. an open gate to another plane, those wanderers are just gonna keep on coming until the source is shut off.



Like a Deepspawn.  Those are fun.  Linear dungeon, kill the deepspawn....or die trying.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 13, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> I dont necessarily disagree with your disagreement; Im sure it could be very boring, and one dimentional depending on the particular table.  Its not for everyone.  OTOH if planned and run correctly they can work and be very fun, Ive ran and played them.  Sometimes a quick 2 minute setup by the DM where the players can jump right in is a welcomed change from multiple options. The key is that the adventure needs a specific  goal, the encounters have to make sense, be interesting, and not just a bunch of random encounters strung together.  To be clear Im not saying taking away players decision making entirely within encounters, but rather the goal being fixed and the dungeon or area in which the players need to achieve the goal be linear.



Meh, I’d disagree, the adventure itself doesn’t need a goal. The site can exist, and the players can create their own goal based on rumours they’ve heard for example.

Do the encounters have to make sense? Not always, at least not an obvious sense, especially if you are making a mythic underworld.

No part of a dungeon _needs _to be linear at all. If the players _need_ to do something, the environment should be part of the challenge as well.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Apr 13, 2021)

el-remmen said:


> bathing



Whyd I just picture an owlbear lathering up with a bar of Irish Spring?


----------



## el-remmen (Apr 13, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> Whyd I just picture an owlbear lathering up with a bar of Irish Spring?




In the last adventure I ran, the PCs interrupted a couple of bugbears enjoying a hot spring while their boss berated them for being lazy and not on guard.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 13, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> I dont necessarily disagree with your disagreement; Im sure it could be very boring, and one dimentional depending on the particular table.  Its not for everyone.  OTOH if planned and run correctly they can work and be very fun, Ive ran and played them.  Sometimes a quick 2 minute setup by the DM where the players can jump right in is a welcomed change from multiple options. The key is that the adventure needs a specific  goal, the encounters have to make sense, be interesting, and not just a bunch of random encounters strung together.  To be clear Im not saying taking away players decision making entirely within encounters, but rather the goal being fixed and the dungeon or area in which the players need to achieve the goal be linear.



I guess it also depends on the size of dungeon and-or the length of real-world time you expect/want it to take.

I mean, sure, if you're looking to start and finish an adventure in one session then a quick three-room linear banger with a few bells and whistles is all you need.

I rarely if ever run those.  Most - as in almost all - of the dungeons I run are big multi-session affairs, often using canned modules or mods of same.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Apr 13, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> No part of a dungeon _needs _to be linear



I never said it needed to be linear, I only said that they could be, and sometimes theyre fun.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Apr 13, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> I guess it also depends on the size of dungeon and-or the length of real-world time you expect/want it to take.
> 
> I mean, sure, if you're looking to start and finish an adventure in one session then a quick three-room linear banger with a few bells and whistles is all you need.
> 
> I rarely if ever run those.  Most - as in almost all - of the dungeons I run are big multi-session affairs, often using canned modules or mods of same.



Exactly.  Sometimes I dont want to plan out a mid to large adventure and a short one shot distraction is welcomed by all.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 13, 2021)

EDIT: misread because I am tired. All apologies, move along, there’s nothing to see here.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 13, 2021)

I feel like some folks in this thread are conflating The Dungeon and The Plot -- which is understandable considering how dungeons have been treated by WotC and Paizo on the last couple, well, decades.

The dungeon is The Setting. It's where The Plot happens. It's where the bad guy has taken refuge, or where the artifact is stashed, or where the ritual is preserved or where the God-corpse molders and sloughs off horrors that crawl, hungry, to the surface. Or, ALL of the above.

If you think of the dungeon as setting first, you can do so much more with it.


----------



## Helldritch (Apr 13, 2021)

Want to have a good idea for a mega dungeon? Here is one I did a few times.

"Ladies and gentlemen, elves, orcs, dwarves, gnomes and halflings and all others! Welcome to the seventy-six delve into the Labyrinth  of Hors. This year, four different groups will try to reach for the prized Golden orb of Karach. The first group to come out alive with the Orb will have one wish granted by our Archmagi, Valrick of Deneb. All contestants will be scried upon and the biggest events of the day will be shown to all  by illusions in the great Arena of Hors. 

This year, four groups are attempting the Labyrinth. 1st group is ..."

And every times, it was a blast for the group that tried it. 14 days to complete. And they had, of course, to beat an evil group, a neutral one and a good one. Sometimes they would fight an other group over one of the keys. In essence, it was a countdown with foes trying to get there before them. No need for ecology and I even did it with four different groups pitted against each others.  Six different entrance/telepoter would make sure that they all started at different area. If they met, a fight would ensure as only one group was allowed to leave. All others would become beholden to the Archmage of the city for one year. It was a real blast. Players can be  ery competitive.


----------



## pumasleeve (Apr 13, 2021)

I think this thread highlights what I was getting at in my recent thread about role vs roll play. I think the perception of popularity of one over the other is largely based on your personal experience, and trends come and go. Right now, a massive influx of players new to the game have been introduced due to the popularity of podcasts such as critical role, thus they prefer games that are heavy on roleplay and acting in character. Or they expect this because they have not been exposed to anything else. I have begun the practice of setting expectations for the type of game i run first thing- Role play is great, but if you dont like dungeon crawls you are in the wrong place. You are going to be bored and I am going to be frustrated with you telling me im not running the game right.  I know some of you are thinking there is a happy medium between the two styles, but im finding that critters want critical role and will not accept that there are other ways to play. If your not happy here, you are just taking the space of some one else who will be. Find the game you want to play and I will run the game I and my players want to play. 
I realize this sounds very blunt, but my point is that there is no one "right way" to play dnd, and setting expectations right of the bat is going to save everyone a lot of frustration and even resentment. Time is precious and an ongoing commitment to a game is a big give. 
Peace.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Apr 14, 2021)

I love well-designed, sandboxy (as in, multiple routes) dungeon crawls.

One thing the good ones have -- multiple ways to approach and resolve each encounter. Most should not be only able to be solved by "kick in the door, kill the monsters, get the treasure". Sure, that's one way -- but clever negotiation/roleplay, stealth, and clever use of the environs should also be ways to "solve" encounters.


----------



## kenada (Apr 14, 2021)

THEMNGMNT said:


> I know it's a common sentiment that the dungeon crawl is dead, but Pathfinder APs are FULL of medium to large sized dungeons. And Paizo is the largest third party publisher of D&D-esque content ever. So I think that there's still a lot of folks playing through dungeons. It's just no longer the exclusive mode of play that it was in the 70s.



I’ve run a bunch of Paizo APs (see here), and I’m not sure I can agree. There are plenty of dungeons, but they lack the qualities being discussed here. Even in a dungeon-centric AP like _Shattered Star_, they’re still fairly linear. PCs are delving into dungeons because the story sent them there, and they have some story stuff to accomplish. In PF2, especially with some of the early APs, it’s a controversial statement even suggesting that you can have creatures react dynamically to the PCs (due to the spike in difficulty and the expectation that of course the PCs should win every fight).


----------



## Retreater (Apr 14, 2021)

Did dungeons ever really go away?
We know they were alive and well throughout the 70s and 80s as the classic form of adventuring. In the 2e era, especially at the tail-end, we got some pretty big ones like the high level Labyrinth of Madness, The Night Below (billed as "the Ultimate Dungeon Adventure"), and the Undermountain boxed sets. 3e was highly touted as "return to the dungeons," with a Greyhawk setting default, and emphasis on miniatures, traps, and tactical play.
4e also kept the dungeons alive with modules like Keep on the Shadowfell. I'd say that the dungeon was the default assumption of that edition.
5e has had numerous adventures featuring dungeons, whether greatest hits compilations like "Tales of the Yawning Portal" or megadungeons like "Dungeon of the Mad Mage." 
So let me ask, when did we ever stop playing dungeons? Was there even a five year period without a lot of dungeon content?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 14, 2021)

Corone said:


> If you do the job right,* each door the player characters come across will fill them with a mixture of fear and anticipation.* What lies beyond this door, a trap, a fearful death, untold riches or wild magic? If a room or encounter doesn’t’ feel that interesting to you, cut it from your dungeon. Maybe consider it a little and use it later on when you’ve made it work better. A dungeon need not be a sprawl, and a shorter one has the advantage of potentially allowing the player characters to escape and try another one some other day.



Excellent advice, but, I would add a bit to this one.  There's no problem with having a bit of "dead space" in a dungeon.  Rooms that are mostly empty, at least of encounters/traps.  For one, it allows you to break up encounters - if encounters are too close together, they tend to get "chained" and can drastically ramp up the lethality of the encounter.  For another, it allows a space for the PC's to rest, from time to time.  You don't have to keep the pressure on all the time.  

And, as was mentioned, an "empty" room need not be empty - it can be decorated or whatnot and act as a bit of foreshadowing for what is coming later, or a bit of exposition to add color to the dungeon.


----------



## cbwjm (Apr 14, 2021)

I quite like the engineering dungeons book from troll lord games. It's initial section is on randomly generating the history of the dungeon which looks at the dungeons purpose (shelter, economic, prison, etc), who built it, and where it was built. Also size, number of entrances, and how old the dungeon is. This doesn't mean that an old dwarven mine built two centuries ago is still being used for that purpose, but it does give you a groundwork to base the general look and feel of your dungeon. Even if it was abandoned 1 and a half centuries beforehand, you're still likely to come across tools and other items from when it was in use, gives some good dressing for the dungeon.


----------



## Schmoe (Apr 14, 2021)

If dungeon delving is a lost art, someone forgot to tell me.  I've been running players through dungeons pretty much non-stop for the last few years.  I have one group that I'm running through the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.  They are just about to tackle the Crater Ridge Mines (a massive dungeon), after spending the last 4-5 months exploring the moathouse outside of Hommlet.  I have another group that has been exploring the Tomb of Abysthor after earlier forays into Quasqueton (In Search of the Unknown).

For advice on creating dungeons, one of the best books I've seen was the 2e Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide.  I also love the blog The Alexandrian.  Justin Alexander has some excellent articles on dungeon-based adventures.

I will say that making entertaining dungeons can be difficult, and it often comes down to the denizens themselves.  For example, in Quasqueton, even though the dungeon is completely bare bones with absolutely no justification for any of the inhabitants, we had some of the most fun because of the role-playing.  Just one simple example was the orc who surrendered and joined the party after they killed his partner, because he "didn't like that smelly orc anyway, he was always making fun of me and beating me up."  That's definitely not in the module, and I just had to figure out what to do with 2 orcs in an otherwise empty room.

By contrast, the middle part of the Tomb of Abysthor has a ton of unintelligent or undead foes, and I'm starting to realize that the lack of RP engagement is becoming a drag.  In fact, this thread has inspired me to mix it up a bit.

So, yeah, dungeons.  I love 'em.


----------



## cbwjm (Apr 14, 2021)

Talking about dungeons, I have two that I'm developing for my current game. One, the PCs might visit, another they will visit. 

The first dungeon that the players might enter is an ancient elemental ritual complex where humans were turned into the first genasi using an orb of elemental power to change them into enhanced foot soldiers for the elemental war from my settings mythic past. This dungeon has areas (mini dungeons) attuned to the 4 prime elements of air, earth, fire, and water each of which is connected to a central chamber where the transformations took place (also probably going to be some connections between areas which show the para-elemental energies where the two elements mix). What I like about this dungeon, is it showcases a little bit of the history of my world as in the central chamber there are wall engravings showing elementals herding captive humans into a central chamber, another scene shows an elemental holding the orb of power aloft, and the final scene shows genasi where humans once stood. I don't require players to read up on the history of my world, but I'm more than willing to show it to them in their adventures.

The second dungeon I like because it isn't what you'd think of as a dungeon, because it's a forest, albeit it is bounded by a great dome of thorns that is near impossible to get through. I'm setting it up essentially like a dungeon, forest clearings take the place of rooms, trails are corridors. The only real difference is, the players can ignore the trails and move through the "walls" of this dungeon, all the while the players will be hunted by a corrupted unicorn which should be fun.


----------



## Jeff Carpenter (Apr 14, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> 15 or even 5 minute work day complaints lay the blame solely at the GMs door...



Well and the people who write bad adventures. 

Which I guess is the DMs fault for running them and not modifying them, but my point is many dungeon adventures are  written with static situations.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 14, 2021)

Jeff Carpenter said:


> Well and the people who write bad adventures.
> 
> Which I guess is the DMs fault for running them and not modifying them, but my point is many dungeon adventures are  written with static situations.



Yes, heaven forfend a DM must do more than simply read and blindly carry out what is in an adventure without thought.

An Adventure is simply the barest script written in a generic way as the writer cannot account for individual party variation or every conceivable action.

They can tell you what’s in a room, but it’s down to the DM to breathe life into his NPCs and dungeon. So no, I wouldn’t give the DM a pass here.

Now certainly, there could be an argument made that it is incumbent on the adventure to make all the necessary information as accessible as possible to make it easier for our DMs.

Which incidentally, is why I take a dim view on most 5e adventures. I find the huge hard backs with key details buried in paragraphs far too much work to parse. The amount of work I’d have to put in to pull it off? I could just make my own adventure and have a better handle on it mentally. Give me those packed, slim 32 page modules any day. Much easier to keep abreast of things.


----------



## pming (Apr 14, 2021)

_...whispers from the shadows distracts the figure hunched over curled parchments, quill pens, and various coloured ink pots. Old musty tome's, piled high, teeter at the edges of the old oak table, dark with age. The figure, scribbling notes and diagrams feverishly, with an occasional pause, a wry smile, then more scribbling, mutters to himself. His ample beard getting caught in the movements of the quill distracts him more. With an annoyed grunt he removes said quill from his hirsute countenance and grabs at his face to smooth away the frazzled hairs. It is at this moment he sits back and ponders the intricately designed dungeon map at hand, one of hundreds within reach or tucked under books, skulls or flagons of questionable liquids. It is this moment he makes out the murmuring of...others... Others speaking of heretical views about the "Lost Art of Dungeon Crawling"... The figure, an old man of indeterminable age, looks up and speaks..._
..
"Er... wut? Who says?"

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 14, 2021)

Schmoe said:


> If dungeon delving is a lost art, someone forgot to tell me.  I've been running players through dungeons pretty much non-stop for the last few years.  I have one group that I'm running through the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.  They are just about to tackle the Crater Ridge Mines (a massive dungeon), after spending the last 4-5 months exploring the moathouse outside of Hommlet.  I have another group that has been exploring the Tomb of Abysthor after earlier forays into Quasqueton (In Search of the Unknown).
> 
> For advice on creating dungeons, one of the best books I've seen was the 2e Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide.  I also love the blog The Alexandrian.  Justin Alexander has some excellent articles on dungeon-based adventures.
> 
> ...




See, I was tempted earlier to mention Quasqueton from B1 in search of the unknown. I think anyone who is curious about old school dungeon crawls should read this module as I feel it is the archetypal dungeon crawl. It has everything a good dungeon should have.

Note, it’s not perfect, it does have issues, but it was designed in such a way that it has the things I labelled earlier as good practice. It has variety, it incorporates exploration , it has space, it has interactivity, environmental story telling etc...


----------



## S'mon (Apr 14, 2021)

"There is a certain type of adventure that in recent years seems to have fallen out of popularity: dungeons"

Er, no? The OSR especially has a seen a huge renaissance in dungeon based play over recent years.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Apr 14, 2021)

What is a linear dungeon to people? Is Moria a linear dungeon as it is presented in LotR? After all, there is just the main entrance and the back entrance, and maybe a couple of small secret ways in and out. The Fellowship had the goal of getting from one entrance to the other, regardless of how immensely huge the interior is. Is that linear because they had a goal and a limited amount of time to get through, which prevented them from doing any side exploration?

But on the main topic, I hope that dungeons that are more like mazes, and which have no theme, with just a bunch of random things in random rooms, and random monsters with no reason to be there or ability to even get out of their rooms, die and never come back. Those were alright when I was still a teen and first playing AD&D in the 80's, but I, and most people I played with, matured past that kind of adventure as we got older. We want the dungeons to make sense and have an actual purpose for whoever, or whatever, controls them. Now, this is about small to medium-sized dungeons. Mega-dungeons are a unique animal, in that entire sections or levels can have their own theme and purpose and just be loosely connected to the overall location.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 14, 2021)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> What is a linear dungeon to people?




Room A - Room B - Room C - Room D - Room E, all in a row. Eg the Skyrim dungeons, or the 4e Dungeon Delve dungeons.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 14, 2021)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> What is a linear dungeon to people? Is Moria a linear dungeon as it is presented in LotR? After all, there is just the main entrance and the back entrance, and maybe a couple of small secret ways in and out. The Fellowship had the goal of getting from one entrance to the other, regardless of how immensely huge the interior is. Is that linear because they had a goal and a limited amount of time to get through, which prevented them from doing any side exploration?
> 
> But on the main topic, I hope that dungeons that are more like mazes, and which have no theme, with just a bunch of random things in random rooms, and random monsters with no reason to be there or ability to even get out of their rooms, die and never come back. Those were alright when I was still a teen and first playing AD&D in the 80's, but I, and most people I played with, matured past that kind of adventure as we got older. We want the dungeons to make sense and have an actual purpose for whoever, or whatever, controls them. Now, this is about small to medium-sized dungeons. Mega-dungeons are a unique animal, in that entire sections or levels can have their own theme and purpose and just be loosely connected to the overall location.




This is a misunderstanding of Moria. It’s certainly not a linear dungeon, it’s huge! The party’s objective was to just sneak through it. That doesn’t make it linear, that is just a goal the party chose. They could’ve chosen to find the treasure vault for example. 
Their time was only initially limited by the campaign clock of getting the ring to mount doom. But then Pippin failed his stealth check. That flight from Moria that prevented exploration was a party experiencing consequences of a fail condition.

I love the notion that one can “mature” past adventures with whimsy and the mythical underworld, and only accept solid verisimilitude. It’s like that old attitude in the 80s where teens would only play AD&D because they were ”too mature” for classic which is a kids game.

Just like the kids I teach now will only play GTA because mario kart is a “kid’s game”....


----------



## R_J_K75 (Apr 14, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Which incidentally, is why I take a dim view on most 5e adventures. I find the huge hard backs with key details buried in paragraphs far too much work to parse. The amount of work I’d have to put in to pull it off? I could just make my own adventure and have a better handle on it mentally. Give me those packed, slim 32 page modules any day. Much easier to keep abreast of things.



This is exactly how I feel and why I dont run the large WotC hardback adventures.  Its too much information crammed into a poor format , which is a 1 giant book.  Id much prefer a return to boxed sets and smaller modules.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 14, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> This is exactly how I feel and why I dont run the large WotC hardback adventures.  Its too much information crammed into a poor format , which is a 1 giant book.  Id much prefer a return to boxed sets and smaller modules.




Yes, they're not quite as bad as the Paizo APs, but they are still far harder to run than they ought to be.


----------



## cbwjm (Apr 14, 2021)

S'mon said:


> Room A - Room B - Room C - Room D - Room E, all in a row. Eg the Skyrim dungeons, or the 4e Dungeon Delve dungeons.



Pretty much this for linear dungeons. Non-linear means going into room A, having the option to go to room B or room C, maybe moving on to room E and then back to room D or totally ignoring room D and moving towards the entrance.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Apr 14, 2021)

S'mon said:


> Yes, they're not quite as bad as the Paizo APs, but they are still far harder to run than they ought to be.



Agreed.  Ideally as a DM I want to read an adventure before I run it but 200+ pages is just too much for me these days. Then having extraneous prep  to fill in the blanks is alot of work for an adventure I'd probably never come close to finishing with my group.


----------



## delericho (Apr 14, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> This is exactly how I feel and why I dont run the large WotC hardback adventures.  Its too much information crammed into a poor format , which is a 1 giant book.  Id much prefer a return to boxed sets and smaller modules.



I get the sense that many modern adventures are presented as stories to be read, rather than as adventures to be run. Certainly, I have way more adventures on the shelf than I'll ever run.

Regarding the format, I agree that the 250ish page hardback is bad for running the thing. But it does have one great virtue: that's probably the most efficient way to present that material - if it were a series of softcovers, or a boxed set, or whatever, and you're probably paying a higher price point for less adventure material. (Whether that trade-off would be worth it is an interesting question, of course...)


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 14, 2021)

delericho said:


> I get the sense that many modern adventures are presented as stories to be read, rather than as adventures to be run. Certainly, I have way more adventures on the shelf than I'll ever run.
> 
> Regarding the format, I agree that the 250ish page hardback is bad for running the thing. But it does have one great virtue: that's probably the most efficient way to present that material - if it were a series of softcovers, or a boxed set, or whatever, and you're probably paying a higher price point for less adventure material. (Whether that trade-off would be worth it is an interesting question, of course...)



Is it efficient though? In my view, it’s bloated to fill page count. Is anything meaningful or integral added to curse of strahd vs the original i6 Ravenloft?


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 14, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Is it efficient though? In my view, it’s bloated to fill page count. Is anything meaningful or integral added to curse of strahd vs the original i6 Ravenloft?



The point is to turn it into a sandbox. We know that to some players "sandbox" is all important. But sandbox is also inherently inefficient, requiring lots of content that players will never see.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Apr 14, 2021)

delericho said:


> I get the sense that many modern adventures are presented as stories to be read, rather than as adventures to be run.



Campaign settings, supplements and sourcebooks I used to read all the time when I was younger and playing alot more than nowadays.  I was never one to read adventures though unless I planned to run it.  If WotC is writing adventures to be read I find that odd, though I do know people that do read adventures just for pleasure.  


delericho said:


> I have way more adventures on the shelf than I'll ever run.



Guilty as well.


delericho said:


> Regarding the format, I agree that the 250ish page hardback is bad for running the thing. But it does have one great virtue: that's probably the most efficient way to present that material - if it were a series of softcovers, or a boxed set, or whatever, and you're probably paying a higher price point for less adventure material. (Whether that trade-off would be worth it is an interesting question, of course...)



I bought DotMM and read maybe the first couple of chapters and spent a good 6-8 hours the day before and the day of our game fleshing out the first section of rooms after the entry well.  I had to block off parts of the dungeon just so I didnt bite off more than I could handle at once.  That was mostly because I spent so much time filling in the details in what I considered a pretty lack luster adventure.  After the first session I put the book on the shelf and just started creating my own room descriptions.  Perhaps a hardback is the most efficient way to present material from an economic or quantity of info standpoint but as we have both said its not good for running a game session. That was the first and last time I ran a WotC 5E hardback.  I would certainly pay more for a few soft covers or a box set, but even those had their own shortcomings too, so nothings perfect.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 14, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> The point is to turn it into a sandbox. We know that to some players "sandbox" is all important. But sandbox is also inherently inefficient, requiring lots of content that players will never see.



You might want to check the other thread on how to do sandboxes. They are far from inefficient and can be really easy to prep for.

And as an aside, the original Ravenloft presented a large area that could be sandboxes too. So the hardcover didn’t really introduce that.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 14, 2021)

Of course, those of us that use Virtual Tabletops aren't really having the "hardback module" issue.  

Actually, to be honest, I find running dungeon crawls over VTT FAR superior than face to face.  There's just so many things you can do


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 14, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> You might want to check the other thread on how to do sandboxes. They are far from inefficient and can be really easy to prep for./



Sure, you can always cheat, and have the players encounter the same, or randomly generated, content no matter where they go, but that makes player choice meaningless, and therefore defeats the whole object of running a sandbox adventure.


transmission89 said:


> And as an aside, the original Ravenloft presented a large area that could be sandboxes too. So the hardcover didn’t really introduce that.



Any old random map _could_ be a sandbox, but you still need to fill it with stuff for the players to encounter, which CoS does.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 14, 2021)

delericho said:


> I get the sense that many modern adventures are presented as stories to be read, rather than as adventures to be run. Certainly, I have way more adventures on the shelf than I'll ever run.
> 
> Regarding the format, I agree that the 250ish page hardback is bad for running the thing. But it does have one great virtue: that's probably the most efficient way to present that material - if it were a series of softcovers, or a boxed set, or whatever, and you're probably paying a higher price point for less adventure material. (Whether that trade-off would be worth it is an interesting question, of course...)




If it was a 64 page softcover without the extraneous cruft... compare I6_ Ravenloft_ (not exactly terse itself!) with _Curse of Strahd_. I ran _Princes of the Apocalypse_ and it was a masterwork in putting excessive verbiage in exactly the wrong places, eg endless backstory the PCs can't access, while skimping on actually important stuff especially for the Dessarin valley settlements where the PCs would be spending their non-adventuring time. There's nothing inherent in 5e that necessitates this, it's more a consistent failure to understand what it needed for long term play - Phandalin in the starter sets is also very weak IMO. Compare to eg Hommlet or the Keep in _Keep on the Borderlands_ for counter examples.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 14, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Sure, you can always cheat, and have the players encounter the same, or randomly generated, content no matter where they go, but that makes player choice meaningless, and therefore defeats the whole object of running a sandbox adventure.




No, what you do is create a sparsely detailed map that can be developed in play if the PCs go that way. You are not a computer game programmer or RPG adventure publisher, you don't need to do all the work up front.

You do need to use procedural generation, eg wandering monster tables, but it is a tool that can be used well or misused.

Eg on this map I made recently





Most of the named locations there, including dungeons, are not detailed (a few are); they are designed to spark player interest and GM creativity. If I were publishing it I'd need enough details on Wrath Grotto to make it runnable out of the box, but that's not needed in a home game. But even a publisher can choose whether a big dungeon is 8, 64, or 250 pages.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 14, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Sure, you can always cheat, and have the players encounter the same, or randomly generated, content no matter where they go, but that makes player choice meaningless, and therefore defeats the whole object of running a sandbox adventure.
> 
> Any old random map _could_ be a sandbox, but you still need to fill it with stuff for the players to encounter, which CoS does.



What S’mon said. Plus there are already some encounters on the way to the castle in I6.

Though indeed shame on them for giving a DM space to create rather than detailing everything for them. .

I’ll take those 32 pages and expand on that if I wish, rather than Wade through a massive tome where I can miss information, hacking away stuff that I might deem irrelevant.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Apr 14, 2021)

S'mon said:


> No, what you do is create a sparsely detailed map that can be developed in play if the PCs go that way. You are not a computer game programmer or RPG adventure publisher, you don't need to do all the work up front.
> 
> You do need to use procedural generation, eg wandering monster tables, but it is a tool that can be used well or misused.



I find that I do prep for a specific adventure/area Im planning to run for the next session, and even then thats just an outline with a few possible encounters.  I give the players leeway to go in other directions, make things up on the spot and then in between sessions add more details as needed.  Kind of backwards but saves on uneccessary prepping of details we may never use.  As far as details are concerned I tend to frame things in the broader sense rather than worry about the finer points and let the players use their own imagination to fill those in for themselves.  But I certainly do when its required or I think it will add value to the game.


----------



## EthanSental (Apr 14, 2021)

great article, nicely done.

Nostalgia wise I fondly remember the 32 page adventures, opening one up and reviewing them again, not so much.  3 column type set with some adventures having 1 page of those 3 columns being boxed text background exposition to read to the players...that stuff I’ll pass.  All comes down to personal preference it seems.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 14, 2021)

EthanSental said:


> great article, nicely done.
> 
> Nostalgia wise I fondly remember the 32 page adventures, opening one up and reviewing them again, not so much.  3 column type set with some adventures having 1 page of those 3 columns being boxed text background exposition to read to the players...that stuff I’ll pass.  All comes down to personal preference it seems.



Oh yeah. The presentation can definitely stand improvement (which I think OSE adventures nail). But then, are modern wotc or Paizo adventures much better in this regard?  2 column text with text boxes to read aloud? The only difference is a lot of splashy, full colour art work that it fits around.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 14, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Oh yeah. The presentation can definitely stand improvement (which I think OSE adventures nail). But then, are modern wotc or Paizo adventures much better in this regard?  2 column text with text boxes to read aloud? The only difference is a lot of splashy, full colour art work that it fits around.



I think there is a balance that can be had where we get both efficient, user oriented design for the actual running of the thing at the table, as well as all the cool backstory that gives it context and makes it memorable. But publishers have to spend extra time and effort on that and for WotC at least they have left that to DMsGuild creators. I know that every time I run a published adventure, even on Fantasy grounds, I immediately go to DMsGuild to find the folks that have parsed it already.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 14, 2021)

Reynard said:


> I think there is a balance that can be had where we get both efficient, user oriented design for the actual running of the thing at the table, as well as all the cool backstory that gives it context and makes it memorable. But publishers have to spend extra time and effort on that and for WotC at least they have left that to DMsGuild creators. I know that every time I run a published adventure, even on Fantasy grounds, I immediately go to DMsGuild to find the folks that have parsed it already.



Read Winter’s Daughter module (available in 5e and OSE), then get back to me.
It already has that balance, and WOTC ain’t meeting it. This is by a small outfit as well, not a massive company, so I’m not giving them a break or making allowances for them relying on community good will to do the heavy lifting...


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 14, 2021)

S'mon said:


> No, what you do is create a sparsely detailed map that can be developed in play if the PCs go that way.



You can do that. But then the PCs encounter the same stuff whatever way they go. It's not a sandbox, it a railroad in which the DM puts the rails down just ahead of the players.


S'mon said:


> You are not a computer game programmer or RPG adventure publisher, you don't need to do all the work up front.



Which is why you buy a product like CoS.


S'mon said:


> You do need to use procedural generation, eg wandering monster tables, but it is a tool that can be used well or misused.
> 
> Eg on this map I made recently
> 
> ...



Thing about that map - lots of stuff on it is identical. Why would I choose to go to Ravengard rather than Sanguine? Meaningless choices are meaningless.


----------



## kenada (Apr 14, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Read Winter’s Daughter module (available in 5e and OSE), then get back to me.
> It already has that balance, and WOTC ain’t meeting it. This is by a small outfit as well, not a massive company, so I’m not giving them a break or making allowances for them relying on community good will to do the heavy lifting...



I agree, and as much as I like Necrotic Gnome’s adventures, I don’t think people would want to read them for leisure. I think it was James Jacobs who commented on the Paizo forums years ago that more people run adventures than read them. I assume the same holds true for WotC as well as Paizo adventures. I can understand why they would prioritize readers when adventures are a major source of revenue (even though it makes them more difficult to use in practice). However, even if they were better keyed, I still would not want to run Paizo or WotC adventures again. The key is the least of their problems.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 14, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> You can do that. But then the PCs encounter the same stuff whatever way they go. It's not a sandbox, it a railroad in which the DM puts the rails down just ahead of the players.
> 
> Which is why you buy a product like CoS.
> 
> Thing about that map - lots of stuff on it is identical. Why would I choose to go to Ravengard rather than Sanguine? Meaningless choices are meaningless.



The way in which you use the words railroad and sandbox and meaningless choices suggest they don’t mean what you think they mean...

Those locations are not identical, nor are they meaningless.  Players would want to go there based on rumours they have, or quest leads. The map is just one of the tools to express a sense of space.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 14, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Those locations are not identical, nor are they meaningless.  Players would want to go there based on rumours they have, or quest leads.



If you haven't detailed a location before the players arrive, how can there be leads or rumours about what is there?


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 14, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> If you haven't detailed a location before the players arrive, how can there be leads or rumours about what is there?



Because this is what you put in the prep. In the areas closer to the players, when you make a location, you might write a line. This gives you inspiration for what you want and the ability to seed rumours.
The closer you get, the more detail you flesh out.
This can also be done as hoc in play as well, the players might do or say something that gives you the opportunity to provide a hook to another place.


----------



## Schmoe (Apr 14, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> See, I was tempted earlier to mention Quasqueton from B1 in search of the unknown. I think anyone who is curious about old school dungeon crawls should read this module as I feel it is the archetypal dungeon crawl. It has everything a good dungeon should have.
> 
> Note, it’s not perfect, it does have issues, but it was designed in such a way that it has the things I labelled earlier as good practice. It has variety, it incorporates exploration , it has space, it has interactivity, environmental story telling etc...




It certainly does have all of those elements, although I'd say that there are much better examples.  Quasqueton is a good introductory start for people trying to learn the mechanics of the game, but it's also very bare bones.  The puzzle aspect is particularly sparse and requires a lot of DM input to create some meaning.  

An earlier poster commented that there are two ways to use dungeons.  In one, the dungeon is part of the adventure.  In the other, the dungeon is the adventure.  I really like that construction, as it leads to two very different types of games.  Dungeons are great as an obstacle that stands in the way of a goal, but there's something magical about exploring and conquering a dungeon "just because"*.


* - and for loot, of course


----------



## Schmoe (Apr 14, 2021)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> What is a linear dungeon to people? Is Moria a linear dungeon as it is presented in LotR? After all, there is just the main entrance and the back entrance, and maybe a couple of small secret ways in and out. The Fellowship had the goal of getting from one entrance to the other, regardless of how immensely huge the interior is. Is that linear because they had a goal and a limited amount of time to get through, which prevented them from doing any side exploration?
> 
> But on the main topic, I hope that dungeons that are more like mazes, and which have no theme, with just a bunch of random things in random rooms, and random monsters with no reason to be there or ability to even get out of their rooms, *die and never come back*. Those were alright when I was still a teen and first playing AD&D in the 80's, but I, and most people I played with,* matured past that kind of adventure* as we got older. We want the dungeons to make sense and have an actual purpose for whoever, or whatever, controls them. Now, this is about small to medium-sized dungeons. Mega-dungeons are a unique animal, in that entire sections or levels can have their own theme and purpose and just be loosely connected to the overall location.




I highlighted a couple parts of your post.  I'll just say that I strongly disagree with your characterization.  It's fine that you've decided you don't like that type of game.  However, plenty of people do, and it really has nothing to do with maturity.  

Also, as transmission89 mentioned, Moria is absolutely not a linear dungeon.  It's a mega-dungeon that could take a lifetime to explore.  It just so happens that the company of the ring had a single-minded goal, so they had a single path through to reach their goal.  That's an example of a dungeon as part of an adventure which, honestly, will tend to lead to much more linear experiences.  Go in, find the target, and get out.  You need space in an adventure or campaign for exploration, just as you need space in a dungeon or wilderness.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 14, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Because this is what you put in the prep. In the areas closer to the players, when you make a location, you might write a line. This gives you inspiration for what you want and the ability to seed rumours.
> The closer you get, the more detail you flesh out.
> This can also be done as hoc in play as well, the players might do or say something that gives you the opportunity to provide a hook to another place.



This is what I would call "making it up as you go along", not a sandbox.

In order for something to be a sandbox there needs so be _meaningful_ choices. I.e. If the party decides to do A, then they are deciding _not_ to do B and C. If B and C do not exist you cannot choose not to do them. You cannot have a sandbox without redundancy.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 14, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> This is what I would call "making it up as you go along", not a sandbox.
> 
> In order for something to be a sandbox there needs so be _meaningful_ choices. I.e. If the party decides to do A, then they are deciding _not_ to do B and C. If B and C do not exist you cannot choose not to do them. You cannot have a sandbox without redundancy.



Again, your use of those words show a startling lack of understanding of those concepts for someone who has such a strong opinion on them.

1) No definition of a sandbox includes explicit mention of meaningful choices anyway. This is because of :
2) Having meaningful choices is not a feature exclusive to sandboxes.
3) B and C do exist in this scenario. Just because they are not fleshed out, does not mean they are empty.
4) Your expectations of a sandbox would preclude a campaign ever getting off the ground with the DM being required to fully detail his entire world before play could even commence.
5) Even were they to just be names on a page, that exists in the same space as in more linear campaigns, nothing really exists until the players experience it. Under your definition, even a more linear campaign would fall under heavy railroad territory because the DM has not fully fleshed everything out yet. Which means you can’t occupy this position A argument.
Position B is  if, as a DM, you have already fleshed everything out fully in a more linear campaign, you have not written a campaign, you have written a story. Which means if you are position B, you have become the thing you’ve railed against.


----------



## dave2008 (Apr 14, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Does 5E even have the procedures for a dungeoncrawl?



I am not sure what this means.  Did any edition of D&D have procedures for a dungeoncrawl?  We play dungeons in 5e just like we did in 1e and 4e.  What procedures do you mean?


----------



## Reynard (Apr 14, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> This is what I would call "making it up as you go along", not a sandbox.
> 
> In order for something to be a sandbox there needs so be _meaningful_ choices. I.e. If the party decides to do A, then they are deciding _not_ to do B and C. If B and C do not exist you cannot choose not to do them. You cannot have a sandbox without redundancy.



I think in this scenario, B and C exist, they just aren't necessarily fleshed out. That's the job of the improvisational GM. And maybe B and C (and all the way to Z) exist as possibilities on a random encounter chart. Just because they aren't certain doesn't mean they don't exist.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 14, 2021)

dave2008 said:


> I am not sure what this means.  Did any edition of D&D have procedures for a dungeoncrawl?  We play dungeons in 5e just like we did in 1e and 4e.  What procedures do you mean?



Yes they did. Check out od&d, and b/x (or ose in modern form) for the explicit layout of these procedures   If you’ve played the same way since 1e, you’ve more than likely just internalised them.


----------



## dave2008 (Apr 14, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> This is what I would call "making it up as you go along", not a sandbox.
> 
> In order for something to be a sandbox there needs so be _meaningful_ choices. I.e. If the party decides to do A, then they are deciding _not_ to do B and C. If B and C do not exist you cannot choose not to do them. You cannot have a sandbox without redundancy.



I don't agree with this.  IMO, a sandbox just allows the PCs to go where they want.  It is about agency, not how meaningful the choice is.


----------



## dave2008 (Apr 14, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Yes they did. Check out od&d, and b/x (or ose in modern form) for the explicit layout of these procedures   If you’ve played the same way since 1e, you’ve more than likely just internalised them.



I played a 1e/BECMI hybrid back in the day (we didn't realize they were different games).  I've looked through the BECMI stuff fairly recently (not specifically for this information though), but I don't recall any mechanics or rules that were specific to dungeon crawls.  Care to throw me a hint?


----------



## pogre (Apr 14, 2021)

Sunsword said:


> Respectfully, I don't think dungeons have fallen out of fashion at all. For 5E there are Princes of the Apocalypse, the Underdark in Out of the Abyss, Tales from the Yawning Portal, Tomb of Annihilation, Dungeon of the Mad Mage. In the OSR there are tons and tons of dungeons, plus older D&D products from the D&D classics.



Exactly what I came here to say. Dungeons are still a big source of excitement for a lot of people. Dungeons in published materials have gotten bigger, not smaller overall.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 14, 2021)

dave2008 said:


> I don't agree with this.  IMO, a sandbox just allows the PCs to go where they want.  It is about agency, not how meaningful the choice is.



A railroad allows PCs to go where they want. It's just that the same stuff happens no matter where they go. You can't have agency without meaningful choices.

A sandbox world has an independent existence outside of the actions of the players. If the players don't do quest X next time they pass that way they my find some other group of adventurers have done it. Or the bandits have sacked the village and moved on to threaten the next village.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 14, 2021)

dave2008 said:


> I played a 1e/BECMI hybrid back in the day (we didn't realize they were different games).  I've looked through the BECMI stuff fairly recently (not specifically for this information though), but I don't recall any mechanics or rules that were specific to dungeon crawls.  Care to throw me a hint?



This lists the sequence of play most clearly:





						Dungeon Adventuring - OSE SRD
					






					oldschoolessentials.necroticgnome.com
				




Like I said, if you’re an old hand, you’d have internalised this framework. But imagine being a complete novice, cracking open the dmg today. It provides nothing. No explanation. So you buy an adventure, it lists monsters in rooms, that’s pretty much it. I’d guarantee a large part of DMs troubles with modern dungeons are because of this.


----------



## kenada (Apr 14, 2021)

dave2008 said:


> I played a 1e/BECMI hybrid back in the day (we didn't realize they were different games).  I've looked through the BECMI stuff fairly recently (not specifically for this information though), but I don't recall any mechanics or rules that were specific to dungeon crawls.  Care to throw me a hint?



I don’t have a copy of BECMI or Rules Cyclopedia, but I do B/X. The description of dungeon adventuring starts on B18. The procedure itself is listed on B23. You can see the OSE rendition online here in the SRD.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 14, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> You can do that. But then the PCs encounter the same stuff whatever way they go. It's not a sandbox, it a railroad in which the DM puts the rails down just ahead of the players.
> 
> Which is why you buy a product like CoS.
> 
> Thing about that map - lots of stuff on it is identical. Why would I choose to go to Ravengard rather than Sanguine? Meaningless choices are meaningless.



Wow, you're not easy to please!

No they don't encounter the same stuff wherever they go. I don't understand why you would think that.

Ravenguard is a border castle defending the Impilturan approach to Ravensburg city. Sanguine is a village on the Trade Road (with an iffy traveller's Inn). You can see just from the map that they're not the same.


----------



## dave2008 (Apr 14, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> A railroad allows PCs to go where they want. It's just that the same stuff happens no matter where they go. You can't have agency without meaningful choices.
> 
> A sandbox world has an independent existence outside of the actions of the players. If the players don't do quest X next time they pass that way they my find some other group of adventurers have done it. Or the bandits have sacked the village and moved on to threaten the next village.



I don't disagree with what you say, I guess it comes down to what is considered a "meaningful choice." If the outcome is the same, but the journey to get there is different, was it a meaningful choice?


----------



## S'mon (Apr 14, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> If you haven't detailed a location before the players arrive, how can there be leads or rumours about what is there?




Sanguine actually is the location of a Kobold Press adventure. Ravenguard, I have the ruler (I think it's a female Castellan) named, pic, Knight stats. More than that I can see it's important to the security of Ravensburg & Carmathan vs the bordering kingdom of Impiltur, so although it's a small mountain keep it will be well defended. I have plenty to riff off if the PCs go there.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 14, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> *A railroad allows PCs to go where they want*. It's just that the same stuff happens no matter where they go. You can't have agency without meaningful choices.



I guess you've never encountered a real railroad adventure/campaign. You're talking about Illusionism, the 'Quantum Ogre'.


----------



## dave2008 (Apr 14, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> This lists the sequence of play most clearly:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






kenada said:


> I don’t have a copy of BECMI or Rules Cyclopedia, but I do B/X. The description of dungeon adventuring starts on B18. The procedure itself is listed on B23. You can see the OSE rendition online here in the SRD.




Ok, not rules - just a description of how to DM things.  Then I agree with @transmission89 , these are things we just do and have done for a long time.  As such, you can just do them in 5e as well. To be honest, I haven't read the 5e DMG front to back (I just skip to the parts that are edition specific), so I didn't even realize there was no advice similar to this.


----------



## dave2008 (Apr 14, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> If you haven't detailed a location before the players arrive, how can there be leads or rumours about what is there?



Easy solution: don't detail any locations.  That is how I started doing things in 4e, just improvise everything and keep notes and adjust on the fly. that makes everything feel the same to the players. What I found is if you have something detailed, and then PCs go outside that area and you have nothing, the player's notice. But if everything is the same level of prep it feels the same to the players. It has made me a better DM and made our games more interesting I think.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 14, 2021)

S'mon said:


> Sanguine actually is the location of a Kobold Press adventure. Ravenguard, I have the ruler (I think it's a female Castellan) named, pic, Knight stats. More than that I can see it's important to the security of Ravensburg & Carmathan vs the bordering kingdom of Impiltur, so although it's a small mountain keep it will be well defended. I have plenty to riff off if the PCs go there.



In which case the work has been done, just like Barovia in CoS. Using 3rd party stuff is generally the best way to flesh out a sandbox, not just because of workload, but because if it's all by the same author it gets predictable.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 14, 2021)

dave2008 said:


> Ok, not rules - just a description of how to DM things.  Then I agree with @transmission89 , these are things we just do and have done for a long time.  As such, you can just do them in 5e as well. To be honest, I haven't read the 5e DMG front to back (I just skip to the parts that are edition specific), so I didn't even realize there was no advice similar to this.



But that’s the point, these procedures (or rules) can be done in 5e. I’m not arguing they can’t be.

I’m pointing out that this is why I guess perceptions have changed because they are missing from later editions. Which means, if you are a new entrant, you don’t know, understand or realise this is the way it’s “supposed” to work. Which is why the game morphed...


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 14, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> In which case the work has been done, just like Barovia in CoS. Using 3rd party stuff is generally the best way to flesh out a sandbox, not just because of workload, but because if it's all by the same author it gets predictable.



. This is back to the original point. Because it’s in a dense book, it gets difficult to parse out and cut the cruft or keep what you like. Which obviates the “ease” of using said material instead of creating stuff yourself anyway. The slim modules allowed for an easier grasp of the overall picture, as well as giving you space for your own stuff.

This is just reliance on pre created content (which fair enough if you don’t have the time), it doesn’t necessarily make anything more meaningful than your home creations just because it’s in print...


----------



## S'mon (Apr 14, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> In which case the work has been done, just like Barovia in CoS. Using 3rd party stuff is generally the best way to flesh out a sandbox, not just because of workload, but because if it's all by the same author it gets predictable.



The necessary work has been done - but for Ravenguard I've just spent more time typing about it here than I ever did prepping it. It's the idea that sandboxing requires a ton of laborious prep work that I disagree with.

I definitely agree re using published material to flesh out sandbox, along with GM's own ideas.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 14, 2021)

S'mon said:


> I guess you've never encountered a real railroad adventure/campaign. You're talking about Illusionism, the 'Quantum Ogre'.



As an aside, the Matt Colville's most recent Running The Game video talks about this quite a bit and it worth the time for anyone thinking about the differences between player choice and player agency.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 14, 2021)

S'mon said:


> It's the idea that sandboxing requires a ton of laborious prep work that I disagree with.



The work has still been done. It's just been done by someone who isn't you.

If you employ a cleaner does it make cleaning less laborious?


----------



## kenada (Apr 14, 2021)

dave2008 said:


> Ok, not rules - just a description of how to DM things.  Then I agree with @transmission89 , these are things we just do and have done for a long time.  As such, you can just do them in 5e as well. To be honest, I haven't read the 5e DMG front to back (I just skip to the parts that are edition specific), so I didn't even realize there was no advice similar to this.



I wouldn’t consider them _just_ advice. That sells them short. Procedures are important to reinforcing and supporting an intended style of play. If you disregard the procedures in basic D&D, the game gets much more dangerous. The dungeoncrawl stops working because the consequences for making a mistake go from failure (possibly including some PCs deaths) to total party kill. After all, if we can’t trust the procedures, then nothing stops the GM from ganking the PCs or preventing their escape.

Obviously, people wanted to do things other than crawl dungeons for treasure. That’s how we ended up with generous death rules and other changes to mitigate the problems that occur when you dispense with the procedures. If 5e had really wanted to be the modular edition, it would have supported pluggable procedures, so you can do a dungeoncrawl or epic fantasy or whatever, and the game’s mechanics would support and reinforce that.


----------



## iserith (Apr 14, 2021)

kenada said:


> I wouldn’t consider them _just_ advice. That sells them short. Procedures are important to reinforcing and supporting an intended style of play. If you disregard the procedures in basic D&D, the game gets much more dangerous. The dungeoncrawl stops working because the consequences for making a mistake go from failure (possibly including some PCs deaths) to total party kill. After all, if we can’t trust the procedures, then nothing stops the GM from ganking the PCs or preventing their escape.
> 
> Obviously, people wanted to do things other than crawl dungeons for treasure. That’s how we ended up with generous death rules and other changes to mitigate the problems that occur when you dispense with the procedures. If 5e had really wanted to be the modular edition, it would have supported pluggable procedures, so you can do a dungeoncrawl or epic fantasy or whatever, and the game’s mechanics would support and reinforce that.



Right. D&D 5e requires a bit of hacking to make it work well for dungeon crawling. The rules are sort of there, but not really, and what rules they do have are spread all over the place. I had to tighten them up a bit in the area of exploration tasks relative to time and wandering monster checks, but did not want them as tight as Basic (or OSE, which is a game I'm a player in now). I find the procedure in OSE, for example, to be kind of boring and repetitive, whereas I don't experience that in my D&D 5e game procedure (which some of my players who also DM use now). That said, I'm somewhat new to OSE, so I don't want to completely trash it. Perhaps with more experience I'll notice something that I don't. For now it's a bit too much in the "other direction" for my taste.


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 14, 2021)

iserith said:


> Right. D&D 5e requires a bit of hacking to make it work well for dungeon crawling. The rules are sort of there, but not really, and what rules they do have are spread all over the place. I had to tighten them up a bit in the area of exploration tasks relative to time and wandering monster checks, but did not want them as tight as Basic (or OSE, which is a game I'm a player in now). I find the procedure in OSE, for example, to be kind of boring and repetitive, whereas I don't experience that in my D&D 5e game procedure (which some of my players who also DM use now). That said, I'm somewhat new to OSE, so I don't want to completely trash it. Perhaps with more experience I'll notice something that I don't. For now it's a bit too much in the "other direction" for my taste.



Can I ask what procedures you do use for dungeoncrawling in 5E?


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 14, 2021)

iserith said:


> Right. D&D 5e requires a bit of hacking to make it work well for dungeon crawling. The rules are sort of there, but not really, and what rules they do have are spread all over the place. I had to tighten them up a bit in the area of exploration tasks relative to time and wandering monster checks, but did not want them as tight as Basic (or OSE, which is a game I'm a player in now). I find the procedure in OSE, for example, to be kind of boring and repetitive, whereas I don't experience that in my D&D 5e game procedure (which some of my players who also DM use now). That said, I'm somewhat new to OSE, so I don't want to completely trash it. Perhaps with more experience I'll notice something that I don't. For now it's a bit too much in the "other direction" for my taste.



And that’s perfectly valid. B/X is more “game like” in its structure. That might not appeal to all and like most things B/X, is easy to hack and modify to taste.


----------



## delericho (Apr 14, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Perhaps a hardback is the most efficient way to present material from an economic or quantity of info standpoint but...




Yep, I very much meant only from a quantity of info standpoint!



transmission89 said:


> Is it efficient though? In my view, it’s bloated to fill page count. Is anything meaningful or integral added to curse of strahd vs the original i6 Ravenloft?





transmission89 said:


> If it was a 64 page softcover without the extraneous cruft... compare I6_ Ravenloft_ (not exactly terse itself!) with _Curse of Strahd_.




I certainly agree about the comparison between the original Ravenloft and CoS. Indeed, somewhere on the site there is probably a review I did of CoS that highlighted exactly that bloat as a weakness.

However, we should be wary of reading too much into the comparison. The original Ravenloft is a genuine classic, but it shares its format with such adventures as "The Forest Oracle" and "Quagmire!" which, being charitable, are not.

I would suggest therefore that simply changing the format probably wouldn't change the average quality of the offering. And given a choice between spending $50 on a 250-page hardback of mostly-mediocre material that I can spin out into a year of gaming, or spending $75* on a boxed set of mostly-mediocre material that I can spin out into nine months of gaming, I'd probably take the hardback.

* $75 is, of course, just a guess. Though, in the UK at least, it's probably going to be on the low side - boxed sets, being games, suffer from import duties and other taxes that books are exempt from.


----------



## iserith (Apr 14, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Can I ask what procedures you do use for dungeoncrawling in 5E?



Basically I differentiate between "traveling" and "exploring." Traveling is moving around the dungeon and, unless other stated, you are alert to dangers. Marching order matters for noticing traps or hidden monsters at the front of the party. Passive Perception applies when there's uncertainty and a meaningful consequence for failure. Speed and distance travelled is mostly estimated, not as rigorously tracked as OSE. I tack on an extra 10 minutes and possibly a wandering monster check when it seems like they've travelled about that long/far. 

When the players decide they want to have the characters stop to explore an area, then we go into "exploration mode." The players all state what tasks they want to accomplish in the given area (about 1000 square feet) - find traps, search for secret doors, pick a lock, loot, keep watch, etc. - and we resolve those over the course of 10 minutes of in-game time. I then roll for a wandering monster (or possibly it ticks toward the time when I will do so, if on hourly timer, and/or it gets closer to some other deadline/time constraint). Anyone who wasn't keeping watch is automatically surprised if the monster is a stealthy one. (Not all monsters are, but I make it a point to include some percentage of the wandering monster table that are.)

That exploration process plays out until the PCs move on. Notably, this process doesn't "feel" like a process in game because naturally I'm describing the environment and the players are describing what they want to do followed by my narration of the results at which point I loop back around to describing any changes in the environment. And so on.

Mostly this procedure is meant to make sure that there are meaningful choices to be had within the core resolution framework and that spotlight sharing is maintained while also creating tension with time and potential conflicts. I also find that if you do this in the context of wandering monsters never having treasure and/or monsters not being worth XP, it increases the incentive to take precautions or be more strategic about how they engage in these tasks.


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 14, 2021)

iserith said:


> Basically I differentiate between "traveling" and "exploring." Traveling is moving around the dungeon and, unless other stated, you are alert to dangers. Marching order matters for noticing traps or hidden monsters at the front of the party. Passive Perception applies when there's uncertainty and a meaningful consequence for failure. Speed and distance travelled is mostly estimated, not as rigorously tracked as OSE. I tack on an extra 10 minutes and possibly a wandering monster check when it seems like they've travelled about that long/far.
> 
> When the players decide they want to have the characters stop to explore an area, then we go into "exploration mode." The players all state what tasks they want to accomplish in the given area (about 1000 square feet) - find traps, search for secret doors, pick a lock, loot, keep watch, etc. - and we resolve those over the course of 10 minutes of in-game time. I then roll for a wandering monster (or possibly it ticks toward the time when I will do so, if on hourly timer, and/or it gets closer to some other deadline/time constraint). Anyone who wasn't keeping watch is automatically surprised if the monster is a stealthy one. (Not all monsters are, but I make it a point to include some percentage of the wandering monster table that are.)
> 
> ...



That sounds cool, but it doesn't sound drastically different than earlier procedures. Unless you're reading out the steps of the old-school procedures when you run them, you could (and as far as my experience, most people did) run the procedures much as you describe. Now we have terms like "fiction first" or "immersion" to give the game the feel of a living, breathing world, but a lot of people were doing that long before the terms appeared. 

I bolded the bit above to point out that the same can be (and often was) done with the old-school procedures.


----------



## iserith (Apr 14, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> That sounds cool, but it doesn't sound drastically different than earlier procedures. Unless you're reading out the steps of the old-school procedures when you run them, you could (and as far as my experience, most people did) run the procedures much as you describe. Now we have terms like "fiction first" or "immersion" to give the game the feel of a living, breathing world, but a lot of people were doing that long before the terms appeared.
> 
> I bolded the bit above to point out that the same can be (and often was) done with the old-school procedures.



Yes, they are not dissimilar, but what stands out to me with my experience with OSE is that the resolution framework is much more consistent in D&D 5e and that makes a difference in my view. With OSE, various tasks are resolved in different ways and it's just kind of a mess comparatively.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 14, 2021)

Paul Farquhar said:


> The work has still been done. It's just been done by someone who isn't you.
> 
> If you employ a cleaner does it make cleaning less laborious?



Most of the material in my current game I make myself. But it's fractal - until the players take an interest there is just a base seed, from which I can grow as much detail as desired.


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 14, 2021)

iserith said:


> Yes, they are not dissimilar, but what stands out to me with my experience with OSE is that the resolution framework is much more consistent in D&D 5e and that makes a difference in my view. With OSE, various tasks are resolved in different ways and it's just kind of a mess comparatively.



Sure. But we're talking about the procedures of dungeoncrawling, not how something like picking a lock or searching for traps is resolved. I get that they feel differently when it's a 1-in-6 vs a roll under % vs a skill check, not saying they feel the same at all, but that isn't the procedure for moving through a dungeon. 

Things like having 60 10-second rounds in a 10-minute turn. And the Order of Events in One Game Turn, the eight step process for tracking time and movement in a dungeoncrawl from B/X. Detailing what can be done in a round vs what takes a turn. You commented that this approach was too rigid for you so I asked what you did instead. It sounds like you do basically the same thing only you're a bit looser with time and you focus on description and keeping the game focused on the characters and what's happening around them instead of dryly running through a list of procedures. 

Keeping things immersive vs dryly running through a procedure is a DM style thing, not a problem with the procedures themselves.


----------



## kenada (Apr 14, 2021)

iserith said:


> Basically I differentiate between "traveling" and "exploring." Traveling is moving around the dungeon and, unless other stated, you are alert to dangers. Marching order matters for noticing traps or hidden monsters at the front of the party. Passive Perception applies when there's uncertainty and a meaningful consequence for failure. Speed and distance travelled is mostly estimated, not as rigorously tracked as OSE. I tack on an extra 10 minutes and possibly a wandering monster check when it seems like they've travelled about that long/far.
> 
> When the players decide they want to have the characters stop to explore an area, then we go into "exploration mode." The players all state what tasks they want to accomplish in the given area (about 1000 square feet) - find traps, search for secret doors, pick a lock, loot, keep watch, etc. - and we resolve those over the course of 10 minutes of in-game time. I then roll for a wandering monster (or possibly it ticks toward the time when I will do so, if on hourly timer, and/or it gets closer to some other deadline/time constraint). Anyone who wasn't keeping watch is automatically surprised if the monster is a stealthy one. (Not all monsters are, but I make it a point to include some percentage of the wandering monster table that are.)
> 
> ...



What you’re doing in 5e also works in OSE, but the GM has to be the one doing it. I used a variant of OSE’s dungeon exploration procedure when I ran PF2. When we first started playing online, I tried to be very rigid about handling turns. It was terrible. What ended up working for us was using the natural back and forth to delineate turns. If the PCs needed to travel a longer distance than a turn would allow, I just montaged them together (like I did wilderness travel).

We did have some growing pains switching to OSE (mostly VTT-induced), but the approach I used in PF2 worked there every including the need to rest. When it’s time for that, I work work it that into the narration and ask them if they wanted to take a break (usually yes, but sometimes they want to press on towards a goal). I also track all resources (except ammunition) myself using a simple exploration tracker sheet I put together. It’s really tedious for players to have to check that stuff off every turn, and it’s easy enough for me to tell them what they consumed during downtime.


----------



## iserith (Apr 14, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Sure. But we're talking about the procedures of dungeoncrawling, not how something like picking a lock or searching for traps is resolved. I get that they feel differently when it's a 1-in-6 vs a roll under % vs a skill check, not saying they feel the same at all, but that isn't the procedure for moving through a dungeon.



I don't see how one can really separate these things from an experiential point of view. The mechanics used to resolve the tasks, if any, are part of the procedure. D&D 5e's core resolution mechanic is just smoother than OSE with all of its various dice and tables. So while the procedure I use for D&D 5e dungeon crawling is similar, the experience is different as a result of the resolution mechanics.


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 14, 2021)

iserith said:


> I don't see how one can really separate these things from an experiential point of view. The mechanics used to resolve the tasks, if any, are part of the procedure. D&D 5e's core resolution mechanic is just smoother than OSE with all of its various dice and tables. So while the procedure I use for D&D 5e dungeon crawling is similar, the experience is different as a result of the resolution mechanics.



They're part of the procedure for you, but the identical procedure could be used with a different resolution mechanic, say in a B/X game, for example. Likewise, the B/X procedure could be used in a 5E game. So while your experience of them is informed by both the _procedure_ and the _resolution mechanic_, they're clearly not the same thing and are separable.


----------



## jmartkdr2 (Apr 14, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Yes, heaven forfend a DM must do more than simply read and blindly carry out what is in an adventure without thought.



Necro'ing this point, but: if I'm paying $30 or whatever for someone to do some of the prep work for me, it should reduce the amount of prep work I need to do. If It takes 6 hours to figure out what the book contains well enough to use it - that's not really better than just making it up myself. Possibly worse.

Which is probably more a stab at how the books are laid out than the idea of using published adventures, though.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 14, 2021)

jmartkdr2 said:


> Necro'ing this point, but: if I'm paying $30 or whatever for someone to do some of the prep work for me, it should reduce the amount of prep work I need to do. If It takes 6 hours to figure out what the book contains well enough to use it - that's not really better than just making it up myself. Possibly worse.
> 
> Which is probably more a stab at how the books are laid out than the idea of using published adventures, though.



But you aren't paying someone to do the prep work. You are paying someone to design the adventure, the story around it, draw the maps and so on. Most of those things are necessary to some degree or another for you to do the prep work, but they aren't themselves the prep work. The reason it is often more work to prep a pre-written adventure is because you don't already hold the context in your head. You have to discover the context and then prep it. When you create your own adventures, you already hold the context in your head.

Add to this the fact that you are not only trying to get the context into your head, to do so you first have to parse how the originator of the context decided to present it (often for the purpose of it being entertaining in and of itself). That adventures are mean to be "read and enjoyed" means that context is often obfuscated by prose and unnecessary detail compared to adventures created in an earlier era. So yes, while it is about presentation, it is equally about the creative intent from inception.

The best "old" adventures presented a bunch of context (background, etc...) separately, followed by a list of what was where in the adventure locale. They weren't trying to entertain the reader, they were trying to provide the GM with the information necessary in order to entertain the players.


----------



## iserith (Apr 14, 2021)

Reynard said:


> But you aren't paying someone to do the prep work. You are paying someone to design the adventure, the story around it, draw the maps and so on. Most of those things are necessary to some degree or another for you to do the prep work, but they aren't themselves the prep work. The reason it is often more work to prep a pre-written adventure is because you don't already hold the context in your head. You have to discover the context and then prep it. When you create your own adventures, you already hold the context in your head.
> 
> Add to this the fact that you are not only trying to get the context into your head, to do so you first have to parse how the originator of the context decided to present it (often for the purpose of it being entertaining in and of itself). That adventures are mean to be "read and enjoyed" means that context is often obfuscated by prose and unnecessary detail compared to adventures created in an earlier era. So yes, while it is about presentation, it is equally about the creative intent from inception.
> 
> The best "old" adventures presented a bunch of context (background, etc...) separately, followed by a list of what was where in the adventure locale. They weren't trying to entertain the reader, they were trying to provide the GM with the information necessary in order to entertain the players.



I agree with all of this, but I'll say again what I mentioned in another thread recently: WotC's style of organizing adventures falls woefully short of what the OSR community is able to do. They could learn a few lessons from them.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 14, 2021)

iserith said:


> I agree with all of this, but I'll say again what I mentioned in another thread recently: WotC's style of organizing adventures falls woefully short of what the OSR community is able to do. They could learn a few lessons from them.



Can you point me to a really great example of that OSR organization?


----------



## iserith (Apr 14, 2021)

Reynard said:


> Can you point me to a really great example of that OSR organization?



Check out Neverland or Hot Springs Island.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 14, 2021)

Reynard said:


> Can you point me to a really great example of that OSR organization?



Literally any OSE adventure.


----------



## kenada (Apr 14, 2021)

Reynard said:


> Can you point me to a really great example of that OSR organization?



The adventures for OSE by Necrotic Gnome are fantastic. We’re only done _Winter’s Daughter_, but I have the others, and they’re all well-keyed. I’m planning on adding them to my hexcrawl somewhere.


----------



## Schmoe (Apr 15, 2021)

kenada said:


> The adventures for OSE by Necrotic Gnome are fantastic. We’re only done _Winter’s Daughter_, but I have the others, and they’re all well-keyed. I’m planning on adding them to my hexcrawl somewhere.




It turns out there's a good preview of an example encounter key for Winter's Daughter on the Necrotic Gnome website.  It's really good!  It actually acts on a lot of the advice I've read from Justin Alexander's blog about encounter keys.


----------



## kenada (Apr 15, 2021)

Schmoe said:


> It turns out there's a good preview of an example encounter key for Winter's Daughter on the Necrotic Gnome website.  It's really good!



DriveThruRPG also has previews of the updated version (now in color). The other adventures (_The Hole in the Oak_, _The Incandescent Grottoes_, _The Isle of the Plangent Mage_, _The Halls of the Blood King_) also indicate where the monsters are on the maps, which is a nice way of visually depicting adversary rosters.



Schmoe said:


> It actually acts on a lot of the advice I've read from Justin Alexander's blog about encounter keys.



I think that’s an OSR thing. I’ve seen a few other blog posts and some discussion on r/osr about it as well. I agree though. Justin’s advice greatly influenced how I keyed my dungeons, and _Winter’s Daughter_ was like the answer I needed to the last few issues I was trying to iron out.

I have to see these nice keys have spoiled me. I was reading through the orange cover version of _Palace of the Silver Princess_ this evening to see if I can use it somewhere in my hexcrawl. That was rough (but it looks like I’ll be able to after rekeying it and making some changes).


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 15, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Yes, heaven forfend a DM must do more than simply read and blindly carry out what is in an adventure without thought.



If the adventure's written well enough this should be exactly what a DM can do if she wants: the adventure should more or less run itself as written, leaving the DM free to tweak things only to fit the particular campaign.

Alas, very few published adventures achieve this standard.


transmission89 said:


> An Adventure is simply the barest script written in a generic way as the writer cannot account for individual party variation or every conceivable action.



Individual party variation is not in the writer's purview.  

As for accounting for every conceivable action; while hitting every one isn't possible, a well-written adventure should at least try to account for some of the more obvious things, even as simple as NOT writing up the boxed text assuming the PCs will enter from one specific direction when there's four different ways into the room!


transmission89 said:


> They can tell you what’s in a room, but it’s down to the DM to breathe life into his NPCs and dungeon. So no, I wouldn’t give the DM a pass here.
> 
> Now certainly, there could be an argument made that it is incumbent on the adventure to make all the necessary information as accessible as possible to make it easier for our DMs.



Agreed on both of these.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 15, 2021)

Reynard said:


> But you aren't paying someone to do the prep work.



Yes I am.


Reynard said:


> You are paying someone to *design the adventure, the story around it, draw the maps and so on*.



That *is* the prep work, or about 95-99% of it.


Reynard said:


> Most of those things are necessary to some degree or another for you to do the prep work, but they aren't themselves the prep work. The reason it is often more work to prep a pre-written adventure is because you don't already hold the context in your head. You have to discover the context and then prep it.



Other than slotting the adventure into your ongoing campaign (which is IME almost always somewhere between easy and trivially easy) what other prep do you need?


Reynard said:


> The best "old" adventures presented a bunch of context (background, etc...) separately, followed by a list of what was where in the adventure locale. They weren't trying to entertain the reader, they were trying to provide the GM with the information necessary in order to entertain the players.



IMO the best "old" adventures gave the absolute minimum background possible.  When they did, it meant less work for me, as nearly all the written background wouldn't necessarily apply to my campaign and thus I'd have to strip it out anyway.

This was always my biggest issue with Pathfinder adventures.  They did some excellent adventures, other than in a 64-page booklet there'd be 20 pages of adventure mixed in with 44 pages of useless-to-me backstory.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 15, 2021)

The Dungeon Crawl works best if you design it yourself; otherwise I find that "isolated" designs of the type such as my Bottle City, Garden of the Plantmaster, Beyond the Living Room, etc. are good for inclusion and use in pre-existing campaigns as they can be inserted anywhere without intruding much on the base structure of a personally crafted area and its history.  So less backgrounding is needed with this approach while a little shoe-horning suffices.  All three named above are actually huge, detailed set-pieces in one sense, as is Cairn of the Skeleton King where you adventure in a Royal Tomb complex to kill a King who has been necro'd back to un-life.

This is also why Castle Greyhawk, as designed by Gary and myself, may or may not have worked for some or others.  It was built to playtest the rules so it grew fast (we had to playtest/view (in order to describe) level progression and alignment, the latter being one of the reasons I turned Robilar evil, as an aside).  So Cs Greyhawk was thinly described in places, although P. Stormberg (Curator of the Gygax Estate as well as my estate) claims that my levels/areas were more detailed, although by today's standards they would be considered skeletal.  This seminal view of personal use (wherein much was contained in our heads and/or was expanded upon as areas were engaged) worked for us and our players but not for a movement to mass use products.  Fortunately I had (intuitively) ascertained that constructing a dungeon in this manner allowed for isolated areas to manifest (how could they not?) and thus started deigning thematic set pieces (Machine level, Boreal Level, Bottle City,Horsing Around (huge Grecian Mythos) et al); in fact Gary's and my last unfinished  level (we usually did levels separately) is a thematic set piece we contrived for Dragons, a huge affair in our conception.

So is there a rhyme or reason here?  That two mad wizards would construct such an  edifice to test outlier adventurers for their own morbid amusements? Not really.  It is a construct to cover for the need to playtest the game then; and out of which parts could be mined and put into a more "appropriate" context, as far as "appropriate" has any relation with the fantastic.


----------



## TheSword (Apr 15, 2021)

I think there is a lot less tolerance for an adventure based on a dungeon. From what I see now players want more roleplay and more story. We have been spoilt with Pathfinder APs and campaigns like Curse of Strahd. Incidentally Castle Ravenloft was the least engaging part of that campaign!

5 Room dungeons are the ideal for me going forward. For instance where possible I will break dungeons down into separate locations if I can. Undermountain is a thing of the past for me. Though I would like another go at Rappan Athak just for the street cred!


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 15, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I think there is a lot less tolerance for an adventure based on a dungeon. From what I see now players want more roleplay and more story. We have been spoilt with Pathfinder APs and campaigns like Curse of Strahd. Incidentally Castle Ravenloft was the least engaging part of that campaign!
> 
> 5 Room dungeons are the ideal for me going forward. For instance where possible I will break dungeons down into separate locations if I can. Undermountain is a thing of the past for me. Though I would like another go at Rappan Athak just for the street cred!



I think it’s more that people want a mix of play. Some combat, some exploration, some mystery, some interaction. Dungeoncrawls are kind of synonymous with all combat, all the time. There might be a few traps, there might be a few NPCs to interact with...but it’s all combat, all the time otherwise. To me, that’s about the most boring thing you could do with D&D.


----------



## TheSword (Apr 15, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> I think it’s more that people want a mix of play. Some combat, some exploration, some mystery, some interaction. Dungeoncrawls are kind of synonymous with all combat, all the time. There might be a few traps, there might be a few NPCs to interact with...but it’s all combat, all the time otherwise. To me, that’s about the most boring thing you could do with D&D.



Well I think they include a lot of exploration as well. It’s not exploration... Dr Livingston’s style... but it’s exploration nevertheless.

The options for roleplay are just limited. Playing dungeon factions off against one another isn’t really cutting it.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 15, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Well I think they include a lot of exploration as well. It’s not exploration... Dr Livingston’s style... but it’s exploration nevertheless.
> 
> The options for roleplay are just limited. Playing dungeon factions off against one another isn’t really cutting it.



Then you haven't been in the right dungeons


----------



## Reynard (Apr 15, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> I think it’s more that people want a mix of play. Some combat, some exploration, some mystery, some interaction. Dungeoncrawls are kind of synonymous with all combat, all the time. There might be a few traps, there might be a few NPCs to interact with...but it’s all combat, all the time otherwise. To me, that’s about the most boring thing you could do with D&D.



I think this misconception mostly arises from computer game dungeon crawlers (Diablo as well as MMO "raids"), as well as the fact that man of the early well known D&D dungeon modules were designed for tournament play and so had more combat than might otherwise have occurred. When I think of dungeon crawling, I think of exploration first. Sure, you are going to fight some monsters but that's hardly the point of the exercise. (Unless it is and that's what your table wants.)

As it relates to role-playing opportunities, I think a lot of people forget that role-playing between the players is, in fact role-playing and is just as rewarding, if not more, than chatting up the shopkeeper. Moreover, the failure to recognize this belies a problem I think is growing increasingly common and worse in the modern gaming landscape: many players seem to think that the GM is there to serve up entertainment to the players like a TV show or film, instead of facilitating fun for everyone involved. There's just a hint of entitlement in "working factions against each other isn't good enough." Now, everyone has their preferences, but I think complaints of this sort are at least partially a result of the Mercer Effect.


----------



## TheSword (Apr 15, 2021)

Reynard said:


> many players seem to think that the GM is there to serve up entertainment to the players like a TV show or film, instead of facilitating fun for everyone involved. There's just a hint of entitlement in "working factions against each other isn't good enough." Now, everyone has their preferences, but I think complaints of this sort are at least partially a result of the Mercer Effect.



I think the GM is there to serve up entertainment like a RPG.

That involves giving them something to get their teeth into beyond rooms filled with creatures.

Dungeons struggle to deal very well with *events*. As a result of being fixed places, largely waiting for Players to interact with them.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 15, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I think the GM is there to serve up entertainment like a RPG.
> 
> That involves giving them something to get their teeth into beyond rooms filled with creatures.
> 
> Dungeons struggle to deal very well with *events*. As a result of being fixed places, largely waiting for Players to interact with them.



No and No! The GM is not there to serve up entertainment! It is a game with players, one of whom is a GM. It is incumbent upon all players to ensure a good time is had by all. It is not one person's responsibility.

Dungeons deal very well with events. They are supposed to be living, breathing environments that can function quite happily without PCs there. Now, PCs interaction with this ecosystem is what makes the game in play...


----------



## iserith (Apr 15, 2021)

Three easy things to do to reduce the incentive for combat in dungeons (or in general really):

1. Give monsters an agenda or instinct other than "Kill all adventurers."

2. Eliminate experience points for combat challenges. Offer XP for exploration or social challenges only or for treasure on a 1 GP: 1 XP basis.

3. Put treasure behind exploration challenges rather than on monsters to be killed and looted.


----------



## TheSword (Apr 15, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> No and No! The GM is not there to serve up entertainment! It is a game with players, one of whom is a GM. It is incumbent upon all players to ensure a good time is had by all. It is not one person's responsibility.
> 
> Dungeons deal very well with events. They are supposed to be living, breathing environments that can function quite happily without PCs there. Now, PCs interaction with this ecosystem is what makes the game in play...



I didn’t say it was one persons responsibility to ensure a good time is had. I just said the GM serves it up.

Can you evidence your second assertion? Because the big dungeons I’ve seen Rappan Athuk, Slumbering Tsar, Undermountain, Castle Greyhawk etc don’t deal with events at all in a significant way.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 15, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I didn’t say it was one persons responsibility to ensure a good time is had. I just said the GM serves it up.
> 
> Can you evidence your second assertion? Because the big dungeons I’ve seen Rappan Athuk, Slumbering Tsar, Undermountain, Castle Greyhawk etc don’t deal with events at all in a significant way.



Yes, Serves it up. As in to serv, to be a servant.

It would depend on how you define events and view them. Obviously, a written module will generally be static on the pages (though some will discuss patrols etc). The DM's responsibility (for indeed if that is what you were intending to say, a DM has a larger responsibility) is to dynamically create responses and events based on the player's actions, using the adventure as a guide. This isn't something that can be conveyed in a written module as of course, the author has no idea what your players do. Which is why we have DMs and it's not just computer run...


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 15, 2021)

Reynard said:


> I think this misconception mostly arises from computer game dungeon crawlers (Diablo as well as MMO "raids"), as well as the fact that man of the early well known D&D dungeon modules were designed for tournament play and so had more combat than might otherwise have occurred. When I think of dungeon crawling, I think of exploration first. Sure, you are going to fight some monsters but that's hardly the point of the exercise. (Unless it is and that's what your table wants.)



In my case it arises from 37 years of playing D&D. I have yet to play in a dungeoncrawl that wasn't 95% combat. Most dungeons don't have much to explore. They have rooms with monsters. They have hallways with occasional traps, maybe a secret door...that leads to a hidden room...with monsters. There's not much in the way of stuff to explore, unless you count looting bodies as exploration. Which I don't.


Reynard said:


> As it relates to role-playing opportunities, I think a lot of people forget that role-playing between the players is, in fact role-playing and is just as rewarding, if not more, than chatting up the shopkeeper. Moreover, the failure to recognize this belies a problem I think is growing increasingly common and worse in the modern gaming landscape: many players seem to think that the GM is there to serve up entertainment to the players like a TV show or film, instead of facilitating fun for everyone involved.



Yes, role-playing between the PCs is role-playing. Which is why I didn't use that term. I used the term interaction. Because interaction is role-playing between the PCs and NPCs. I don't count telling a goblin how you're going to gut them as really that much interaction.


Reynard said:


> There's just a hint of entitlement in "working factions against each other isn't good enough." Now, everyone has their preferences, but I think complaints of this sort are at least partially a result of the Mercer Effect.



Playing factions off against each other is rather old hat. It's been around since at least, what...B2...B4. That's the first I encountered it. Though they were published in 1980 (B2) and 1982 (B4), I didn't play through those until 1984-1986...ish. Is that really still the best we can do? It has nothing to do with Mercer, it's a nearly 40 year-old trope. It's stale. It's been done. To death. It might have been interesting once, maybe twice. But 40 years on? It's duller than dirt.


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 15, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> No and No! The GM is not there to serve up entertainment! It is a game with players, one of whom is a GM. It is incumbent upon all players to ensure a good time is had by all. It is not one person's responsibility.



That is partially true. It's more true to say that the DM is a player and it's the responsibility of all the players to ensure a good time is had by all...but the DM has a drastically more important role and drastically more responsibility in that equation. To deny that fact is to fail to understand what RPGs are. The work involved to ensure everyone has a good time is not equally shared. The players have to make characters and prep a backstory. The DM has to make or buy content and do all the necessary prep work to run that content. To say the players put in equal work and have equal responsibility is where the entitlement comes in. It sounds like handing out participation trophies for just showing up. Sorry, but saying the DM and players are on equal footing is bollocks.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 15, 2021)

Well, how many plots and subs does one suspect in my Greyhawk Sewers and Catacombs (from BitD), linked to the City, Castle and Outdoor (and even Planar) happenings (and all the associated discovery and RP events transpiring therefrom)?  If you say more than a dozen, you win the golden cookie!  But this also points to my first assertion:  DCs are best when you design them yourself.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 15, 2021)

If the DM says, "You have to go here or do that" then there is no player agency.

If the player says that DMs "must do this or that" for them then there is no DM agency.

If a DM says "You hear this rumor about a golden squid," the player is not obligated to follow up on said rumor.

If the player says, "I want to go there, or send my NPC there, or have my sage research this or that," then the DM is obligated to accommodate these wishes to the extent possible/probable.

The last point infers that the player(s) have direct influence on the world-building arc as instituted through the medium of the all-knowing DM.  The* players + DM* are the central, dynamic and shared system in RPGs.  To what extent can differ wildly.  YMMV.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 15, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> In my case it arises from 37 years of playing D&D. I have yet to play in a dungeoncrawl that wasn't 95% combat. Most dungeons don't have much to explore. They have rooms with monsters. They have hallways with occasional traps, maybe a secret door...that leads to a hidden room...with monsters. There's not much in the way of stuff to explore, unless you count looting bodies as exploration. Which I don't.



Don't you think it is possible you have been playing with DMs that don't do it very well?



overgeeked said:


> Yes, role-playing between the PCs is role-playing. Which is why I didn't use that term. I used the term interaction. Because interaction is role-playing between the PCs and NPCs. I don't count telling a goblin how you're going to gut them as really that much interaction.



How unimaginative.



overgeeked said:


> Playing factions off against each other is rather old hat. It's been around since at least, what...B2...B4. That's the first I encountered it. Though they were published in 1980 (B2) and 1982 (B4), I didn't play through those until 1984-1986...ish. Is that really still the best we can do? It has nothing to do with Mercer, it's a nearly 40 year-old trope. It's stale. It's been done. To death. It might have been interesting once, maybe twice. But 40 years on? It's duller than dirt.



Wait, i thought you said in your experience dungeons were just combat. So how can dealing with factions be a tired old trope.

It sound to me like you just don't like dungeons. That's fine. Everyone has their preferences. But we shouldn't pretend our preferences represent any sort of objective truth.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 15, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I think the GM is there to serve up entertainment like a RPG.
> 
> That involves giving them something to get their teeth into beyond rooms filled with creatures.
> 
> Dungeons struggle to deal very well with *events*. As a result of being fixed places, largely waiting for Players to interact with them.



Dungeons are settings. They are the places where events happen. The events themselves are the plot, the adventure.

Imagine that an evil cult leader was found out and driven out of town (perhaps even by the PCs) and has gone to ground to perform a nasty ritual that will grant him revenge on his enemies. If he completes the ritual, woe to the innocent! The PCs have to find him and stop him before time runs out. Typical adventure plot stuff.

Now put him in the dungeon.


----------



## TheSword (Apr 15, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> Yes, Serves it up. As in to serv, to be a servant.



That’s an odd corollary. I served my parter Sunday roast last weekend but I’m not his servant. 


transmission89 said:


> It would depend on how you define events and view them. Obviously, a written module will generally be static on the pages (though some will discuss patrols etc). The DM's responsibility (for indeed if that is what you were intending to say, a DM has a larger responsibility) is to dynamically create responses and events based on the player's actions, using the adventure as a guide. This isn't something that can be conveyed in a written module as of course, the author has no idea what your players do. Which is why we have DMs and it's not just computer run...



I define an events as interesting occurrences that prompt players to react to them, but continue anyway if they don’t, changing the nature of the events.

They don’t depend on the PCs to interact with them no. So yes they can be written down. See Rime of the Frostmaiden for several such events.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 15, 2021)

TheSword said:


> That’s an odd corollary. I served my parter Sunday roast last weekend but I’m not his servant.
> 
> I define an events as interesting occurrences that prompt players to react to them, but continue anyway if they don’t, changing the nature of the events.
> 
> They don’t depend on the PCs to interact with them no. So yes they can be written down. See Rime of the Frostmaiden for several such events.



But why do you think dungeons don't do events well?


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 15, 2021)

Reynard said:


> Dungeons are settings. They are the places where events happen. The events themselves are the plot, the adventure.
> 
> Imagine that an evil cult leader was found out and driven out of town (perhaps even by the PCs) and has gone to ground to perform a nasty ritual that will grant him revenge on his enemies. If he completes the ritual, woe to the innocent! The PCs have to find him and stop him before time runs out. Typical adventure plot stuff.
> 
> Now put him in the dungeon.



Of course.  If you regard the map I deposited (above) it is just a wide expanse, a locale.  A very large locale.  And there is much happening within it, so much so that it would take possibly 20-30 pages of terse plot summaries just to explain them all and the interrelatedness of some.  There are pieces that one starts with in the City with specific persons (or a person) which then can go back and forth as the "plot thickens," or that could be set-ups, red herrings, the works, so to speak.  What it is not is static.  All encounters have a reason for being there, including some wandering monsters that have made their way into this chaos that others have not dealt with... yet.  But it is related to solid ideas of what is going on above, around and elsewhere, so there's lot to work with.  A good DC requires base campaign info at the very least; failing that many premade adventure designers often revert to "draw your swords"


----------



## delericho (Apr 15, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Dungeoncrawls that are dynamic with varying encounters and possibilities are infinitely more interesting than the kick in the door, kill all the things, repeat variety. Interesting dungeoncrawls almost require a more combat as war, lots of flasks of oil, and 10’ poles approach. Does 5E even have the procedures for a dungeoncrawl?



During the development of 5e there was a fair amount of talk about a modular design, which sadly seemed to fall mostly by the wayside. This is an area where they could have been hugely beneficial - not every campaign really has use for "procedures for a dungeoncrawl" (or wilderness exploration, or detailed overland travel, or...), but some campaigns would find such a thing very useful, for part or all of the time.

So it's kind of a shame that the DMG doesn't have a number of these modules with such things fleshed out in some detail, and with guidance as to when to use them (and, just as importantly, when _not_ to use them!).


----------



## Reynard (Apr 15, 2021)

Rob Kuntz said:


> Of course.  If you regard the map I deposited (above) it is just a wide expanse, a locale.  A very large locale.  And there is much happening within it, so much so that it would take possibly 20-30 pages of terse plot summaries just to explain them all and the interrelatedness of some.  There are pieces that one starts with in the City with specific persons (or a person) which then can go back and forth as the "plot thickens," or that could be set-ups, red herrings, the works, so to speak.  What it is not is static.  All encounters have a reason for being there, including some wandering monsters that have made their way into this chaos that others have not dealt with... yet.  But it is related to solid ideas of what is going on above, around and elsewhere, so there's lot to work with.  A good DC requires base campaign info at the very least; failing that many premade adventure designers often revert to "draw your swords"



Dungeon campaigns are also very player driven by nature. The PCs need motivations and goals in their explorations, and they need to be willing to make forays, do research, search for allies and information, and so on. I can see why some folks think dungeons are just boring combat slogs if no thought is ever put into anything beyond "clear the next room." You don't clear the mega-dungeon, you adventure in it.

What's weird is how that seems to seem novel. No one would ever expect that you would "clear" The Dark Forest. It's perfectly natural that you would go into The Dark Forest and contend with it's strange and malevolent inhabitants in order to recover the Star Crossed Lovers who fled their imperious houses. Certainly no one would expect you kill every thing in the Forest. The dungeon is no different than that mythical wood in this regard, but there is this mistaken yet firmly held belief that it is a place to be wholly and completely conquered.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 15, 2021)

delericho said:


> During the development of 5e there was a fair amount of talk about a modular design, which sadly seemed to fall mostly by the wayside. This is an area where they could have been hugely beneficial - not every campaign really has use for "procedures for a dungeoncrawl" (or wilderness exploration, or detailed overland travel, or...), but some campaigns would find such a thing very useful, for part or all of the time.
> 
> So it's kind of a shame that the DMG doesn't have a number of these modules with such things fleshed out in some detail, and with guidance as to when to use them (and, just as importantly, when _not_ to use them!).



I know they aren't interested in doing a DMG 2, but 5E would really benefit from one, I think -- a whole book focused on optional rules and different procedures and genre/tone/setting specific subsystems.


----------



## TheSword (Apr 15, 2021)

Reynard said:


> But why do you think dungeons don't do events well?



Because I have seen large quantity of published dungeon crawl type adventures and they don’t. Add to those I’ve already mentioned, tomb of annihilation, princes of the apocalypse, shattered star, dungeon of the mad mage, return to the temple of elemental evil, against the giants, lost caverns of tsojcanth. None work well with events. They are sitting there waiting for adventurers to interact with them.

The structure of a dungeon with multiple rooms and corridors between the party and wherever the action is happening, means events become much harder.


----------



## TheSword (Apr 15, 2021)

Reynard said:


> Dungeon campaigns are also very player driven by nature. The PCs need motivations and goals in their explorations, and they need to be willing to make forays, do research, search for allies and information, and so on. I can see why some folks think dungeons are just boring combat slogs if no thought is ever put into anything beyond "clear the next room." You don't clear the mega-dungeon, you adventure in it.
> 
> What's weird is how that seems to seem novel. No one would ever expect that you would "clear" The Dark Forest. It's perfectly natural that you would go into The Dark Forest and contend with it's strange and malevolent inhabitants in order to recover the Star Crossed Lovers who fled their imperious houses. Certainly no one would expect you kill every thing in the Forest. The dungeon is no different than that mythical wood in this regard, but there is this mistaken yet firmly held belief that it is a place to be wholly and completely conquered.



They are fundamentally different structures. Entrances A, B, C etc lead through a progression of rooms containing X, Y, Z. That is very different to an expedition to the Dark Forest or Deadly Desert etc


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Apr 15, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> This isn't something that can be conveyed in a written module as of course, the author has no idea what your players do. Which is why we have DMs and it's not just computer run...



Sure it can be. It's a total cop-out and outright demonstrably wrong to pretend it can't be.

Well-written adventures of the kind you're describing will often have some kind of advice and ideas on reactivity, and indeed, there are plenty that do. I read countless adventures like that in Dungeon, even, for example. There's an incredibly elaborate heist adventure for 4E for example which has a lot of stuff on that and also invents Blades in the Dark before Blades in the Dark did. Or Dragon Mountain, which is a huge dungeon which is entirely built on anticipating that there will be tons of events and reactivity.

The problem is that a lot of dungeons aren't designed with "events" or "reactivity" in mind at all, rather the designer sees them as something largely static, and indeed there are some where pretty much any reactivity will break them or trivialize them.

There are others which work decently - but it's highly variable, and it is something you can write/design for.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 15, 2021)

TheSword said:


> They are fundamentally different structures. Entrances A, B, C etc lead through a progression of rooms containing X, Y, Z. That is very different to an expedition to the Dark Forest or Deadly Desert etc



I think you are making a distinction that doesn't necessarily exist. The Dark Forest has paths and lairs and streams and caves and clearings and so on. It's a dungeon, just not one made of stone.

That said, I shouldn't really be trying to convince you of anything. I see it differently, that's all.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 15, 2021)

Reynard said:


> Dungeon campaigns are also very player driven by nature. The PCs need motivations and goals in their explorations, and they need to be willing to make forays, do research, search for allies and information, and so on. I can see why some folks think dungeons are just boring combat slogs if no thought is ever put into anything beyond "clear the next room." You don't clear the mega-dungeon, you adventure in it.
> 
> What's weird is how that seems to seem novel. No one would ever expect that you would "clear" The Dark Forest. It's perfectly natural that you would go into The Dark Forest and contend with it's strange and malevolent inhabitants in order to recover the Star Crossed Lovers who fled their imperious houses. Certainly no one would expect you kill every thing in the Forest. The dungeon is no different than that mythical wood in this regard, but there is this mistaken yet firmly held belief that it is a place to be wholly and completely conquered.



It's all come down to degree within the kind.  As you correctly assess, there is no difference between the two kinds so what is lacking is degree.  Why?  Answer why? and the riddle is solved though the way forward has been strewn with obstacles.  Perhaps the proclivity of younger RPG generations to take the easy route through combat in such has unintentionally provoked such a reaction.  The good that came from it--learning to engage tactically, group cooperation, matstering the rules for classes, spells, etc,--maybe that had an additional backlash effect?  The way is clear.  Folks like you must continue the battle to clear the air and set things right!    There is also the problem, btw, that a good *published* DC, as you understand it, has to be designed to fit all, and I deem *that* the largest obstacle since each campaign is different.  It would have to be so campaign neutral that additional work would have to be done to graft it; and is that other than a minority view of doing things these days in this plug-n-play, instant gratification-oriented environment? In any case keep designing!


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 15, 2021)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Sure it can be. It's a total cop-out and outright demonstrably wrong to pretend it can't be.
> 
> Well-written adventures of the kind you're describing will often have some kind of advice and ideas on reactivity, and indeed, there are plenty that do. I read countless adventures like that in Dungeon, even, for example. There's an incredibly elaborate heist adventure for 4E for example which has a lot of stuff on that and also invents Blades in the Dark before Blades in the Dark did. Or Dragon Mountain, which is a huge dungeon which is entirely built on anticipating that there will be tons of events and reactivity.
> 
> ...



The full context of that quote snippet: "The DM's responsibility... is to dynamically create responses and events based on the player's actions, using the adventure as a guide. This isn't something that can be conveyed in a written module as of course, the author has no idea what your players do."

Indeed, a well written module will incorporate events and basic reactions, but it can't anticipate every action or chain reaction from your players, which is what I was saying...


----------



## Reynard (Apr 15, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> The full context of that quote snippet: "The DM's responsibility... is to dynamically create responses and events based on the player's actions, using the adventure as a guide. This isn't something that can be conveyed in a written module as of course, the author has no idea what your players do."
> 
> Indeed, a well written module will incorporate events and basic reactions, but it can't anticipate every action or chain reaction from your players, which is what I was saying...



Right. A module says something like, "The Blind Newt morlocks are distrustful of outsiders and consider interloper a threat. They can be bribed by tasty morsels from the surface world, especially wine and sweet rolls, and will trade for such items. They will also accept aid against and provide intelligence on their enemies, the duergar contingent on level 3." And all that gives the DM enough of a sketch of them so that when other events happen-- say my example above about the cult leader fleeing to the dungeon -- the DM can determine how the setting element (the morlocks) interacts with the adventure (stop the ritual). The dungeon designer shouldn't try and anticipate what role the morlocks will play. The designer should give the DM enough information to integrate the morlocks into whatever adventure/events are happening.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 15, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> That is partially true. It's more true to say that the DM is a player and it's the responsibility of all the players to ensure a good time is had by all...but the DM has a drastically more important role and drastically more responsibility in that equation. To deny that fact is to fail to understand what RPGs are. The work involved to ensure everyone has a good time is not equally shared. The players have to make characters and prep a backstory. The DM has to make or buy content and do all the necessary prep work to run that content. To say the players put in equal work and have equal responsibility is where the entitlement comes in. It sounds like handing out participation trophies for just showing up. Sorry, but saying the DM and players are on equal footing is bollocks.



Indeed it is. Good job I never said it!


----------



## Hussar (Apr 15, 2021)

When it comes to addressing the three pillars in a dungeon setting, many DM's seem to think that the three pillars will sort of take care of themselves.  And, they wind up with dungeons that are 90% combat.  

Take exploration.  Ok, fine, you send the rogue forward to scout and "unfog" the map.  But, that's not exploration, or rather, it's extremely basic exploration.  The players have no real choices here.  Faced with a T junction, they can go left or right, but, since they lack any information, either choice is equally valid.

GIVE INFORMATION TO THE PLAYERS.  It's something that many modules lack.  Have prisoners provide two truths and a lie about where things are.  Drop maps.  If the players know that the Macguffin they are looking for is in the north east, near the underground stream, then they have things to look out for and a direction to head.

Same goes for interaction.  Far too many DM's make the NPC's 100% hostile and 100% uncooperative.  I remember a recent adventure where we captured a drow.  We let the drow go, after a bit of interrogation, with the message for her fellows that we were not interested in them, had no real beef with them and please, just stay out of our way and everything will be fine.  The DM then had the Drow immediately attack us on sight, and we wound up having to grind our way through multiple, frankly pointless encounters.  All the while, my character is saying, "We don't want to fight you, just let us through, and we'll be on our way."  To me, this was a perfect opportunity for interaction missed.  ((Honestly, looking back on it, I realize I was out of step with at least half the group who was just there to throw dice and kill stuff, talky bits be damned.))

It's not difficult to balance the three pillars in a dungeon, but, the DM has to be willing to engage with the PC's in ways other than combat.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 16, 2021)

Hussar said:


> When it comes to addressing the three pillars in a dungeon setting, many DM's seem to think that the three pillars will sort of take care of themselves.  And, they wind up with dungeons that are 90% combat.
> 
> Take exploration.  Ok, fine, you send the rogue forward to scout and "unfog" the map.  But, that's not exploration, or rather, it's extremely basic exploration.  The players have no real choices here.  Faced with a T junction, they can go left or right, but, since they lack any information, either choice is equally valid.
> 
> ...



Never trust a Drow that you had to capture in the first place.  Kinda like the Greman prisoner set free in Saving Private Ryan.


----------



## jasper (Apr 16, 2021)

Question to op.
1. Is okay to low crawl through the dungeon, and is still called dungeon crawling if I stand up?
2. Would a tiger crawl be okay?
3. I have bad knees, can I just say I crawling through the dungeon?


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 16, 2021)

Reynard said:


> I think you are making a distinction that doesn't necessarily exist. The Dark Forest has paths and lairs and streams and caves and clearings and so on. It's a dungeon, just not one made of stone.
> 
> That said, I shouldn't really be trying to convince you of anything. I see it differently, that's all.



Unless the characters can walk through walls, they can't pick a random direction and start walking in a dungeon. You can pick a random direction and start walking in a forest or desert. The enclosed nature of the dungeon limits options. It also happens to focus play through those limited options. Which would be great, if those limited options weren't almost always combat focused. There's also the question of what makes sense in a dungeon vs what makes sense in a wilderness. A wandering merchant could make sense in a wilderness, a wandering merchant would be a lot harder to make sense in a dungeon. Monster ecology and all that.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 16, 2021)

jasper said:


> Question to op.
> 1. Is okay to low crawl through the dungeon, and is still called dungeon crawling if I stand up?
> 2. Would a tiger crawl be okay?
> 3. I have bad knees, can I just say I crawling through the dungeon?



DING DING DING
Jasper is the winner of the 3D C contest and has won:
1)  A guided tour of his own basement
2)  A stuffed tiger toy
3) A pair of Nike knee pads

Congrats Jasper!!!


----------



## Reynard (Apr 16, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Unless the characters can walk through walls, they can't pick a random direction and start walking in a dungeon. You can pick a random direction and start walking in a forest or desert. The enclosed nature of the dungeon limits options. It also happens to focus play through those limited options. Which would be great,* if those limited options weren't almost always combat focused.* There's also the question of what makes sense in a dungeon vs what makes sense in a wilderness. A wandering merchant could make sense in a wilderness, a wandering merchant would be a lot harder to make sense in a dungeon. Monster ecology and all that.



Emphasis mine. You keep asserting that, yet multiple people have said repeatedly that isn't necessarily the case.

As to the issue of a merchant in the dungeon: you don't think actors in the dungeon environment need stuff? You don't think there is trade between the factions and important/powerful monsters?

You have a very specific image of a dungeon that seems to be a static environment where monsters wait in rooms to be killed by the PCs. If that is based on your experience, i am going to reiterate that your experience is one of badly designed and/or run dungeons and are not reflective of other peoples' experiences or the potential of dungeons as settings for D&D play.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 16, 2021)

Reynard said:


> Emphasis mine. You keep asserting that, yet multiple people have said repeatedly that isn't necessarily the case.
> 
> As to the issue of a merchant in the dungeon: you don't think actors in the dungeon environment need stuff? You don't think there is trade between the factions and important/powerful monsters?
> 
> You have a very specific image of a dungeon that seems to be a static environment where monsters wait in rooms to be killed by the PCs. If that is based on your experience, i am going to reiterate that your experience is one of badly designed and/or run dungeons and are not reflective of other peoples' experiences or the potential of dungeons as settings for D&D play.



My last post for the night as I head to dreamland here i France.  I do believe that there is a skewed view that exists on the playability of Dungeons and more importantly what they are perceived to be.  This view is a composite of many things, including that Blackmoor, Greyhawk and my Castle El Raja Key were meat-grinders, that this was the philosophy promoted in TSR adventures in large part thereafter (even though there are examples to the contrary, like ToEE), that RA is an overdosed TOH, etc  Most of this has to do with the perception derived from published adventures even though the DC evolved in singular unpublished games beyond these stereotypes and despite the published adventures themselves, the latter which in large part are the only cited sources for the continued negative assumptions about DCs.  IOW the market has been constantly fulfilling a skewed and stereotypical view of something that is improperly sourced (published only examples). "Old Schoolers" of the fanatical variety (like OD&D) do not create to publish but create to play; and thus this huge example of DC evolvement and its history, on the main, is missing from the discourse taking place and instead a repeating circular view is forwarded and rewound time and again.

To this I can only add:  G'Night!


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 16, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Well I think they include a lot of exploration as well. It’s not exploration... Dr Livingston’s style... but it’s exploration nevertheless.
> 
> The options for roleplay are just limited. Playing dungeon factions off against one another isn’t really cutting it.



Boundless opportunities for roleplay are always present in one respect, that being engaging with other members of your own party.

Is, for example, your PC slowly falling in love with the party Cleric?  If so, what are you-as-character going to do about it?  At the same time, is the Fighter trying to make a move on him also?  Instant rivalry!

Just like a soap opera, this stuff can be endless if you want it to be!


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 16, 2021)

Hussar said:


> GIVE INFORMATION TO THE PLAYERS.  It's something that many modules lack.  Have prisoners provide two truths and a lie about where things are.



I would, if the damn players would only have their PCs ask some questions!

I jest - somewhat - in that my lot these days are pretty good about getting info from prisoners and rescuees.  But I've DMed groups that wouldn't think of asking a rescuee for info if someone walked up to them and told them to do it.

For a module, though, to add this in would also probably require adding in suggestions of what those truths and lies might be so as not to leave inexperienced and-or uncreative DMs stuck for answers.  The drawback, of course, is this stuff can get unwieldy to read sometimes, partiuclarly if there's lots of rescuees and-or the party take lots of prisoners.


Hussar said:


> Same goes for interaction.  Far too many DM's make the NPC's 100% hostile and 100% uncooperative.  I remember a recent adventure where we captured a drow.  We let the drow go, after a bit of interrogation, with the message for her fellows that we were not interested in them, had no real beef with them and please, just stay out of our way and everything will be fine.  The DM then had the Drow immediately attack us on sight, and we wound up having to grind our way through multiple, frankly pointless encounters.  All the while, my character is saying, "We don't want to fight you, just let us through, and we'll be on our way."  To me, this was a perfect opportunity for interaction missed.  ((Honestly, looking back on it, I realize I was out of step with at least half the group who was just there to throw dice and kill stuff, talky bits be damned.))



Well, that, and you did in effect merely warn the Drow you were coming... 


Hussar said:


> It's not difficult to balance the three pillars in a dungeon, but, the DM has to be willing to engage with the PC's in ways other than combat.



The players/PCs likewise also have to be willing.  Some are, some aren't.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 16, 2021)

Rob Kuntz said:


> DING DING DING
> Jasper is the winner of the 3D C contest and has won:
> 1)  A guided tour of his own basement
> 2)  A stuffed tiger toy
> ...



I've seen many a dungeon crawl.

I have yet, however, to see one get up and walk....


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 16, 2021)

wicked cool said:


> Call me crazy but I think they should model dungeons after Skyrim dungeons
> 
> Skyrim dungeons are 3-4 things
> 1 - a tomb with a theme. Usually Draugr but sometimes something takes out the draugr and makes it a layer
> ...



And they're shock full of items to loot!


----------



## TheSword (Apr 16, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> Boundless opportunities for roleplay are always present in one respect, that being engaging with other members of your own party.
> 
> Is, for example, your PC slowly falling in love with the party Cleric?  If so, what are you-as-character going to do about it?  At the same time, is the Fighter trying to make a move on him also?  Instant rivalry!
> 
> Just like a soap opera, this stuff can be endless if you want it to be!



Oh no, please god no. This is the worst kind of role playing. It may be an entertaining dalliance to the type of people who enjoy it, but its utterly dismaying to the rest of the party that are subjected to it. Reverse PvP. I’m aware it can be endless, it’s the gaming equivalent of pus.

If given a choice between a soap opera and an adventure story. I’d choose treasure island every time. You can’t just put four people in a box and get treasure island though. The DM has to put some work in.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Apr 16, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Oh no, please god no. This is the worst kind of role playing. It may be an entertaining dalliance to the type of people who enjoy it, but its utterly dismaying to the rest of the party that are subjected to it.



I think that's kind of a wild assumption there. You're thinking of the kind of inept exclusionary stuff that's boring/irritating for everyone not directly part of it, but people who know what they're doing can make that sort of RP non-exclusionary and highly entertaining. I dunno about you, but I've seen both. Some people are just not capable of doing it "right", sure, but others, either they work it out, or they just innately have an instinct that makes it work.

There's not really any clear line between soap opera and adventure story, either, and indeed they're often combined (c.f. everything from Farscape to Romancing the Stone).

Certainly with people who aren't adept at that kind of thing, one definitely wants to go with adventure story, but not everyone is inept in the way you're describing.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 16, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Unless the characters can walk through walls, they can't pick a random direction and start walking in a dungeon. You can pick a random direction and start walking in a forest or desert. The enclosed nature of the dungeon limits options. It also happens to focus play through those limited options. Which would be great, if those limited options weren't almost always combat focused. There's also the question of what makes sense in a dungeon vs what makes sense in a wilderness. A wandering merchant could make sense in a wilderness, a wandering merchant would be a lot harder to make sense in a dungeon. Monster ecology and all that.



And yet, funnily enough, traders were a common random encounter on the tables back in the day.  Caused no end of confusion at my table when, due to noise levels and whatnot, my players couldn't for the life of themselves understand why I announced that they met a group of traitors.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 16, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> /snip
> 
> Well, that, and you did in effect merely warn the Drow you were coming...
> 
> The players/PCs likewise also have to be willing.  Some are, some aren't.



See, but right there, that's a problem.  Number one, we trounced the group that we took prisoners.  To the point where we overwhelmed them without taking any damage.  So, obviously, we were not pushovers.  But, all that does if you treat it as "warning them you're coming" is mean that I would never attempt it again.  We'll just frontally assault everything because trying to avoid confrontation obviously won't work.

It's extremely frustrating from the player's perspective that every plan will catastrophically fail and no matter what, the DM will interpret the situation in the worst possible manner, and then complain about why players treat dungeons as 90% combat.  When the players hand you a plausible (even if it's not particularly great, it's still plausible) plan, let it succeed.  Otherwise, the players just turtle up and treat everything as something to be killed. 

Why bother taking prisoners if every prisoner does nothing but lie, or obfuscate?  If it is never better to take prisoners and it is always worse, then, well, don't expect the players to take prisoners.  And so many players have been taught that lesson by DM's out there that treat information like it's the most precious of resources, only to be doled out in the most dire of circumstances.  

One thing about running online games like I do is that I see a lot of new players over the years.  And that lesson is one that so many players have learned - that the only real solution to anything is to kill stuff.  Otherwise, the DM will simply screw you over and then you have to kill stuff anyway.

So, yeah, I totally get why people think that dungeon crawls are nothing but dice fapping hack fests with zero interaction and virtually no role play.  They are taught that that's how a dungeon crawl should be by DM's who probably learned from other DM's who treat dungeon crawls that way.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 16, 2021)

This is what I know, and what I have derived from this thread (so far):

1)  That early published DCs put combat first for various reasons including through the timed constraints of the RPGA tourney (the latter being aimed at relaying the "correct" interpretation and use of TSR's standardized AD&D rules as well as forming a company sponsored player-contact apparatus).  There was a heavy emphasis by TSR on "redefinition" going on as they went from open rulings in OD&D to standardized rules in later editions, thus there was a need to re-forward what had been changed.

2)  Into this mix were thrown various products such as TOEE that had a main dungeon complex but with an area, a ruined keep and a well defined village with interactions going on amongst the various powers centered upon this area.  This, though delayed in publication for too long, is probably the best example of integrating the "world" to-from the Dungeon and making everything specific and tangible for various play functions. Playtested as far back as 1977, it was published in 1985, way too late, IME, to provide a solid example of how RPG play, according to its author Gary Gygax, had been evolving in our Lake Geneva group (for the concept he penned and playtested in 1977 is a mirror reflection of what I posted above, re Greyhawk Sewers and Catacombs).

3)  That at sometime during all of the above, as @Hussar noted, that the idea of KILL as the main concept manifested despite #2, above.

4)  That this is a skewed perspective driven by lowest common denominator DMs and players who are not representative of a majority of RPGers; and in fact are not even representative of OD&Ders who do not publish their creations but engage them for personal uses only.  This is a big point IMO that I posted above and has gone unresponded to, to my surprise, which keeps the convo as presented locked into examples of the published variety only. This route, IMO, will never reveal the overall truth in the matter and must therefore default to what we know from what has been published BUT not from what has been PLAYED.

5)  That there is need of a re-forwarding of the dimensional aspects of DCs to refute the skewed views that it now labors under.  I would start with something akin to a TOEE construct as a base and drive it home as an example of how to integrate into such areas what players and DMs feel is needed.  Show don't tell.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 16, 2021)

To be fair, there have been some pretty good dungeon crawl adventures for 5e.  Phandelver, which is rock solid, manages to hit all the high points for a beginner adventure  It is something of a shame that it hasn't really seen any expansion since the very early days.  I think this is a well that could be dipped into more than a few times to serve as a template for DM's to develop campaigns.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 16, 2021)

People who adamantly refuse to engage in dungeon exploration as anything more than combat are dismayed that dungeon exploration is nothing more than combat. Weird.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 16, 2021)

Hussar said:


> To be fair, there have been some pretty good dungeon crawl adventures for 5e.  Phandelver, which is rock solid, manages to hit all the high points for a beginner adventure  It is something of a shame that it hasn't really seen any expansion since the very early days.  I think this is a well that could be dipped into more than a few times to serve as a template for DM's to develop campaigns.



Yeah. Just like TOEE it appears to be an isolated and overlooked example.  Perhaps a categorization of all well-rounded DCs is in order?  At least for the sake of establishing some traction with what appears to be a revival.  Though I don't like beating dead horses, I still maintain that the best DCs are those personally created for specific campaign use; and thus the VAST majority of those examples are not in public view because of that.


----------



## TheSword (Apr 16, 2021)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think that's kind of a wild assumption there. You're thinking of the kind of inept exclusionary stuff that's boring/irritating for everyone not directly part of it, but people who know what they're doing can make that sort of RP non-exclusionary and highly entertaining. I dunno about you, but I've seen both. Some people are just not capable of doing it "right", sure, but others, either they work it out, or they just innately have an instinct that makes it work.
> 
> There's not really any clear line between soap opera and adventure story, either, and indeed they're often combined (c.f. everything from Farscape to Romancing the Stone).
> 
> Certainly with people who aren't adept at that kind of thing, one definitely wants to go with adventure story, but not everyone is inept in the way you're describing.



Romance angst isn’t why I roleplay. Watching two players invent a romance also isn’t what I’m interested in seeing.

I think you’re confusing soap opera with romance.


----------



## wicked cool (Apr 16, 2021)

Hussar said:


> To be fair, there have been some pretty good dungeon crawl adventures for 5e.  Phandelver, which is rock solid, manages to hit all the high points for a beginner adventure  It is something of a shame that it hasn't really seen any expansion since the very early days.  I think this is a well that could be dipped into more than a few times to serve as a template for DM's to develop campaigns.



they need to make more of this and stay away from mega dungeons such as barrier peaks. these mega dungeons are great but after a while thye get a little silly.  

Id get the creative team together on the starter set and come up with a new 1
book 1 intro rules
book 2 low level adventure
book 3- a mid level-high level adventure

Go back to the Strahd adventure-theres something in this that just works. The advetnure mostly flows with an interesting villain. Its much easier to run than Rime. Rime has a neat concept but its clear it was overhyped. Same goes with storm things thunder etc. They don't flow like Strahd does and the original starter. They flow like a good narrative should without railroading you. 

Strahd is on its 3rd/4th (if you count ravenloft ) enhanced copy   and they keep adding to it


----------



## Haffrung (Apr 16, 2021)

While I agree that dungeons don’t have to be static locations, and usually aren‘t when they’re being run by an experienced and creative DM, I do have to agree that published dungeons rarely include dynamic events. Other than some notes that faction A is in a struggle with faction B over location X, and the occasional details of how an organized group responds to repeated forays by PCs, dungeon write-ups are largely inert.

I‘d like to see more dynamic situations fleshed out, like the timing of the movements and relocation of monsters, detailed tactics around ambushes and hunting parties, big events that dramatically change the environment or the balance of power, and time-sensitive crisis that the PCs have to respond to. For whatever reason, whether its conservatism or just page count, designers have been reluctant to include that sort of content in published dungeons.

For example, Rappan Athuk has been republished many times, and each time we get more levels and more locations. To the point where nobody is ever going to use even half the content of the latest iteration. But there is still very little explanation of the bad guys, their agenda, tactics, alliances, and movements. All it would take is maybe 7-8 pages to provide some dynamic content and guidance. But instead we get 50 or 60 more rooms to tack into the 1,374 already in the dungeon.


----------



## Haffrung (Apr 16, 2021)

double post


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Apr 16, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Romance angst isn’t why I roleplay. Watching two players invent a romance also isn’t what I’m interested in seeing.
> 
> I think you’re confusing soap opera with romance.



Ok, but you weren't saying "Oh that's fine, I just don't like it!", you were expressing the view that it was automatically bad and hinting that it can be exclusionary - the latter is correct, if it's badly done it totally can be - but if it's not, and it doesn't steal the spotlight, it fits well with adventure. Stealing the spotlight whilst excluding some of the group is the real problem that stuff can have.

Soap opera and romance are intertwined.


----------



## kenada (Apr 16, 2021)

Haffrung said:


> For whatever reason, whether its conservatism or just page count, designers have been reluctant to include that sort of content in published dungeons.



If this thread is any indication, many people want and expect their adventures to be story-driven. In those kinds of adventures, dungeons are a framing device. The difference between a cave and a mansion is one has dungier walls and poorer lighting than the other. Along with those who buy adventures to read them, they’re just giving people what they apparently want.

Anyway, there are still adventures and systems being written and designed for dynamic dungeon play. You’re just not likely to see them coming from WotC or Paizo. Even when they do release a system that has an exploration procedure (like Pathfinder 2e), adventures are still story-driven affairs (for presumably the above reasons).


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 16, 2021)

Well there's a good thing that's come out of this!  It gave me a grand idea for a another dungeon-type complex!  I would have to team with someone conversant in 5E to make it happen.  As the old Star Trek computer would have said, "Working..."


----------



## The-Magic-Sword (Apr 16, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Unless the characters can walk through walls, they can't pick a random direction and start walking in a dungeon. You can pick a random direction and start walking in a forest or desert. The enclosed nature of the dungeon limits options. It also happens to focus play through those limited options. Which would be great, if those limited options weren't almost always combat focused. There's also the question of what makes sense in a dungeon vs what makes sense in a wilderness. A wandering merchant could make sense in a wilderness, a wandering merchant would be a lot harder to make sense in a dungeon. Monster ecology and all that.



I have an outline for a forest dungeon I actually created to teach a new friend of mine about Dungeons, and about how learning to create them is really just learning to structure adventure content in general, as a comparison to the earlier slides which had traditional walled dungeons. In it, I have a mechanic where leaving a trail can allow the party to navigate to the other locations (rooms, basically, although some of them were mini dungeons in their own right) in the forest in a non sequential fashion, but in order to do so, they have to pass survival checks, or end up someplace else, run into tough monsters, and etc (this was a rough outline, so it was just phrased as an example). Its such a small mechanic to add for these 'you can off-road' situations that off-roading is hardly disqualifying for a 'forest' as dungeon scenario.

In my case, it was actually inspired by Mirkwood in _The Hobbit,_ and Gandalf's warning not to go off the trail.

Edit: In fact if anyone is interested, here's the rough and dirty notes for that lesson, the forest is slide 5


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Apr 16, 2021)

Sunsword said:


> Respectfully, I don't think dungeons have fallen out of fashion at all. For 5E there are Princes of the Apocalypse, the Underdark in Out of the Abyss, Tales from the Yawning Portal, Tomb of Annihilation, Dungeon of the Mad Mage. In the OSR there are tons and tons of dungeons, plus older D&D products from the D&D classics.



This here. I think maybe some groups (such as the OP) may have moved away from it, but I actually have found myself leaning hard into dungeon type environments for the last year+ as they are easier to run on Roll20.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Apr 16, 2021)

el-remmen said:


> What is rule format for "the procedures for a dungeon crawl?" (aside from morale, I guess which I only ever used briefly and discarded for just my sense of what kind of behavior makes sense based on what I know about the creatures and context and never seemed unique to dungeon-delving to me)
> 
> I have played every edition of D&D at least once and am having trouble remembering the rules for these "procedures." Exploring dungeons have basically remained the same in my games except for the kinds of dice you roll and what they might be called for the equivalent of perception check or looking for secret doors, etc. . .



D&D 3.5 back in the day had particularly clear (and over abundant) rules for dungeon delving. Pathfinder 2E has a really good section on this as well. 

That said, I actually think D&D 5E also handles it just fine, too, but maybe just a tad more loosely than its predecessors and competitors.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Apr 16, 2021)

Haffrung said:


> While I agree that dungeons don’t have to be static locations, and usually aren‘t when they’re being run by an experienced and creative DM, I do have to agree that published dungeons rarely include dynamic events. Other than some notes that faction A is in a struggle with faction B over location X, and the occasional details of how an organized group responds to repeated forays by PCs, dungeon write-ups are largely inert.
> 
> I‘d like to see more dynamic situations fleshed out, like the timing of the movements and relocation of monsters, detailed tactics around ambushes and hunting parties, big events that dramatically change the environment or the balance of power, and time-sensitive crisis that the PCs have to respond to. For whatever reason, whether its conservatism or just page count, designers have been reluctant to include that sort of content in published dungeons.
> 
> For example, Rappan Athuk has been republished many times, and each time we get more levels and more locations. To the point where nobody is ever going to use even half the content of the latest iteration. But there is still very little explanation of the bad guys, their agenda, tactics, alliances, and movements. All it would take is maybe 7-8 pages to provide some dynamic content and guidance. But instead we get 50 or 60 more rooms to tack into the 1,374 already in the dungeon.




This is both a feature and a bug of dungeons, stemming from the old school approach. For many, the design intent is to lay out the pieces and then let things happen organically in play.....traditionally modules that provided too much outlined exposition tended to not fare as well as those which provided the bare minimum because it would actually hamper gameplay (ime, ymmv). If the module tries to predict player interactions with NPCs too much, it can end up wasting precious space on outlining courses of action that overlook the one thing the module author never predicted but which the players do. If the module provides too much info for the GM on dungeon occupant behavior it makes it harder for the GM to riff on the cuff of the moment. 

Again, YMMV but for me, I often stop and put the module down it it takes more than 1 page to provide some backstory, as that's usually already more info than is ever going to be necessary in actual play. In fact I love the Goodman Games DCC approach as they have a severe economy of design, focusing on just enough info to hint at the dynamics of a dungeon without overwhelming the GM with too much information.

I think the antithesis of this approach can be seen in 4E era dungeons, which were by and large full of carefully scripted and encounter-balanced events, due at least in part to the need for that edition to have to provide battle maps and associated details. Once you're in on laying it all out on maps and minis, it starts to feel like a waste if a fight doesn't happen soon, essentially.


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 16, 2021)

The-Magic-Sword said:


> I have an outline for a forest dungeon I actually created to teach a new friend of mine about Dungeons, and about how learning to create them is really just learning to structure adventure content in general, as a comparison to the earlier slides which had traditional walled dungeons. In it, I have a mechanic where leaving a trail can allow the party to navigate to the other locations (rooms, basically, although some of them were mini dungeons in their own right) in the forest in a non sequential fashion, but in order to do so, they have to pass survival checks, or end up someplace else, run into tough monsters, and etc (this was a rough outline, so it was just phrased as an example). Its such a small mechanic to add for these 'you can off-road' situations that off-roading is hardly disqualifying for a 'forest' as dungeon scenario.
> 
> In my case, it was actually inspired by Mirkwood in _The Hobbit,_ and Gandalf's warning not to go off the trail.
> 
> Edit: In fact if anyone is interested, here's the rough and dirty notes for that lesson, the forest is slide 5



Right. And that looks cool. I understand that "dungeon" and "wilderness" and "town" and "city" are interchangeable in that they all start as blank spots for the DM to put content. That's not my hangup with dungeons. And I understand that getting from one chunk of content can largely be hand-waved and/or trivial (if the DM wants them to be). Again, not my issue with dungeons. Though I'm sure there's an in-depth and enlightening series of Alexandrian blog posts about getting from one bit of content to the next.

With pointcrawls or dungeoncrawls the DM has decided what's where and decided which way you can go, and has typically built in things that hard stop you from doing something else. See my comment above about PCs generally not being able to walk through walls. Though I prefer something like a properly open world wilderness or hexcrawl for the freedom of choice, even that isn't my issue with dungeons. And yes, I'm one of those players and DMs who utterly hates the illusion of choice. If the town is to the east and the party goes to the west...only to discover the same town that's supposed to be to the east...ugh.

And with all due respect to Mr. Kuntz, he's not the one designing the dungeons TSR, Wizards, Paizo, etc have put out over the years. I'm sure his would be better. But that's not the point. The point is, the vast majority of published dungeons focus on almost nothing but combat and are, frankly, crap. I also have zero knowledge of what most other groups / DMs do at their tables. So if DMs out there are having all these amazing experiences with dungeoncrawls, that's great. Someone please publish some good ones so the rest of us can enjoy them. If they're so mindblowingly awesome then I'm sure there's more than a bit of cash inevitably coming your way. But so far, I've been stuck with the published variety of dungeoncrawls. 

Going back to the beginning of the hobby, there's what...four...five...maybe six really well-done dungeoncrawls? Well done here meaning they're more than just hack-and-slash and more potential for interaction with NPCs than simply playing one faction against another. The overwhelmingly vast majority of published dungeoncrawls are 95% combat and interaction is limited to playing factions against each other. After 37 years that's boring. Hell, it was already boring when I was 12. Hack-and-slash play is about the most boring thing you can do with a role-playing game. Most dungeoncrawls focus exclusively on hack-and-slash play. 

Though I expect going back to earlier editions' style of play with a focus more on XP for treasure and combat as war instead of XP for killing monsters and combat as sport would go a long way to make even the most boring and straightforward dungeoncrawl more interesting and exciting to play.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 17, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Right. And that looks cool. I understand that "dungeon" and "wilderness" and "town" and "city" are interchangeable in that they all start as blank spots for the DM to put content. That's not my hangup with dungeons. And I understand that getting from one chunk of content can largely be hand-waved and/or trivial (if the DM wants them to be). Again, not my issue with dungeons. Though I'm sure there's an in-depth and enlightening series of Alexandrian blog posts about getting from one bit of content to the next.
> 
> With pointcrawls or dungeoncrawls the DM has decided what's where and decided which way you can go, and has typically built in things that hard stop you from doing something else. See my comment above about PCs generally not being able to walk through walls. Though I prefer something like a properly open world wilderness or hexcrawl for the freedom of choice, even that isn't my issue with dungeons. And yes, I'm one of those players and DMs who utterly hates the illusion of choice. If the town is to the east and the party goes to the west...only to discover the same town that's supposed to be to the east...ugh.
> 
> ...



I understand your frustration.  But I again stress that all of these home-designed addies, if and where they exist, are designed for specific campaigns, with world, regional, local specific information.  So requesting that folks publish them is, well, odd.  Like my GH Sewers and Catacombs.  It was meant for our (Gary and my) campaign, so there's no comprehensive worth in even publishing it, you see, except for those GH purists out there or for a study, all pretty much minimal avenues.  I really believe that people have to approach this like a generic product that can be plopped anywhere.  Or maybe like Hussar indicated, more example for FR or the like.

And even though I had started Maure Castle and did 3 initial installments for Paizo (and one other I did as a free farewell to MC, _Warlock's Walk_) it's now but another partially published example of this type held by WotC.  This megadungeon had more stories and twists and turns than you could imagine, Right. I do not (currently) publish adventures through Paizo or WotC, but I've created about 22-23? to date elsewhere and one for TSR (not counting Barrier Peaks contributions). 

I really believe that the younger designers should be encouraged to re-explore this avenue by using the best from the past and present to recapture its grandness and then to keep mining its design territory. The dungeon concept hasn't lost its glory; it just needs an intelligent and sustained shot in the arm by adherents willing to go the extra mile for it.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 17, 2021)

@overgeeked I think you are asking for something that is a little nonsensical. You want the publisher to create a dungeon _adventure_ that suits your group perfectly. That's not what dungeons or any other setting can do. No one but you knows what is perfect for your group. It doesn't matter if it is a dungeon, a city or a dark forest: all a designer can do is give you a well thought out, interesting, challenging, malleable locale you can use for the adventures YOU design for your group.

Also I don't buy the idea that dungeons are inherently filled with the illusion of choice. Nor do I buy that the open hexcrawl necessarily offers more MEANINGFUL choice: everyone's time is limited and no one can design infinite choices. If you are going to rely on random encounter tables in the hexcrawl to call it infinite, you can do the same thing with a random dungeon generator. If your problem is with the idea that you are presented with an intersection that goes left or right and you are upset because you can't go forward, all I can say is that just because you have an empty choice doesn't mean you have a meaningful one.

There's nothing wrong with preferring wilderness hexcrawls to dungeon delving but it isn't inherently better or more free. It usually comes down to the GM regarding how "free" any structure is, not the structure itself.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Oh no, please god no. This is the worst kind of role playing. It may be an entertaining dalliance to the type of people who enjoy it, but its utterly dismaying to the rest of the party that are subjected to it. Reverse PvP. I’m aware it can be endless, it’s the gaming equivalent of pus.



Disagree completely.  'Nuff said there.


TheSword said:


> If given a choice between a soap opera and an adventure story. I’d choose treasure island every time.



To read or watch, yes.  To actually roleplay as a participant, give me both at once.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 17, 2021)

Reynard said:


> There's nothing wrong with preferring wilderness hexcrawls to dungeon delving but it isn't inherently better or more free. It usually comes down to the GM regarding how "free" any structure is, not the structure itself



Or, as the architect would say, "Here's the structure.  Appoint as you see fit."


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I think you’re confusing soap opera with romance.



Given as one almost inevitably leads to the other (in either order!) there's little to confuse.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 17, 2021)

Reynard said:


> That's not what dungeons or any other setting can do. No one but you knows what is perfect for your group. It doesn't matter if it is a dungeon, a city or a dark forest: all a designer can do is give you a well thought out, interesting, challenging, malleable locale you can use for the adventures YOU design for your group.



@Reynard  I had addressed this point outside-in in a prior post.  There is the point of instant demand these days and because of that a faction/fraction of those who will be resistant to the DIY approach, however sparse.  It does bring up another thought.  Are adventures primarily being used AS-IS these days?  It would seem that Pathfinder APs fit this category?

"...It would have to be so campaign neutral that additional work would have to be done to graft it; and is that other than a minority view of doing things these days in this plug-n-play, instant gratification-oriented environment?"


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 17, 2021)

Hussar said:


> To be fair, there have been some pretty good dungeon crawl adventures for 5e.  Phandelver, which is rock solid, manages to hit all the high points for a beginner adventure  It is something of a shame that it hasn't really seen any expansion since the very early days.  I think this is a well that could be dipped into more than a few times to serve as a template for DM's to develop campaigns.



Did a bit of searching and came up with this extra find.  This chap and his group went gonzo with Phandelver, added extra maps and game materials.  Very good to see!

Lost Mine of Phandelver Campaign Resources


----------



## Reynard (Apr 17, 2021)

Rob Kuntz said:


> @Reynard I had addressed this point outside-in in a prior post. There is the point of instant demand these days and because of that a faction/fraction of those who will be resistant to the DIY approach, however sparse. It does bring up another thought. Are adventures primarily being used AS-IS these days? It would seem that Pathfinder APs fit this category?
> 
> "...It would have to be so campaign neutral that additional work would have to be done to graft it; and is that other than a minority view of doing things these days in this plug-n-play, instant gratification-oriented environment?"



I only recently started running pre written adventures successfully. I have always been a "home brew" GM (with a few exceptions for really great dungeons/adventures such as Sunless Citadel). This is mostly driven by plating on Fantasy Grounds where I find it more difficult to improvise than at the table for sundry reasons (though I am getting better).

That said, I still highly modify the adventures I run. Waterdeep: Dragon Heist is a particular example. I treated it more as a setting with a situation presented, because as an actual adventure it was very weak. But it was made up of some great bits, which I employed. Descent into Avernus was a little different: I embraced the railroad and used improvisation to make it my own.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 17, 2021)

Reynard said:


> I only recently started running pre written adventures successfully. I have always been a "home brew" GM (with a few exceptions for really great dungeons/adventures such as Sunless Citadel). This is mostly driven by plating on Fantasy Grounds where I find it more difficult to improvise than at the table for sundry reasons (though I am getting better).
> 
> That said, I still highly modify the adventures I run. Waterdeep: Dragon Heist is a particular example. I treated it more as a setting with a situation presented, because as an actual adventure it was very weak. But it was made up of some great bits, which I employed. Descent into Avernus was a little different: I embraced the railroad and used improvisation to make it my own.



Well that does explain your philosophy via hands-on investment.  You're the UR-dm.    And UR-dms have to be designers.  I wish you luck while engaging pre-made philosophies these days, the borrowed rather than forged.


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 17, 2021)

Reynard said:


> @overgeeked I think you are asking for something that is a little nonsensical. You want the publisher to create a dungeon _adventure_ that suits your group perfectly.



No. And I never said I did. I just want a dungeon that's not 95% combat. If that makes you think I want a designer and publisher to tailor make an adventure to perfectly suit me and my group...I don't know what to tell you.


Reynard said:


> That's not what dungeons or any other setting can do. No one but you knows what is perfect for your group. It doesn't matter if it is a dungeon, a city or a dark forest: all a designer can do is give you a well thought out, interesting, challenging, malleable locale you can use for the adventures YOU design for your group.



It would be a monumental step up if even a fraction of dungeons as published were anything approaching "well thought out, interesting, [or] challenging." They're typically just bust open a door, kill what's in the room, bust open a door...


Reynard said:


> Also I don't buy the idea that dungeons are inherently filled with the illusion of choice.



Again, I never said they were.


Reynard said:


> Nor do I buy that the open hexcrawl necessarily offers more MEANINGFUL choice: everyone's time is limited and no one can design infinite choices. If you are going to rely on random encounter tables in the hexcrawl to call it infinite, you can do the same thing with a random dungeon generator.



Never said I would.


Reynard said:


> There's nothing wrong with preferring wilderness hexcrawls to dungeon delving but it isn't inherently better or more free. It usually comes down to the GM regarding how "free" any structure is, not the structure itself.



I disagree. If it's a true hexcrawl, the DM has prepped a hex map with various interesting locales and leaves the PCs to go in whichever direction they want. If it's a dungeoncrawl, the DM has prepped a fixed map with limited choices where the PCs can go. That's the difference. In a hexcrawl, you can pick a direction and go. In a dungeoncrawl, you get to go wherever the DM has decided you get to go. That's a vast difference. Sorry if you can't see the difference.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 17, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> No. And I never said I did. I just want a dungeon that's not 95% combat. If that makes you think I want a designer and publisher to tailor make an adventure to perfectly suit me and my group...I don't know what to tell you.
> 
> It would be a monumental step up if even a fraction of dungeons as published were anything approaching "well thought out, interesting, [or] challenging." They're typically just bust open a door, kill what's in the room, bust open a door...
> 
> ...



I think you don't like dungeons so you intentionally interpret them in the worst way possible relative to your preferences. And that's fine. It's your play time. Use it how it makes you happiest. Those of us that know dungeons can be great will just continue to prove you wrong a session at a time.


----------



## J.Quondam (Apr 17, 2021)

Suddenly I'm inspired to do a megadungeon consisting of a vast complex of hex-shaped rooms, each with a door in every wall.


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 17, 2021)

Reynard said:


> I think you don't like dungeons so you intentionally interpret them in the worst way possible relative to your preferences. And that's fine. It's your play time. Use it how it makes you happiest. Those of us that know dungeons can be great will just continue to prove you wrong a session at a time.



I see people just repeating that they're awesome. There's not much in the way of proof. I can point to 40 odd years of combat-focused dungeons that support my assertion that most published dungeons are indeed combat-focused. The best you seem to have is "but they're awesome, I promise." Good for you. Your word doesn't count as proof.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 17, 2021)

J.Quondam said:


> Suddenly I'm inspired to do a megadungeon consisting of a vast complex of hex-shaped rooms, each with a door in every wall.



Obviously you are filled in on one of our levels from Castle Greyhawk2. There's also an interesting history behind it.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 17, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> I see people just repeating that they're awesome. There's not much in the way of proof. I can point to 40 odd years of combat-focused dungeons that support my assertion that most published dungeons are indeed combat-focused. The best you seem to have is "but they're awesome, I promise." Good for you. Your word doesn't count as proof.



Maybe there's a bit of a disconnect here: I'm certainly not saying that every published dungeon over the last 40 years is a perfect creation. As will all published materials, there are good and bad and not-for-me. But you seem to be saying NO dungeons are anything but combat slogs and that's demonstrably false. But generally, DMs who like running dungeons almost always design their own at some point.


----------



## J.Quondam (Apr 17, 2021)

Rob Kuntz said:


> Obviously you are filled in on one of our levels from Castle Greyhawk2. There's also an interesting history behind it.



I wish I could say I was!  And... interesting history?


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 17, 2021)

Reynard said:


> Maybe there's a bit of a disconnect here: I'm certainly not saying that every published dungeon over the last 40 years is a perfect creation. As will all published materials, there are good and bad and not-for-me. But you seem to be saying NO dungeons are anything but combat slogs and that's demonstrably false. But generally, DMs who like running dungeons almost always design their own at some point.



I can only go from what I've experienced or read. I've played through and/or read a wide array of published adventures, including many a dungeon. I don't have experience playing at your table (that I know of). I have played with a fairly wide array of people over the years, so it's possible. In play, I've had exactly zero dungeoncrawls be anything more than almost pure hack-and-slash play with the occasional pit factions against each other interaction play. In reading a sizeable chunk of modules over the years and editions, I've read maybe 3-5 dungeoncrawls that are more than those two tired old tropes. 

So to short circuit the loop we're in, how about taking a different approach? Why not tell me what you think makes dungeoncrawls so awesome? A bit of forewarning, endless hack-and-slash play is boring to me and playing dungeon factions against each other is an old trope I've been tired of for about 30 years. If you have something you enjoy that's neither of those things, please tell me all about it. I'd honestly like to know.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 17, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> I can only go from what I've experienced or read. I've played through and/or read a wide array of published adventures, including many a dungeon. I don't have experience playing at your table (that I know of). I have played with a fairly wide array of people over the years, so it's possible. In play, I've had exactly zero dungeoncrawls be anything more than almost pure hack-and-slash play with the occasional pit factions against each other interaction play. In reading a sizeable chunk of modules over the years and editions, I've read maybe 3-5 dungeoncrawls that are more than those two tired old tropes.
> 
> So to short circuit the loop we're in, how about taking a different approach? Why not tell me what you think makes dungeoncrawls so awesome? A bit of forewarning, endless hack-and-slash play is boring to me and playing dungeon factions against each other is an old trope I've been tired of for about 30 years. If you have something you enjoy that's neither of those things, please tell me all about it. I'd honestly like to know.



I thought I had made it clear previously in this thread but I will try and reiterate in brief: a dungeon is a setting, and as such it is a place where adventures happen. Just like with a city or a wilderness, it requires player characters have motivations and goals in order to serve its purpose. Dungeons that seem like slogs from one room to the next are a result of not having those things and thinking the dungeon IS the adventure, rather than WHERE the adventures happen.


----------



## carmachu (Apr 17, 2021)

THEMNGMNT said:


> In addition to Princes of the Apocalypse, there are several other 5E hardbacks that feature large adventuring environments: Tomb of Annihilation, Storm King's Thunder, Curse of Strahd. Plus the hardbacks that reprint earlier edition adventures, of course.



Besides those, and pathfinder mention before, the OSR various lines have a ton of them. Barr owmaze, stonehell, highfell,gunderholfen, castle of the mad archmage.  Easily looking 6 to 10 sitting on my shelf


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 17, 2021)

Reynard said:


> I thought I had made it clear previously in this thread but I will try and reiterate in brief: a dungeon is a setting, and as such it is a place where adventures happen. Just like with a city or a wilderness, it requires player characters have motivations and goals in order to serve its purpose. Dungeons that seem like slogs from one room to the next are a result of not having those things and thinking the dungeon IS the adventure, rather than WHERE the adventures happen.



The characters want: loot and experience. Dungeons provide both. Or they just want to explore. That's motivation for being there. Or any other motivation. They could have any goal that involves being in that specific dungeon. Get the key, get the scepter, rescue the prince, return the kidnapped whoever, etc. None of that prevents the vast majority of published dungeons from being boring slogs of kick in the door, kill all the things, kick in the door. It doesn't matter why you're there, if all that is there is combat...that's going to be a boring slog.

As an example, we ran through Dragon Heist and Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Dragon Heist was an absolute blast. The entire group of players was jazzed and excited and raring to go. As a group we did an about face when we got to the dungeon. I played an artificer from Eberron who heard a rumor that there was some kind of ship deep in the dungeon that might be able to get him home. That's a goal and a motivation for delving. Still, it was a boring slog of kick in the door, kill all the things, kick in the door, etc. We made it through the first level and maybe a few rooms of the second level beyond the goblin bazaar before the entire group was sick and tired of delving. And that was with the DM cutting out more than a few pure combat rooms, adding in non-combat stuff, etc.


Reynard said:


> and thinking the dungeon IS the adventure, rather than WHERE the adventures happen.



That's a distinction that doesn't make a difference.

But none of what you said actually answers my question: what is it about dungeoncrawls specifically that you enjoy?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 17, 2021)

Rob Kuntz said:


> Did a bit of searching and came up with this extra find.  This chap and his group went gonzo with Phandelver, added extra maps and game materials.  Very good to see!
> 
> Lost Mine of Phandelver Campaign Resources



It is heartening to see the MOUNTAIN of community material that is being added to every single adventure WotC bangs out.  If you want a trunk full of high quality stuff, take a look at the Saltmarsh section of DM's Guild and peruse the Reddit and Facebook communities.  OMG, you could run Saltmarsh for the next decade and still not run out of material.  I'm about to start on Candlekeep Mysteries, and, again, the community is just absolutely rocking.  

One of the things about the massive growth of the hobby in the last decade is the freaking explosion of goodies to add to any WotC offering.  Meaning that because there is so much stuff there, you can find stuff to fit your group and tastes pretty easily.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 17, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> I see people just repeating that they're awesome. There's not much in the way of proof. I can point to 40 odd years of combat-focused dungeons that support my assertion that most published dungeons are indeed combat-focused. The best you seem to have is "but they're awesome, I promise." Good for you. Your word doesn't count as proof.



As written?  Probably.  The writers of modules by and large presume that the party is going to fight stuff in a module.  Becomes something of a self-fulfilling prophesy.  The designers assume you're going to fight stuff, so, they don't really provide other options.  

OTOH, as a DM, you need to understand that published modules are what they are.  They have limited page and word count.  Just because it says that the monsters have these tactics in combat, doesn't mean that you have to default to combat every time. 

So, yes, I understand why people look at published modules, particularly older modules with their very sparse descriptions and advice, and think that the modules are 90% combat.  The point is, for those of us who like dungeon crawls, we realize that modules are the starting point, not the finished one.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 17, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> The characters want: loot and experience. Dungeons provide both. Or they just want to explore. That's motivation for being there. Or any other motivation. They could have any goal that involves being in that specific dungeon. Get the key, get the scepter, rescue the prince, return the kidnapped whoever, etc. None of that prevents the vast majority of published dungeons from being boring slogs of kick in the door, kill all the things, kick in the door. It doesn't matter why you're there, if all that is there is combat...that's going to be a boring slog.
> 
> As an example, we ran through Dragon Heist and Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Dragon Heist was an absolute blast. The entire group of players was jazzed and excited and raring to go. As a group we did an about face when we got to the dungeon. I played an artificer from Eberron who heard a rumor that there was some kind of ship deep in the dungeon that might be able to get him home. That's a goal and a motivation for delving. Still, it was a boring slog of kick in the door, kill all the things, kick in the door, etc. We made it through the first level and maybe a few rooms of the second level beyond the goblin bazaar before the entire group was sick and tired of delving. And that was with the DM cutting out more than a few pure combat rooms, adding in non-combat stuff, etc.
> 
> ...



First of all: Dragon Heist is, in my opinion, unplayable out of the box and while I am glad you enjoyed it, I would bet dollars to donuts that the DM did a lot of work to make it playable.

Second: Dungeon of the Mad Mage is not a good dungeon adventure. Pointing at it and telling me all dungeon adventures are bad because DotMM is bad is just silly.

Finally: you are intentionally ignoring my explanations for what makes a dungeon a good environment to play in so I am not going to repeat myself. You don't like them. You will never like them. You refuse to believe that anyone could like them. Noted.


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 17, 2021)

Hussar said:


> As written?  Probably.  The writers of modules by and large presume that the party is going to fight stuff in a module.  Becomes something of a self-fulfilling prophesy.  The designers assume you're going to fight stuff, so, they don't really provide other options.
> 
> OTOH, as a DM, you need to understand that published modules are what they are.  They have limited page and word count.  Just because it says that the monsters have these tactics in combat, doesn't mean that you have to default to combat every time.
> 
> So, yes, I understand why people look at published modules, particularly older modules with their very sparse descriptions and advice, and think that the modules are 90% combat.  The point is, for those of us who like dungeon crawls, we realize that modules are the starting point, not the finished one.



Sure. What I'm asking for is actual examples of what people like about dungeoncrawls. How they change them to make them so enjoyable. So far...nothing.


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 17, 2021)

Reynard said:


> First of all: Dragon Heist is, in my opinion, unplayable out of the box and while I am glad you enjoyed it, I would bet dollars to donuts that the DM did a lot of work to make it playable.



I'm sure he did.


Reynard said:


> Second: Dungeon of the Mad Mage is not a good dungeon adventure. Pointing at it and telling me all dungeon adventures are bad because DotMM is bad is just silly.



Note how I didn't do that. I pointed at 40 some years of terrible dungeoncrawls published by TSR, Wizards, Paizo, etc and said that the vast majority of published dungeoncrawls are terrible because they're 90-95% pure hack-and-slash slogfests.


Reynard said:


> Finally: you are intentionally ignoring my explanations for what makes a dungeon a good environment to play in so I am not going to repeat myself. You don't like them. You will never like them. You refuse to believe that anyone could like them. Noted.



So far your explanation consists of "I like dungeoncrawls" and "trust me they're good" and a nonsensical statement that the dungeon isn't the adventure, the dungeon is where the adventure takes place. 

You have still not managed to say what it is you actually like about dungeoncrawls or even a hint of how you run them to make them not hack-and-slash slogfests or how you do something more than the tired old trope of playing factions off each other. At this point all I can assume is you don't. 

Now that we've gone around the loop again...

So to short circuit the loop we're in, how about taking a different approach? Why not tell me what you think makes dungeoncrawls so awesome? A bit of forewarning, endless hack-and-slash play is boring to me and playing dungeon factions against each other is an old trope I've been tired of for about 30 years. If you have something you enjoy that's neither of those things, please tell me all about it. I'd honestly like to know.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 17, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Sure. What I'm asking for is actual examples of what people like about dungeoncrawls. How they change them to make them so enjoyable. So far...nothing.



Ok, fair enough.  I'm not talking about anyone else here, just myself:


Dungeon crawls provide a limited area with many, many choices.  IOW, a small sandbox with clear parameters.  This makes preparation a bit easier on the DM's side, and allows the DM to create a sort of flow tree of decision points with which to control things like tone and feel.
Dungeon crawls allow me to really, really go creative.  My current dungeon crawl is about the group searching for a Macguffin that one of the players introduced at the beginning of the campaign.  I have just (as in the last session) introduced one of the two captured celestials who are imprisoned by the BBEG in the dungeon.  Lots of role play opportunities here.  Note, this particular dungeon crawl wasn't particularly extensive - only a small number of encounters, so, it's basically just a really large lair.
Dungeon Crawls let me really go off the deep end with the weird.  Something I always like.
Sometimes Dungeon Crawls can be just simple romps.  Sometimes they can be much deeper.  It's easier to have a solid theme and feel in a dungeon crawl.


That's off the top of my head.


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 17, 2021)

Hussar said:


> Ok, fair enough.  I'm not talking about anyone else here, just myself:



Awesome. Thanks.


Hussar said:


> Dungeon crawls provide a limited area with many, many choices. IOW, a small sandbox with clear parameters. This makes preparation a bit easier on the DM's side, and allows the DM to create a sort of flow tree of decision points with which to control things like tone and feel.



This one I understand. A more limited scope makes prep easier. Sure.


Hussar said:


> Dungeon crawls allow me to really, really go creative.



What is it specifically about dungeoncrawls that allows this but other environments don't? How do other environments limit your ability to "really, really go creative"?


Hussar said:


> Dungeon Crawls let me really go off the deep end with the weird.  Something I always like.



Again, what's special about dungeoncrawls that lets you do that but not other environments? Couldn't you go just as weird in a forest, in a lake, in a town, on a mountaintop, etc? 

I too am a fan of the weird in old-school D&D. Barrier Peaks and Blackmoor and Hollow World and invisible moons with samurai rakasta who ride flying saber-tooth tiger mounts...through space...yum. I'm also a fan of Spelljammer.


Hussar said:


> Sometimes Dungeon Crawls can be just simple romps. Sometimes they can be much deeper.  It's easier to have a solid theme and feel in a dungeon crawl.



I'm assuming you feel that comes from the more limited scope of the environment you mentioned above. If I'm wrong, please let me know. 

What I'm trying to understand is how the dungeon is special in this regard. You can have limited-scope locations outside of dungeons, so you should be able to achieve the same or similar results with other limited-scope locations.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword (Apr 17, 2021)

I think Dungeon Crawls are a perfect match for environmental storytelling, because its the chief game mode where the detailed contents of each room matter, and can be described. This creates an environment where the details of the stories you're trying to seed in the environment can be placed with the various dungeon dressing and challenges. The players are alert for details that might point toward secret doors, or upcoming threats. Further dungeons are often exactly the sort of places that have stories to tell. In this context a dungeon crawl can be a kind of archaeology approach to content I find really compelling. That has its roots in places full of history, like Moria, and is something that video games are learning the power of, but works perfectly in our tabletop environment if you let it. This can also help to deliver another form of interesting story beyond playing factions off one another, and feels great if piecing the information together can help the players overcome challenges or discover secrets. 

'Dungeon as Adventuring Location' full of monsters, NPCs, puzzles, secrets, and this kind of environmental storytelling, are foundational to the style of game i want to run.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 17, 2021)

J.Quondam said:


> Suddenly I'm inspired to do a megadungeon consisting of a vast complex of hex-shaped rooms, each with a door in every wall.



And then force your players to accurately map it on squared paper?  That's a standard of cruelty to which we can all aspire!

And of course the module would be called _Into the Beehive_...


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 17, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> I see people just repeating that they're awesome. There's not much in the way of proof.



There can't be, in either direction, as so much depends on the individual table.

If the players approach every encounter as a combat then no matter what adventure you run or what you do with it it's gonna be combat-focused.

If your players approach every encounter with the intent of avoiding combat at all costs then no matter what the adventure there's gonna be way less combat.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 17, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Sure. What I'm asking for is actual examples of what people like about dungeoncrawls.



Problem is, in the process of asking you also negated my answer, which is: the hack and slash!


----------



## Arilyn (Apr 17, 2021)

Not a fan of the dungeon crawl, but there are always exceptions. Eyes of the Stone Thief by Gareth Ryder-Hanrahan is this exception. A living dungeon which devours towns and geography to add to its construction is awesome. And it has a serious grudge against the PCs. This dungeon is full of interesting locations and encounters. Players won't be able to finish it in one go, having to return to the surface, but take too long to return and the dungeon starts coming after everything the characters hold dear. 

Pelgrane Press released part of it for 5e if you want a taste but don't own 13th Age.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 17, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Awesome. Thanks.
> 
> This one I understand. A more limited scope makes prep easier. Sure.
> 
> What is it specifically about dungeoncrawls that allows this but other environments don't? How do other environments limit your ability to "really, really go creative"?



Well, a town, or other location, isn't really self contained.  And, by and large a town has to "function".  You can't have carnivorous buildings in a town - at least, not for very long.    Slimes and oozes don't really work in a town.  Forests and other outdoor locations are somewhat limited by their location as well.  You generally should use forest monsters in a forest.  The amount of "Stuff that thrives underground" dwarfs any single outdoor location.


overgeeked said:


> Again, what's special about dungeoncrawls that lets you do that but not other environments? Couldn't you go just as weird in a forest, in a lake, in a town, on a mountaintop, etc?



Sure, you could.  But, if you do weird in a town, for example, you have to take the town into consideration - all those NPC's, and various other people.  And towns are filled with stuff that is of zero interest to an adventuring party but still needs to be detailed.  You should have a seamstress, a candlemaker, a shoemaker, whatever, in the town, but, from the player's perspective, who cares?  They are noticed in absence, but, by and large don't really serve any purpose other than time sink for the DM.  Everything in a Dungeon can be important.


overgeeked said:


> I too am a fan of the weird in old-school D&D. Barrier Peaks and Blackmoor and Hollow World and invisible moons with samurai rakasta who ride flying saber-tooth tiger mounts...through space...yum. I'm also a fan of Spelljammer.



One thing that I do lament in latter era D&D is the lack of weird. 


overgeeked said:


> I'm assuming you feel that comes from the more limited scope of the environment you mentioned above. If I'm wrong, please let me know.



Generally, yes.  A town, simply because you have 200+ people in that town, has a never ending list of stuff that could be prepared.  Granted, you don't have to, but, in order to really bring the setting to life, you need those NPC's. 

Then again, there's nothing wrong with an adventure in a forest or a town or on a mountain.  I certainly am not arguing that dungeon crawls are better or superior in any way.  They're just another tool in the box.  There are fantastic town adventures and there are fantastic dungeon crawls. 


overgeeked said:


> What I'm trying to understand is how the dungeon is special in this regard. You can have limited-scope locations outside of dungeons, so you should be able to achieve the same or similar results with other limited-scope locations.



It's not a zero sum game.


----------



## TheSword (Apr 17, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> Given as one almost inevitably leads to the other (in either order!) there's little to confuse.



Soap opera is not synonymous with romance, though it is with melodrama and sentimentality. There are plenty of soap operas where the main topics are not romance. Sure romance often features but it can still be a soap opera without it being a romance story. As evidence by the tea time British tradition of warring London families, dodgy dealings, medical tragedies and wayward kids.

If you like your gaming to be melodrama then fill your boots with a soap opera style. If you want the rather weird situation of PCs falling in love with each other then sure, have at it.

Im just saying, I can think of nothing worse.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 17, 2021)

Hussar said:


> You can't have carnivorous buildings in a town



Oh, yes you can; and that's a brilliant idea.  Yoink!

Sooner or later my players are going to curse you without knowing who you are. 


Hussar said:


> Slimes and oozes don't really work in a town.



They could, if controlled.  Some sort of dissolve-things ooze, for example, could provide hella efficient sewage treatment/disposal for a city; and woe betide the foolish party who stumbles on it and, thinking it a threat, takes it out. 


Hussar said:


> One thing that I do lament in latter era D&D is the lack of weird.



Absolutely agree.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Soap opera is not synonymous with romance, though it is with melodrama and sentimentality. There are plenty of soap operas where the main topics are not romance. Sure romance often features but it can still be a soap opera without it being a romance story. As evidence by the tea time British tradition of warring London families, dodgy dealings, medical tragedies and wayward kids.



True, I suppose.  I just tend to associate the idea of 'soap opera' with who's getting together with who this week-month-year and what's the emotional fallout going to be for them and-or anyone else.


TheSword said:


> If you like your gaming to be melodrama then fill your boots with a soap opera style. If you want the rather weird situation of PCs falling in love with each other then sure, have at it.



How in the nine hells is it any more weird to have PCs fall in love with each other than it is to have them become enemies or rivals with each other?  They're people.  They have emotions.

People in constant close contact and frequent high danger - which describes nearly every adventuring party I've ever heard of - tend to experience heightened and more acute emotions; and those emotions can easily include love and-or lust among other things if a suitable potential partner is available.


TheSword said:


> Im just saying, I can think of nothing worse.



I can: characters as emotionless robots.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Apr 17, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> And then force your players to accurately map it on squared paper?  That's a standard of cruelty to which we can all aspire!



I made my players sing _The Rime of the Frostmaiden _out loud_._


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 17, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> I'm sure he did.
> 
> Note how I didn't do that. I pointed at 40 some years of terrible dungeoncrawls published by TSR, Wizards, Paizo, etc and said that the vast majority of published dungeoncrawls are terrible because they're 90-95% pure hack-and-slash slogfests.
> 
> ...



I believe this argument could be settled by acknowledging his point  that missing information can be added.  Even as Hussar pointed out, even though info for other than engaging encounters as h-n-s ones is not there in a majority of cases upon reviewing these cases the DM can devise, on the fly even, other than combat options.  In essence, and with a little effort, this lessens the proportion of combat-only encounters and adds the dimension you seek.

Such instances would be no different than, by comparison, adding more dimension to a thinly described shopkeeper in town, let's say Herb Jagrioth, who is described as a potter who sells pots and pans at reasonable prices and lives above his shop with his aging wife, Matilda.  To give him dimension, and to help make the town, thus, a singular province of each DM's campaign and its different interactions available/possible, Herb is further described by the DM as being an inveterate gambler who is squandering what little money they accumulate by gambling it wawy at the Gorgon's Knot Tavern; he is also falling into despair of his own creation and can sometimes be found in Oltarry Park wandering listlessly or sitting on a bench staring at a nearby pond. ...

It's largely up to players and DMs to make the worlds they traverse and control come alive with growing levels of dimension.  However, I do agree that written and played AS-IS most addies have been disappointing affairs over the years, IF you play them AS-IS.  And I even wrote about this in a commentary from my unpublished ms, A New Ethos in Game Design, included as © Rob Kuntz, 2013-2017, hereafter:
...
C34:  Imagine: You are in this conceptual realm of a city.  You know it’s a city because the GM says it’s a city and in turn associates it with several points within it for the year that you are there amongst a party/of players:  The inn where you are staying, its common room, the sleeping room, the stables.  Outside of that you are aware of a merchant who buys and sells goods that the party interfaces with to buy what is needed and otherwise to dispose of what is not.  You learned of this merchant because you asked a broker for the GM, the innkeeper, to verify that there was a place to buy and sell goods at.  You didn’t even ask for the innkeeper’s name for he is just an innkeeper with information you need to know in game terms.  So the innkeeper is a convenient information booth, nameless, faceless, and useful for both the GM and the players in that sense alone, just as with the merchant and the dungeon.

The “adventure” continues in this manner, into and out of the adjacent ruins, back and forth, from dungeon to merchant to inn.  It’s quite equal to what many people do in their daily routines:  go to work, go to store, go home.  And it has as much life in it as the latter, which is, very little.

When asked by one of the grandkids in the game what ‘Father-Fighter did in the olden days, the latter proudly attests to being at a city for a year, staying at an inn, whose name and innkeeper’s name he cannot recall, of dealing with a merchant, whose name he likewise cannot recall, and of adventuring into a “dangerous” dungeon wherein all manner of monsters, now all forgotten because they were just a grouped paycheck, were defeated in frightful battles (with lots of 20’s rolled on his part), and wherefrom treasure galore was obtained, the latter being noteworthy as treasure only because it was exchangeable for gold and gems from the merchant with no name or face.

The boy-child asks:  “What about the city, papa?  What was it like?

The grizzled fighter pauses for a moment, perplexed, and then says, “As I noted, it had a inn where we stayed, a merchant… and outside of it was the dungeon.”

The boy, in turn, looks perplexed, but before he can ask his next question the man interjects:  “You’d have understood if you’d been there.  Those were the days…  The days of High Fantasy like no other…”

The moral of the story?  Three linear servings of one-dimension do not make for a three-dimensional meal.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 17, 2021)

J.Quondam said:


> I wish I could say I was!  And... interesting history?



Hah.  I love serendipity.  You have errantly stumbled into an RPG history vortex by suggesting a duplication of a level contrived almost 50 years ago in 1974.  The story is:  Gary and myself were still adding levels to GHC2 then.  Ernie Gygax, Gary's son, encountered a chap (unnamed or now unknown, but maybe Ernie recalls) at HS who provided him with a level he'd made as he was playing with Ernie on the side.  This level was all hexagonal rooms one after the other, top to bottom, with doors on all 6 face-walls accessing the adjacent hex rooms via 10 x 10 rooms in each case. Ernie showed it to us and Gary loved it he included it in our design.  I was not as fond of it as Gary was (and neither were those players who got stuck on it), in fact I found it (secretly) ridiculous.  It is the only GHC2 level not created by Gary or myself.


----------



## Marc_C (Apr 17, 2021)

Back in 1983-84 I bought B4 The Lost City.

The concept of the module blew me away! We played the module several nights in row, often till midnight. On the fourth night, after several hours of play one player ask "Why are we doing this? What's the mission?". The other players couldn't recall the mission. They all looked at me, the DM. I said: "I don't know!" we all laughed really hard. The next evening we finished the module.

After that I refused to DM or play in multi-layered mega dungeon crawls. We didn't loose the Art of Dungeon Crawling. We chose to leave it behind on purpose.

Then I bought L1 The Secret of Bone Hill (yes because of the cover ). I really like how Lakofka made his adventure about several small locations around Restenford. That is how I've been playing D&D ever since.


----------



## TheSword (Apr 17, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> True, I suppose.  I just tend to associate the idea of 'soap opera' with who's getting together with who this week-month-year and what's the emotional fallout going to be for them and-or anyone else.
> 
> How in the nine hells is it any more weird to have PCs fall in love with each other than it is to have them become enemies or rivals with each other?  They're people.  They have emotions.
> 
> ...



Romantic characters in a book, film or Tv show isn’t weird. Howrown adults roleplaying fictional characters falling in love over the dinner table during a game session is weird.

Don’t get me wrong. If that’s how you all want to fill your spare time then more power to you. I just know that if I joined a group and a proportion of our game time is spent listening to the ins and outs of how much two player characters love each other I’d be annoyed. I’d be equally enjoyed by two players trying to steal from each other or trick one another.

linking back to the topic, if the roleplaying aspect of dungeon crawling has to come down to infighting or romance between PCs or playing monstrous factions off against each other then that is a serious flaw in the design for me. It would get very old very quickly.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 17, 2021)

My long simmering megadungeon is called the Hellstair. Its upper regions lie below an ancient ruined city that now contains a handful of boomtown neighborhoods controlled by different criminal guilds. Delivers have to talk, fight or sneak their way through known entrances to avoid "tolls" on the way in and "taxes" on the way out. Being able to find a new, uncontrolled entrance would be a huge windfall and much blood has been spilled in the sewers and undercity looking for entrances.

Most people delve for simple treasure and stay close to the surface. No one is quite sure of the whole story but it's apparent that there were multiple waves up out of the depths and back down over the course of centuries. There is a strong theme of fiends and cults and such, giving the place its name, but there are examples of every kind of weirdness.

Those rare explorers that delve deeper find evidence of a long war between immense powers, including celestial machines and demonic fortresses and elemental incursions. Those seeking great knowledge or great power are willing to delve this deep but few succeed.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 17, 2021)

Reynard said:


> My long simmering megadungeon is called the Hellstair. Its upper regions lie below an ancient ruined city that now contains a handful of boomtown neighborhoods controlled by different criminal guilds. Delivers have to talk, fight or sneak their way through known entrances to avoid "tolls" on the way in and "taxes" on the way out. Being able to find a new, uncontrolled entrance would be a huge windfall and much blood has been spilled in the sewers and undercity looking for entrances.
> 
> Most people delve for simple treasure and stay close to the surface. No one is quite sure of the whole story but it's apparent that there were multiple waves up out of the depths and back down over the course of centuries. There is a strong theme of fiends and cults and such, giving the place its name, but there are examples of every kind of weirdness.
> 
> Those rare explorers that delve deeper find evidence of a long war between immense powers, including celestial machines and demonic fortresses and elemental incursions. Those seeking great knowledge or great power are willing to delve this deep but few succeed.



Sounds similar to my Greyhawk Sewers and Catacombs!


----------



## Reynard (Apr 17, 2021)

Rob Kuntz said:


> Sounds similar to my Greyhawk Sewers and Catacombs!



I have never played in Greyhawk (I was a Known World and Krynn kid when we did use a published setting, which wasn't often) but I was under the impression the City of Greyhawk was a Lhankmar like living city. This is more like Earthdawn's Parlainth on the surface: a vast city ruin in which some folks have set up small boom-town fortresses against the things that crawl up from the Hellstair.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 17, 2021)

Reynard said:


> I have never played in Greyhawk (I was a Known World and Krynn kid when we did use a published setting, which wasn't often) but I was under the impression the City of Greyhawk was a Lhankmar like living city. This is more like Earthdawn's Parlainth on the surface: a vast city ruin in which some folks have set up small boom-town fortresses against the things that crawl up from the Hellstair.



Yeh.  It was the seminal campaign 1973 onward in that the S&C area occurred; there was no real solidified WoG until the folio release in 1980; Gary and I used the Outdoor Survival Map for recreating outdoors for the world and added the old map from the C&C Society (1971) to fix locations (but not distances), The Great Kingdom & Environs....  Long history story.

You are correct about the Lankhmar-like tie in to the City of GH.  A free and rough city of various adventure seekers, malcontents, power mongers, thieves and assassins, et al, many drawn to it because of the myths and legends of extraordinary magic and treasure contained within the Castle.  The Sewers were in fact connected to an ancient temple (off map) that I had drawn and populated, to the castle by extra tunneling by the unknown "intruders", and was a contraband route for the Thieves Guild, and a hide-out for others (assassins. brigands) before many somethings intruded there and upset the apple cart so to speak.  Many more personages and groups became embroiled thereafter, including Robilar, who guided City-backed groups to ascertain what had happened, etc. etc.

The only thing static about it are the many ossified corpses one can find.  There's also a notorious river pirate tie-in (you can note his ship I drew on the map (SE section) I posted), et al.

Keep on designing!  Hellstair sounds like a real winner!


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 17, 2021)

Hussar said:


> Well, a town, or other location, isn't really self contained.  And, by and large a town has to "function".



Only if you want it to.


Hussar said:


> You can't have carnivorous buildings in a town - at least, not for very long.   Slimes and oozes don't really work in a town.



Of course you can. Threshold, the town from the early BECMI sets had a garbage disposal ooze.


Hussar said:


> Forests and other outdoor locations are somewhat limited by their location as well.  You generally should use forest monsters in a forest.  The amount of "Stuff that thrives underground" dwarfs any single outdoor location.



Well, you can use whatever you want and justify it however you want. You’re a fellow fan of the weird, so up the weird factor by coloring outside the lines.


Hussar said:


> Sure, you could.  But, if you do weird in a town, for example, you have to take the town into consideration - all those NPC's, and various other people.  And towns are filled with stuff that is of zero interest to an adventuring party but still needs to be detailed.  You should have a seamstress, a candlemaker, a shoemaker, whatever, in the town, but, from the player's perspective, who cares?  They are noticed in absence, but, by and large don't really serve any purpose other than time sink for the DM.  Everything in a Dungeon can be important.



I don’t see it that way. You can do whatever you want. Everything in town can be important, too. The town has a secret. They’re cultists or were taken over by doppelgängers or the whole place is a mimic colony...including the tools and buildings.


Hussar said:


> One thing that I do lament in latter era D&D is the lack of weird.



Ditto.


Hussar said:


> Generally, yes.  A town, simply because you have 200+ people in that town, has a never ending list of stuff that could be prepared.  Granted, you don't have to, but, in order to really bring the setting to life, you need those NPC's.



Sure. Depends on the size of the town and how much prep you want to do. But I don’t see how that wouldn’t equally apply to a dungeon that was more involved than kill all the things. 


Hussar said:


> Then again, there's nothing wrong with an adventure in a forest or a town or on a mountain.  I certainly am not arguing that dungeon crawls are better or superior in any way.  They're just another tool in the box.  There are fantastic town adventures and there are fantastic dungeon crawls.



Yeah, that’s what I’m hearing. And I’m not arguing wilderness or towns are perfect, they just seem to have everything a dungeon could have plus more, plus the freedom to pick a direction and go. So it seems like a dungeon only offers a limited scope of prep.

I’m just trying to get clued in on what makes dungeons special. I’m just not seeing what’s uniquely awesome about them.


Hussar said:


> It's not a zero sum game.



No, but if you can do everything you can in a dungeon outside a dungeon, why use a dungeon? What’s the uniquely awesome bit you get from a dungeon you can’t get from some other locale? Less prep, sure. But that’s not a “wow...dungeons!” if you take my meaning.


----------



## Wolfram stout (Apr 17, 2021)

This thread has inspired a new character idea for me. A Great Old One Warlock.  The character is a guild artisan (cartographer) who camped out at the wrong set of ruins, had bad dreams of a being known as the Great Egax and woke up with powers and an undeniable thrust to draw Dungeons. Lots of them.  He gets a pet Imp that helps him and communicates the drawings to the Great one.


----------



## jmartkdr2 (Apr 17, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> I’m just trying to get clued in on what makes dungeons special. I’m just not seeing what’s uniquely awesome about them.



Honestly, I think the correct answer here is dungeons (as opposed to towns or forests) are more bounded, ergo, easier to fill up with cool stuff. A forest is just so much bigger, and a town has so many more connections, that giving them that "filled feel" is a lot more work. (Not harder, just more work.)

But ever that's not necessarily true, just generally mostly true, and not really to a huge degree.

The issue is that your main issue with published dungeons (95%+ combat) is not at all inherent to dungeons. It's just how _published_ dungeons are, for some reason. So people who's dungeons don't look like that simply do not have that problem.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 17, 2021)

jmartkdr2 said:


> Honestly, I think the correct answer here is dungeons (as opposed to towns or forests) are more bounded, ergo, easier to fill up with cool stuff. A forest is just so much bigger, and a town has so many more connections, that giving them that "filled feel" is a lot more work. (Not harder, just more work.)
> 
> But ever that's not necessarily true, just generally mostly true, and not really to a huge degree.
> 
> The issue is that your main issue with published dungeons (95%+ combat) is not at all inherent to dungeons. It's just how _published_ dungeons are, for some reason. So people who's dungeons don't look like that simply do not have that problem.



I also think that 95% is hyperbole and if we actually broke down any given published dungeon we would find the ratio far lower, even if we allowed for PCs that only interact with the dungeon by way of violence.


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 17, 2021)

jmartkdr2 said:


> Honestly, I think the correct answer here is dungeons (as opposed to towns or forests) are more bounded, ergo, easier to fill up with cool stuff. A forest is just so much bigger, and a town has so many more connections, that giving them that "filled feel" is a lot more work. (Not harder, just more work.)



Absolutely granted.


jmartkdr2 said:


> The issue is that your main issue with published dungeons (95%+ combat) is not at all inherent to dungeons. It's just how _published_ dungeons are, for some reason. So people who's dungeons don't look like that simply do not have that problem.



Sure. So then what do people's dungeons actually look like if they're not 95% combat and what do they offer re: interaction beyond playing factions off each other? So far there's very little in the way of concrete examples. So far there's "it give me permission to get weird" and "occasionally opening hell-mouth that lets waves of demons through". My guess is the former is focused on atmosphere and exploration while the latter is focused on combat...and playing faction against each other.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword (Apr 17, 2021)

Well, discovery is a big one, as I mentioned earlier, they're great for environmental storytelling. You might learn about the history and secrets of people associated with the dungeon. Then there's also the discovery of just unraveling the dungeon's secrets-- the secret doors, hidden treasure, wandering events and such.

That's harder to do out of a dungeon structure than, because you're not in the same narrative mode as you are in environments structured as dungeons. It would be bizarre to try and describe the details of a 12 mile hex in the same way.

You can do other things with Dungeon factions than just play them off against one another.  You can get them to like you so they give you information, keys to special areas of the dungeon, and other stuff or have a different experience because they don't like you and you need to avoid their territory.

You can use Zelda style puzzle box mechanics, and sprawling interconnected maps to perform a kind of navigation challenge that feels very different than performing a hexcrawl, because it has such a different scale and the environment has such constrained rules concerning direction. Like in a hexcrawl if the place is north, you just go north, but in a proper dungeon crawl you need to work out the correct passages that can take you where you want to go, especially if the dungeon is jaquayed.


----------



## jgsugden (Apr 17, 2021)

I was unaware they'd fallen out of favor.  For the segments of my campaign that are more sandbox, there are always a few dungeon sites worth exploring.  I also see a lot of WotC products and 3rd party resources that feature dungeons that PCs will investigate for prolonged times.

My general approach to building a dungeon is to start with the story of the dungeon, and then build the features of it to tell that story.  I don't want PCs just to be treasure collecting - I want the story they're in to be moving forward, so most dungeons either tell a self contained story that hints at other stories (giving background) or they have elements that feature into the core storylines of the game.  

As an example, the PCs might be advanced scouts exploring ruins where refugees want to settle. The ruins may consist of 100 buildings on the surface, as well as a dwarven settlement that existed beneath the surface city.  As the PCs explore the location, they uncover what befell the last residents of the nation, uncover clues to magics unique to that former ruined society, and have a chance to make allies (or enemies) of the creatures found there - all of which will influence their next dozen or so sandbox story hooks.


----------



## jmartkdr2 (Apr 17, 2021)

Reynard said:


> I also think that 95% is hyperbole and if we actually broke down any given published dungeon we would find the ratio far lower, even if we allowed for PCs that only interact with the dungeon by way of violence.



I didn't want to quibble on the details, because it's still clearly combat-focused. The exact percentage isn't low enough to change Overgeeked's point.



overgeeked said:


> Sure. So then what do people's dungeons actually look like if they're not 95% combat and what do they offer re: interaction beyond playing factions off each other? So far there's very little in the way of concrete examples. So far there's "it give me permission to get weird" and "occasionally opening hell-mouth that lets waves of demons through". My guess is the former is focused on atmosphere and exploration while the latter is focused on combat...and playing faction against each other.



Basically 2 things:

1. Rooms with weird stuff for players/pc's to interact with. Traps, odd magic stuff, puzzles, etc. A fountain that grants stupid wishes, a weird glowing crystal infused with lightning magic - or for a low-level example: a wide, windy chasm with the rest of the corridor on the other side. These can be challenges or just oddities, but they should be at least as common as guaranteed fights, IMO.

My best memories of these sort of encounters come from Numenaria, and not DnD, although the ruleset doesn't technically matter. I'd probably look into OSR modules for ideas as well.

2. Creatures to talk to rather than fight. This requires buy-in from the players as well (they have to try talking), but the dungeon designer need to give notes on what the creature wants and what it will pay for that, its personality, and other roleplaying notes. Basically, if it can talk, it should generally prefer talking to fighting. Creatures that live want to keep living.

Frankly I think _all_ monster stat blocks should start with social notes, then general stats, and combat stuff on the bottom.


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 17, 2021)

Reynard said:


> I also think that 95% is hyperbole and if we actually broke down any given published dungeon we would find the ratio far lower, even if we allowed for PCs that only interact with the dungeon by way of violence.



Random pick. Temple of Elemental Evil. Quick skim of the first floor only. There are 52 keyed rooms. For those there are 43 combat stat blocks. So 82%. The rest are empty rooms that might have something to find. One of those rooms has 13 prisoners. Their stat blocks include hit points and XP values for murdering them. The prisoners are all naked. Only the men are given stat blocks and only the men are chained up. It's not hard to guess that there's more combat and even less interaction the deeper in you go. And in case anyone objects to that particular dungeon it was a random pick from my pile of Top 30 Modules of All Time as voted by Dungeon Magazine back in 2004. Temple of Elemental Evil was voted #4 on that list of 30.


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 17, 2021)

jmartkdr2 said:


> Frankly I think _all_ monster stat blocks should start with social notes, then general stats, and combat stuff on the bottom.



I wanted to call this out specifically. Back in the day we had reaction rolls to see how monsters would react to the party. You had the option to not just murder everything you happened across from the beginning. It took 5E what...from 2014 until the end of 2020 to put the words "Meeting a monster doesn't have to spark a fight" in print. And we had things like morale to measure how long monsters would fight. Now it's just assumed that every encounter must be a fight and that every fight is to the death. Combat as sport has a lot to answer for.


----------



## Manbearcat (Apr 17, 2021)

In my estimation, dungeon crawling lost its identity decades ago when people started excising quintessential aspects of the crawl (which, thankfully, we can just go back and play Moldvay or play modern games like Torchbearer); Wandering Monster Clock check every 2 Turns + Monster Reaction + Required Rest per 4 Exploration Turns + encoded (rather than handwaved) Encumbrance (which encourages spending capital on a Porter/Mule et al) + Gold for xp, etc.

A classic dungeon crawl isn't just about theatricality in exposition, creating oppressive ambience, creating a functional ecology, puzzles, individual exploration turns and individual decision points, managing loadout, trying to control the resource refresh game.

Its about those things but its also about the encoded crushing weight/table-facing ticking clock of the enterprise and GMs being surprised about how the dice turn up and having to make interesting dice outcomes work (which all of that stuff I mentioned in the first paragraph either outright creates or enhances).  The removal (either by system or GM) of all of that stuff has real consequences on the play.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 17, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Random pick. Temple of Elemental Evil. Quick skim of the first floor only. There are 52 keyed rooms. For those there are 43 combat stat blocks. So 82%. The rest are empty rooms that might have something to find. One of those rooms has 13 prisoners. Their stat blocks include hit points and XP values for murdering them. The prisoners are all naked. Only the men are given stat blocks and only the men are chained up. It's not hard to guess that there's more combat and even less interaction the deeper in you go. And in case anyone objects to that particular dungeon it was a random pick from my pile of Top 30 Modules of All Time as voted by Dungeon Magazine back in 2004. Temple of Elemental Evil was voted #4 on that list of 30.



Well it's part of the whole story starting in Hommlet>The Ruined Moat House>TOEE.  Putting one's finger on a part of the finale and saying, "look in the end = combat," rather than accurately dispersing the narrative among its various parts, would be like saying, look, we investigated and talked about and reconned Dol Guldur and then... jeepers, Combat! to drive Sauron forth from it


----------



## Reynard (Apr 17, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Random pick. Temple of Elemental Evil. Quick skim of the first floor only. There are 52 keyed rooms. For those there are 43 combat stat blocks. So 82%. The rest are empty rooms that might have something to find. One of those rooms has 13 prisoners. Their stat blocks include hit points and XP values for murdering them. The prisoners are all naked. Only the men are given stat blocks and only the men are chained up. It's not hard to guess that there's more combat and even less interaction the deeper in you go. And in case anyone objects to that particular dungeon it was a random pick from my pile of Top 30 Modules of All Time as voted by Dungeon Magazine back in 2004. Temple of Elemental Evil was voted #4 on that list of 30.






overgeeked said:


> I wanted to call this out specifically. Back in the day we had reaction rolls to see how monsters would react to the party. You had the option to not just murder everything you happened across from the beginning. It took 5E what...from 2014 until the end of 2020 to put the words "Meeting a monster doesn't have to spark a fight" in print. And we had things like morale to measure how long monsters would fight. Now it's just assumed that every encounter must be a fight and that every fight is to the death. Combat as sport has a lot to answer for.



These two statements are contradictory and I think show you aren't really discussing this in good faith. You know that "back in the day" there was a built in mechanism for determining whether or not an encounter was likely to be combat oriented, then pull an example from "back in the day" to "prove" that dungeons are nothing but combat. I bet if you polled people on this forum you would get many, many folks who experienced that module without it being a terrible, 82% combat slog.


----------



## Marc_C (Apr 17, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> I wanted to call this out specifically. Back in the day we had reaction rolls to see how monsters would react to the party. You had the option to not just murder everything you happened across from the beginning. It took 5E what...from 2014 until the end of 2020 to put the words "Meeting a monster doesn't have to spark a fight" in print. And we had things like morale to measure how long monsters would fight. Now it's just assumed that every encounter must be a fight and that every fight is to the death. Combat as sport has a lot to answer for.



False. The 5e DMG has covered this since 2014

See page 244 for Social Interaction rules.
See page 273 for Morale rules.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 17, 2021)

Reynard said:


> These two statements are contradictory and I think show you aren't really discussing this in good faith. You know that "back in the day" there was a built in mechanism for determining whether or not an encounter was likely to be combat oriented, then pull an example from "back in the day" to "prove" that dungeons are nothing but combat. I bet if you polled people on this forum you would get many, many folks who experienced that module without it being a terrible, 82% combat slog.



Since I helped playtest it and otherwise interfaced with the gamers that did I can say that it was not a "combat slog" kill the monster and take its stuff ordeal,  The playtest lasted several months in fact; and from what I observed there was a lot of various types of play going on; and admittedly the PCs even in the know were very cautious with the information they had about the holistic scenario.

I can say the same for Gary's G-D-Q series; lots of various play going on especially when one gets to the Drow and their adversarial political culture/societal part.  IME Gary's best series alongside TOEE.  At the very least it gave Salvatore lots to work with.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Apr 17, 2021)

Doctor Futurity said:


> This here. I think maybe some groups (such as the OP) may have moved away from it, but I actually have found myself leaning hard into dungeon type environments for the last year+ as they are easier to run on Roll20.



I GM a completely homebrew campaign, so if I want to feature a dungeon I either have to spend a LOT of time actually preplanning it OR I have to import it from another adventure and make it fit.

As a general rule I really dislike dungeons without a thought out ecology, so my designs for long lost locations are limited to a small pallette of monsters that are essentially "timeless guards" OR I have to throw away the classic traps and puzzles because they have already been sprung or solved by the current inhabitants.

The biggest dungeon designed in my world was a complex of 4 pyramids in the middle of a desert.   One of the pyramids was inhabited by Yuan-Ti and slaving caravans.  It was trap and puzzleless, offered up RP opportunities, and was basically a city style location.

A second pyramid was uninhabited but VERY hard to find a way into and full of trap.

 A third pyramid was previously looted and was open to desert critters with little reward.

the final pyramid, the largest, was protected from teleportation and highly guarded by whoever built the pyramids long ago.  In addition to teleportation blocking magic in the stone, the tomb was filled with undead tomb guardians.  It also had the best loot.

This one complex was by far the most time I spent on any one location in my campaign, essentially having to write a complete module ahead of time.  Normally I am very much an improv style GM with a half a page of notes, a palette of monsters pre chosen, and some ideas floating in my head.

When I hit middle age and had to juggle work, a house, kids, parents, and other issues....taking 5 hours to design and populate a dungeon isn't high on the list of thing I want to do.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Apr 17, 2021)

Wolfram stout said:


> This thread has inspired a new character idea for me. A Great Old One Warlock.  The character is a guild artisan (cartographer) who camped out at the wrong set of ruins, had bad dreams of a being known as the Great Egax and woke up with powers and an undeniable thrust to draw Dungeons. Lots of them.  He gets a pet Imp that helps him and communicates the drawings to the Great one.



What if....all the dungeons he drew in his bewitched notebook sprung to life in their own pocket dimensions and at some point the party got stuck in them....

METAPLOT!


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 18, 2021)

I predict a huge resurgence in DCs since it will require really fine-tuned and more abstracted designs less reliant on existing templates and more on new models grafted together from the parts discussed here and yet to come.  The real designers worth their salt must now stand forth and make their marks!  Onward ! erh, DOWNWARD!!


----------



## The-Magic-Sword (Apr 18, 2021)

Rob Kuntz said:


> I predict a huge resurgence in DCs since it will require really fine-tuned and more abstracted designs less reliant on existing templates and more on new models grafted together from the parts discussed here and yet to come.  The real designers worth their salt must now stand forth and make their marks!  Onward ! erh, DOWNWARD!!



I agree, its even more telling to me that Pathfinder 2e has an elaborate exploration mode that enables it in a way fantasy games outside the OSR sphere don't seem to have had in a long time. Paizo designs dungeons like the 3rd/4th edition norm, but the system itself is so much more powerful in terms of exploration and navigation, that it feels like its waiting for a killer app to take advantage of it.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> No, but if you can do everything you can in a dungeon outside a dungeon, why use a dungeon? What’s the uniquely awesome bit you get from a dungeon you can’t get from some other locale? Less prep, sure. But that’s not a “wow...dungeons!” if you take my meaning.



Well, because no you can't.

Sure, you can have that ooze garbage eater.  But, you won't have oozes all over the place (presuming a functioning town).  Again, sure you could make the entire town full of mimics, but, that only works once.  How many mimic towns do you think you can have in your setting?  By and large, towns aren't full of monsters.  They aren't full of traps.  They don't have threats around every corner, because, well, they're towns.  Regular people, ie. not monsters and not adventurers, live in towns and do their day to day stuff in that town.

Sure, you could turn every town into a dungeon, but, that kinda defeats the purpose.  It's fairly difficult to put a dragon in a town.  Again, presuming that the town is functioning and not in the process of being destroyed.  But, I can plop a dragon, or a beholder, or any number of other critters in a dungeon and it makes a lot more sense.

Towns, by their very nature, are limited in the types of threats you can place in them.  Same goes for most above ground locations.  You don't expect a dragon to keep his hoard in a big pile in a clearing in the forest do you?  Do your towns have trolls in them?  And giants?  A kobold warren is a thing of beauty.  As is the huge tunnels left by purple worms.

I mean, I look at this:


And think, wow, I could do SO MUCH with this.  To the point where I am beginning to stat this beast out (although, not quite all of it).  This is the lair of Thessalar, the lich responsible for the owlbear, whom the party has been tangling with for some time now.  This is the climax of a year long (or so) campaign.  So far, I've only done the west most section - the Woodland Shrine.  One of the encounters there is with a celestial that can open teleport gates.  Should the party search around, and get past the rather nasty hydra guarding the celestial, they can use that celestial to teleport into the dungeon and bypass the Ancient Castle.  

Ok, I haven't gotten further than that, but, the party has a specific goal, a honking big dungeon to deal with and lots of goodies.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 18, 2021)

Another benefit of the dungeon that I think some folks have hinted at but we haven't discussed in depth is that they are otherworldly. That a dungeon is both physically isolated from and metaphysically different than the rest of the world makes exploring it an inherently heroic (in the classical sense) activity. It's the Wonderland rabbit hole, the mythic Underworld, the Otherwhere. People in the setting don't necessarily have to think of it that way, but the people go go inside beyond just the foyer know.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 18, 2021)

Reynard said:


> Another benefit of the dungeon that I think some folks have hinted at but we haven't discussed in depth is that they are otherworldly. That a dungeon is both physically isolated from and metaphysically different than the rest of the world makes exploring it an inherently heroic (in the classical sense) activity. It's the Wonderland rabbit hole, the mythic Underworld, the Otherwhere. People in the setting don't necessarily have to think of it that way, but the people go go inside beyond just the foyer know.



Righto!  The theme underscores all verbal and written legend, myth, folktales and even modern SF (as in Verne's Journey to the Center of the Earth or in ERB's novels).  Dante's Inferno is a classic example that in fact incorporates past myths and tales in its narrative.  The ancient Greeks saw the underworld as a dark and foreboding place; so did the Norse, etc.  In modern times we may be able to see and scale the highest summits but what is below us will undoubtedly remain a mystery.


----------



## pumasleeve (Apr 18, 2021)

One rpg game I was in recently had players that hated dungeon crawls but would spend a 4 hour session walking around town talking to every npc in sight with no real direction and even roleplayed doing laundry. That's not playing dnd. That's playing house.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 18, 2021)

pumasleeve said:


> One rpg game I was in recently had players that hated dungeon crawls but would spend a 4 hour session walking around town talking to every npc in sight with no real direction and even roleplayed doing laundry. That's not playing dnd. That's playing house.



Well Gary Gygax did suggest that the game should be played in whatever way the players deemed fit, so according to him, and i quote, a game of "Dungeons & Beavers" was not off the table.  I just don't imagine he foresaw "Ironing Boards and Household Implements..."


----------



## pumasleeve (Apr 18, 2021)

Rob Kuntz said:


> Well Gary Gygax did suggest that the game should be played in whatever way the players deemed fit, so according to him, and i quote, a game of "Dungeons & Beavers" was not off the table.  I just don't imagine he foresaw "Ironing Boards and Household Implements..."



I guess there was always this one from 1st ed dmg:


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 18, 2021)

pumasleeve said:


> I guess there was always this one from 1st ed dmg:
> View attachment 135741



Ar least It's a step above doing the laundry.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Apr 18, 2021)

pumasleeve said:


> I guess there was always this one from 1st ed dmg:
> View attachment 135741



This jogged my memory about a commentary I'd written for my unpublished ms A New Ethos in Game Design (© 2013-2017 Rob Kuntz):

C48:  Throw out the Fantasy template, excise the mechanics and other play parts, and otherwise pare the game down to its vital conceptual component only.  Now, superimpose your workplace as the re-imagined conceptual environment, introduce you, workers, cohorts, allies and enemies as its elements, build a system of interrelationships that describe their potential and oft-occurring statistics and traits, and then gather some people to play this, “My Daily Routine RPG.”  Fantasy is probably much more interesting, but the point is:  anything is possible with this concept; or, as I like to think, that there are an infinite number of conceptual ways to “scratch” a conceptual “itch.”


----------



## Reynard (Apr 18, 2021)

pumasleeve said:


> One rpg game I was in recently had players that hated dungeon crawls but would spend a 4 hour session walking around town talking to every npc in sight with no real direction and even roleplayed doing laundry. That's not playing dnd. That's playing house.



This is why clarity is important: "let's play D&D" means different things to different people. Everyone brings their own assumptions and preferences and because it is a creatively, sometimes emotionally, intimate activity, we tend to give it more weight than it merits otherwise. It's not so difficult with long running groups, and con games are usually pretty good at saying what they are, but games with "randos" can be tough.


----------



## pumasleeve (Apr 18, 2021)

Reynard said:


> This is why clarity is important: "let's play D&D" means different things to different people. Everyone brings their own assumptions and preferences and because it is a creatively, sometimes emotionally, intimate activity, we tend to give it more weight than it merits otherwise. It's not so difficult with long running groups, and con games are usually pretty good at saying what they are, but games with "randos" can be tough.



Truth. Especially when people are usually just happy to be in a gaming group at first and then gradually become malcontent as they realize the game isnt what they want.


----------



## Marc_C (Apr 18, 2021)

Reynard said:


> This is why clarity is important: "let's play D&D" means different things to different people. Everyone brings their own assumptions and preferences and because it is a creatively, sometimes emotionally, intimate activity, we tend to give it more weight than it merits otherwise. It's not so difficult with long running groups, and con games are usually pretty good at saying what they are, but games with "randos" can be tough.



First games with a new player found on the local message boards can be tough too.

I tried for one year to find the '5th' player for our stable group of D&D. One would eat our food without permission, another was condescending (sexist) with my wife, one guy burst his zits and spread the juice on the table cloth... we also had people who didn't fit our play style which is loose, fun and centred on action. In the end I just kept the group at four players. They played one NPC which varied from adventure to adventure.


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 18, 2021)

Hussar said:


> Well, because no you can't.



You’re the DM. You can do anything you want. You just have to be creative with it.


Hussar said:


> Sure, you can have that ooze garbage eater.  But, you won't have oozes all over the place (presuming a functioning town).



Sure you could. Invent a town where they figured out how to domesticate oozes. The oozes follow people around town like pets. If you want to give it a horror twist something goes wrong and the oozes revert to their instincts and you have a D&D Blob movie. Or make the oozes semi-intelligent or better and they have a plan, even if a basic one. Like any episode of Doctor Who where the Daleks convince some dumb group of humans they’re there to help. Things go wrong.


Hussar said:


> Again, sure you could make the entire town full of mimics, but, that only works once.  How many mimic towns do you think you can have in your setting?



I suspect like anything you’d get one shot at the “wow...that’s cool” response before you’d hit diminishing returns. Just like every other monster in the game. After 3-4 your players would be yawning. “Oh, gee, another warren of kobolds...yawn.” Track that out after nearly 40 years of playing and plop a kobold warren in front of them and you’re somehow surprised everyone’s grabbing their phones between turns.


Hussar said:


> By and large, towns aren't full of monsters.  They aren't full of traps.  They don't have threats around every corner, because, well, they're towns.  Regular people, ie. not monsters and not adventurers, live in towns and do their day to day stuff in that town.



Only if you design them that way. Towns have an ecology just like a dungeon. Towns certainly can be filled with monsters. Either proper D&D-style monsters or human monsters. Cultists, worshippers of dark gods, cannibals, any variery of nasty human you want. The benefit of a town is that the players and characters don’t generally expect danger in a sleepy sea-side town. But Innsmouth. And they don’t expect danger at the summer festival. But Midsommar.


Hussar said:


> Sure, you could turn every town into a dungeon, but, that kinda defeats the purpose.



Towns have whatever purpose you give them. There’s no rule that towns have to be safe.


Hussar said:


> It's fairly difficult to put a dragon in a town.  Again, presuming that the town is functioning and not in the process of being destroyed.  But, I can plop a dragon, or a beholder, or any number of other critters in a dungeon and it makes a lot more sense.



You said you liked and missed the weird, so why not go weird with your towns?

Make the dragon the mayor. In disguise or not. Let the characters slowly figure that out. You’ve suddenly got something interesting to do. Make a kobold lawyer or a bullywug judge. Hell, make a beholder sheriff.

Do something different. Something weird. At least that would be interesting.


Hussar said:


> Towns, by their very nature, are limited in the types of threats you can place in them.



You’re the DM. You can do whatever you want. You’re only limited by your imagination.


Hussar said:


> Same goes for most above ground locations.  You don't expect a dragon to keep his hoard in a big pile in a clearing in the forest do you?



Subverting expectations is the best place to be. Giving players exactly what they expect, especially after they’ve played for decades, is boring. “Oh, gee, another mostly linear dungeon with lots of oozes and kobolds and traps...yawn.” Subverting expectations is what wakes up the players. “What do you mean there’s a troll in town? And the people aren’t running screaming? WTF is going on?” That’s interesting. That’s a mystery to solve.


Hussar said:


> Do your towns have trolls in them?  And giants?



Sure, why not? The only thing stopping you is your imagination.


Hussar said:


> I mean, I look at this:
> 
> 
> And think, wow, I could do SO MUCH with this.  To the point where I am beginning to stat this beast out (although, not quite all of it).  This is the lair of Thessalar, the lich responsible for the owlbear, whom the party has been tangling with for some time now.  This is the climax of a year long (or so) campaign.  So far, I've only done the west most section - the Woodland Shrine.  One of the encounters there is with a celestial that can open teleport gates.  Should the party search around, and get past the rather nasty hydra guarding the celestial, they can use that celestial to teleport into the dungeon and bypass the Ancient Castle.
> ...



I’m glad that gets your juices flowing. That’s awesome.

I see that map and nearly pass out from boredom. That map will be filled with dozens of the same monsters in basically the same set up as they have been for the last 40 years. Your players with have to murder their way through a series of increasingly difficult monsters. Just as expected. They will face traps. Just as expected. They will have secret doors and portals that bypass content if found. Just as expected. They will learn of animosities between the factions and be able to play them off each other. Just as expected. Skip all the boring stuff and get to the good stuff. The new and different. You stock it with the same monsters and same traps and samey sameness for 75 rooms and tuck two rooms with new and novel encounters, I’ll still be bored to death long before we get to those two interesting rooms...if we ever even get to those two interesting rooms.

That’s not me attacking you, that’s me being bored to death with dungeons. They’re all the same. Five guys got together over 40 years ago and had a few good ideas. After all this time later and we’re still just regurgitating them with minor variations at best.

People can talk about mythic connections all they want. Until someone puts out a properly mythic dungeon, it’s still 2d6 goblins in room 4 repeated hundreds of times. That’s the trouble with making myth and magic mundane...it becomes mundane.


----------



## Dioltach (Apr 18, 2021)

Sabathius42 said:


> As a general rule I really dislike dungeons without a thought out ecology, so my designs for long lost locations are limited to a small pallette of monsters that are essentially "timeless guards" OR I have to throw away the classic traps and puzzles because they have already been sprung or solved by the current inhabitants.



What I'll generally do is have a "living" dungeon that's "open access", so to speak, where the monsters interact and change. Within the living dungeon I'll add various "closed" areas that are sealed off by hidden doors and other challenges, with traps and puzzles and populated by the "timeless guards" as you call them.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword (Apr 18, 2021)

What would something new or different even mean at this point? 4th edition came out over a decade ago, and adventuring outside of the dungeon was already plenty in vogue (that was around when I started playing by GMing my first game) and had been for a long time. Ben Robbins West Marches with it's hex map was a third edition thing, and people had obviously been hexcrawling prior to that, with the TSR games having explicit procedures for them. For a good bulk of the time I've been a GM (again, a decade or so) I've been running almost entirely outside what can properly be called Dungeons, and have stuck with Dungeons that have 2-3 encounters at most when I have run them, 4 or 5 counting non-combat challenges.

So its not like leaving the dungeon is some kind of new and exciting thing, the rest is just as old and tired, in practical terms. Except a generation of gamers hasn't really been interacting with Dungeons the way the older generation thought of them, us 3rd and 4th edition types could only use dungeons as a small part of the game, because our Dungeons were essentially World of Warcraft style, simple romps through a selection of set-piece encounters with minimal branches, usually heading towards a set climax boss encounter. 

A proper Dungeon Crawl, with ecology, decentralized narrative where the dungeon can be revisited, jacquayed layout, factions, and so forth is actually a pretty new and interesting possibility space for the majority of us. I'm especially interested in how they might intersect with more modern game design conventions, as opposed to OSR environments (which deprioritize character customization, combat as sport, and so forth.) There was a while there where kobold hall style five room dungeons were pretty much considered the only acceptable standard for a dungeon that wouldn't grate on the nerves of the players.


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 18, 2021)

The-Magic-Sword said:


> What would something new or different even mean at this point?



Something that's not your standard sprawling dungeon with dozens of rooms that are mostly combat encounters, trap-laden rooms, and minimal (faction play) interaction.


The-Magic-Sword said:


> 4th edition came out over a decade ago, and adventuring outside of the dungeon was already plenty in vogue (that was around when I started playing by GMing my first game) and had been for a long time. Ben Robbins West Marches with it's hex map was a third edition thing, and people had obviously been hexcrawling prior to that, with the TSR games having explicit procedures for them.



West Marches was a Ben Robbins thing, but people were playing that exact style since almost the beginning of the game. One DM with a large pool of players who self-organized into groups of adventurers plotting their own course into the wild or dungeon. That was standard back in the day.


The-Magic-Sword said:


> For a good bulk of the time I've been a GM (again, a decade or so) I've been running almost entirely outside what can properly be called Dungeons, and have stuck with Dungeons that have 2-3 encounters at most when I have run them, 4 or 5 counting non-combat challenges.



Even that would be a welcome change of pace. If you're going to push linear combat fests, at least keep them short. The sprawling map of endless nothing but combat...ugh.


The-Magic-Sword said:


> So its not like leaving the dungeon is some kind of new and exciting thing, the rest is just as old and tired, in practical terms.



Leaving the dungeon isn't new. But there are more options when you're not limited to a linear dungeon. When you're in a town or city or hexcrawling you can pick a direction and go. You have a freedom of movement and choice you simply don't have in a dungeon.


The-Magic-Sword said:


> Except a generation of gamers hasn't really been interacting with Dungeons the way the older generation thought of them, us 3rd and 4th edition types could only use dungeons as a small part of the game, because our Dungeons were essentially World of Warcraft style, simple romps through a selection of set-piece encounters with minimal branches, usually heading towards a set climax boss encounter.



Even that would be a refreshing change. Again, if it's going to be a boring linear slug-fest, at least keep it short.


The-Magic-Sword said:


> A proper Dungeon Crawl, *with ecology, decentralized narrative where the dungeon can be revisited, jacquayed layout*, factions, and so forth is actually a pretty new and interesting possibility space for the majority of us. I'm especially interested in how they might intersect with more modern game design conventions, as opposed to OSR environments (which deprioritize character customization, combat as sport, and so forth.) There was a while there where kobold hall style five room dungeons were pretty much considered the only acceptable standard for a dungeon that wouldn't grate on the nerves of the players.



The bolded bits would be new for me as well. Faction play has been around since at least 1980 or 1982. 

Though I'm not sure what a jacquayed layout would add to a dungeon, unless the point was to avoid things like tracking time, movement, resources, and wandering monsters. I like the moment when the torch goes out and the players realize they just encountered a wandering monster. Skipping that would make what little there is to like about dungeons disappear.

I think combat as sport is part of the problem. Combat as war at least relies on the players' creativity to overcome and/or avoid some fights. Combat as sport makes every fight a stand-up brawl to the death and turns things tedious and dull rather quickly.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 18, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Something that's not your standard sprawling dungeon with dozens of rooms that are mostly combat encounters, trap-laden rooms, and minimal (faction play) interaction.
> 
> West Marches was a Ben Robbins thing, but people were playing that exact style since almost the beginning of the game. One DM with a large pool of players who self-organized into groups of adventurers plotting their own course into the wild or dungeon. That was standard back in the day.
> 
> ...



People have kept answering saying that good dungeons are not just linear combat fests yet you keep using that line.

It’s like you saying you can do anything you want in town, and everyone else in response just going , “well towns are just boring places to shop”.

It’s becoming increasingly frustrating to read when you ask what can be done in a dungeon, you get a response, then just ignore it and repeat that they are boring combat fests.

Jacquaying the dungeon doesn’t obviate the resource mechanic at all. It enhances it! You are forced to pay more attention to your surroundings, your mapping, exploring the unknown (adding to the exploration factor which you don’t get in towns. Towns are known territory, the dungeon is a true frontier). This adds to the freedom of where to go, that’s the whole point of Jacquaying the dungeon!! You get that freedom and choice.

Another advantage of a dungeon, is that you _can_ have a variety of biomes and ecologists in a relatively small space, which is difficult to do naturally in a town or wilderness.

Check out the Holmes sample dungeon. You have elements of a lost city, smugglers in a Sandy cove, goblin warrens and crypts. 

I’m building a dungeon now for example that has a space ship that has crashed into a mountain many years ago and is covered now.

The mountain used to hold a dwarven city (this is now bisected by the ship.
The dwarven city was only recently uncovered by a nearby town’s mining operation. As the towns people have disappeared (that ship is bad news), orcs have made a lair in the lower parts of the mine...  so I have several unique biomes in that alone, plus multiple routes into the ship/dwarven city and throughout the ship itself. 
You are right though about combat as sport really denting a dungeon. Along with the increasing xp for monsters and removing xp for gold. The purpose of the dungeon was to explore, get treasure, minimise bloody and costly combat. Install those elements into the game, the dungeon suddenly becomes a lot more interesting.


----------



## Schmoe (Apr 18, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Random pick. Temple of Elemental Evil. Quick skim of the first floor only. There are 52 keyed rooms. For those there are 43 combat stat blocks. So 82%. The rest are empty rooms that might have something to find. One of those rooms has 13 prisoners. Their stat blocks include hit points and XP values for murdering them. The prisoners are all naked. Only the men are given stat blocks and only the men are chained up. It's not hard to guess that there's more combat and even less interaction the deeper in you go. And in case anyone objects to that particular dungeon it was a random pick from my pile of Top 30 Modules of All Time as voted by Dungeon Magazine back in 2004. Temple of Elemental Evil was voted #4 on that list of 30.




Yeah, it really wasn't meant to play that way.  The stats are there for if they are needed, and for sure they often will be, but it's a distinct lack of imagination if the whole thing just becomes a kick-in-the-door slashfest.

I don't know if I can put my finger on what makes dungeons fun for me, and I certainly don't contend that they have some exclusive claim to fun, but the bounded nature of dungeons somehow makes the discoveries more satisfying.  It's always a question of "how deep does it go?" and "what more am I missing?"  The dungeon is a destination in and of itself that invites that exploration.  I don't get that same feeling from journeying through, say a forest.  A forest is a backdrop to an adventure.  I rarely see the forest itself be the adventure.


----------



## Schmoe (Apr 18, 2021)

<quote snipped>



overgeeked said:


> I see that map and nearly pass out from boredom. That map will be filled with dozens of the same monsters in basically the same set up as they have been for the last 40 years. Your players with have to murder their way through a series of increasingly difficult monsters. Just as expected. They will face traps. Just as expected. They will have secret doors and portals that bypass content if found. Just as expected. They will learn of animosities between the factions and be able to play them off each other. Just as expected. Skip all the boring stuff and get to the good stuff. The new and different. You stock it with the same monsters and same traps and samey sameness for 75 rooms and tuck two rooms with new and novel encounters, I’ll still be bored to death long before we get to those two interesting rooms...if we ever even get to those two interesting rooms.
> 
> That’s not me attacking you, that’s me being bored to death with dungeons. They’re all the same. Five guys got together over 40 years ago and had a few good ideas. After all this time later and we’re still just regurgitating them with minor variations at best.
> 
> People can talk about mythic connections all they want. Until someone puts out a properly mythic dungeon, it’s still 2d6 goblins in room 4 repeated hundreds of times. That’s the trouble with making myth and magic mundane...it becomes mundane.




I'm sorry that you've lost the wonder.  What kind of adventures do you like?  What is it about dungeons that makes it so you can't have those adventures in a dungeon?


----------



## The-Magic-Sword (Apr 18, 2021)

City adventures don't seem as interesting as Dungeons in my experience, usually they're bereft of spacial context in a way that renders the point moot, i can say that i'm walking east in a city, but what does that actually mean? Either there's a point of interest for me to interact with, or I'm just going to be meandering around in search of adventure. I've actually tried to run them, but cities and wilderness are just these massive places that can be monotonous to go through, unless you use something like a point crawl procedure, but then they just become dungeons with the serial numbers filed off-- individual areas become rooms, or sub-areas in the dungeon, you don't have hallways so you can go in any direction, but the directions are so abstract, thats not especially more meaningful, its like having four to eight hallways off of each area, based off what the GM has prepped, or is willing to improvise in that direction.

I feel that Combat as Sport gets a bad rap, and I find Combat as War largely boring because of the way that it emphasizes more arbitrary solutions to problems-- there's less room for the individual abilities of the players, and the individual abilities of the monsters to make a meaningful impact. Any party can create a fire to smoke creatures out of a room, any party can collapse a hallway, and once you've done those kinds of solutions once or twice, they begin to feel somewhat rote. Being able to alter or avoid fights, and solve problems in unique ways is still a key part of play, as far as I'm concerned, but squaring up and taking your foes using the character abilities you chose, expressing yourself in that way, and being able to engage in moment to moment combat tactics is just as important. 

In that sense OSR games traditionally feel anemic to us, like they're made for people who don't like combat, or who are obsessed with green text style stories, where the ridiculousness is the point. They deny us fun fights in the name of encouraging creative thinking, whereas we do enjoy taking confrontations head on, much of the time. The OSR style is fine and all, but not really for me-- they also tend to to disrupt the narrative by demanding that you be weak enough to always have to game the situation somehow, even when not every good story is about gaming the situation, not every hero is a macguyver, or a guerilla. 

I also feel like its easier to add combat as war elements to combat as sport, since it just means allowing players to disrupt or split up harder encounters though the use of their environment, and making some areas hard enough for them to want to consider that, than to add combat as sport elements to combat as war, since combat as war traditionally asserts itself by making combat as sport a doomed proposition on a systemic level. For an example of this, we ended up picking Starfinder over Stars Without Number, because after reading a combat example, my players noticed exactly how few hit points the player characters actually have, there's fundamentally no way to have a fight where the players can take it head on and be 'playing well' which just throws out so much narrative space we enjoy in our PF2e/5e/4e games.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 18, 2021)

I like that the dungeon is a weird environment that invites not just strangeness but a deep variety of features and inhabitants. If you are exploring the deeps and you turn a corning and suddenly find yourself is a primeval forest, you won't throw your hands up in frustration. Instead you will wonder how it came to be and what it's doing there.

Perhaps you slipped through the veil and have entered into the Feywild. Maybe a powerful druid or fey creature decided to recreate a forest in the cavern because they missed their home in such a place. Is it all an illusion,or the body of one great mimic? What if the forest spills out from a long lost Staff of the Woodlands?

I think dungeons in particular are good at highlighting this kind of weirdness and giving players a reason to feel wonder.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 18, 2021)

Hussar said:


> Towns, by their very nature, are limited in the types of threats you can place in them.



While I largely agree with you, I think you're doing towns a bit of a disservice here.

Sure you can't really put giants and dragons and purple worms in towns, instead you can have slavers and doppelgangers and vampires: human - or human-ish - monsters and opponents.


Hussar said:


> Same goes for most above ground locations.  You don't expect a dragon to keep his hoard in a big pile in a clearing in the forest do you?



Truth be told, that's pretty much exactly what I'd expect of a green dragon.  It'd be camouflaged six ways from Sunday, of course, and well-defended... 


Hussar said:


> And think, wow, I could do SO MUCH with this.  To the point where I am beginning to stat this beast out (although, not quite all of it).



That is one hella fine map, I must say.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 18, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Leaving the dungeon isn't new. But there are more options when you're not limited to a linear dungeon. When you're in a town or city or hexcrawling you can pick a direction and go. You have a freedom of movement and choice you simply don't have in a dungeon.
> 
> Though I'm not sure what a jacquayed layout would add to a dungeon, unless the point was to avoid things like tracking time, movement, resources, and wandering monsters. I like the moment when the torch goes out and the players realize they just encountered a wandering monster. Skipping that would make what little there is to like about dungeons disappear.



These two paragraphs contradict a bit.  A jacquayed layout (which I assume means a layout with lots of interweaving passages and vertical connections a la Dark Tower) gives you exactly the freedom of movement and choice in a dougeon that you seem to be bemoaning the lack of.  It's the exact opposite of a linear dungeon, which I also have come to dislike both as player and DM.

Sure you'll probably end up exploring the whole thing even in a fully-jacquayed dungeon, but the same can be said of a town.


overgeeked said:


> I think combat as sport is part of the problem. Combat as war at least relies on the players' creativity to overcome and/or avoid some fights. Combat as sport makes every fight a stand-up brawl to the death and turns things tedious and dull rather quickly.



Agreed.


----------



## pumasleeve (Apr 18, 2021)

Marc_C said:


> one guy burst his zits and spread the juice on the table cloth...



The horror... the horror...


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 18, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> These two paragraphs contradict a bit.  A jacquayed layout (which I assume means a layout with lots of interweaving passages and vertical connections a la Dark Tower) gives you exactly the freedom of movement and choice in a dougeon that you seem to be bemoaning the lack of.  It's the exact opposite of a linear dungeon, which I also have come to dislike both as player and DM.
> 
> Sure you'll probably end up exploring the whole thing even in a fully-jacquayed dungeon, but the same can be said of a town.
> 
> Agreed.



I must be using the word wring then. I thought it meant abstracted, as in a pointcrawl, where the distance and travel between two points was abstracted and thus rendered basically irrelevant.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword (Apr 18, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> I must be using the word wring then. I thought it meant abstracted, as in a pointcrawl, where the distance and travel between two points was abstracted and thus rendered basically irrelevant.











						Jaquaying the Dungeon
					

I believe that dungeons should always be heavily jaquayed.…Okay, it’s true. I’m just making words up now. In the case of jaquaying, the term is referring to Jennell Jaquays, who design




					thealexandrian.net


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 19, 2021)

transmission89 said:


> People have kept answering saying that good dungeons are not just linear combat fests yet you keep using that line.



Yes, a few people have responded with actual attempts at conversation and examples. And I appreciate that. Most are just dismissively stating and restating that dungeons are awesome without any attempt at explanation or examples.


transmission89 said:


> It’s like you saying you can do anything you want in town, and everyone else in response just going , “well towns are just boring places to shop”.



You mean exactly like they have been?


transmission89 said:


> It’s becoming increasingly frustrating to read when you ask what can be done in a dungeon, you get a response, then just ignore it and repeat that they are boring combat fests.



From my end as well. People keep saying dungeons are awesome, and I keep asking what makes dungeons so awesome, and the response (except for 2-3 people) has been "well, they just are."


transmission89 said:


> Jacquaying the dungeon doesn’t obviate the resource mechanic at all. It enhances it! You are forced to pay more attention to your surroundings, your mapping, exploring the unknown (adding to the exploration factor which you don’t get in towns. Towns are known territory, the dungeon is a true frontier). This adds to the freedom of where to go, that’s the whole point of Jacquaying the dungeon!! You get that freedom and choice.



Yep. My fault. I was using the word wrong.


transmission89 said:


> I’m building a dungeon now for example that has a space ship that has crashed into a mountain many years ago and is covered now.
> 
> The mountain used to hold a dwarven city (this is now bisected by the ship.
> 
> The dwarven city was only recently uncovered by a nearby town’s mining operation. As the towns people have disappeared (that ship is bad news), orcs have made a lair in the lower parts of the mine...so I have several unique biomes in that alone, plus multiple routes into the ship/dwarven city and throughout the ship itself.



That sounds like an interesting set up. Thanks for the example. So what will the PCs do in that dungeon?


transmission89 said:


> You are right though about combat as sport really denting a dungeon. Along with the increasing xp for monsters and removing xp for gold. The purpose of the dungeon was to explore, get treasure, minimise bloody and costly combat. Install those elements into the game, the dungeon suddenly becomes a lot more interesting.



Exactly. Dungeons as a spelunking expedition rather than a protracted home invasion.


Schmoe said:


> Yeah, it really wasn't meant to play that way.  The stats are there for if they are needed, and for sure they often will be, but it's a distinct lack of imagination if the whole thing just becomes a kick-in-the-door slashfest.



I've played a lot of D&D over the years, in that time I have never had a DM run a dungeon that wasn't a hack-and-slash-athon. Not once. The vast majority have been published modules. And across several dozen DMs. They've all been kick in the door, murder, loot, kick in the door...


Schmoe said:


> I don't know if I can put my finger on what makes dungeons fun for me, and I certainly don't contend that they have some exclusive claim to fun, but the bounded nature of dungeons somehow makes the discoveries more satisfying.  It's always a question of "how deep does it go?" and "what more am I missing?"  The dungeon is a destination in and of itself that invites that exploration.  I don't get that same feeling from journeying through, say a forest.  A forest is a backdrop to an adventure.  I rarely see the forest itself be the adventure.



Sure. And thanks for the attempt at an answer.


Schmoe said:


> I'm sorry that you've lost the wonder. What is it about dungeons that makes it so you can't have those adventures in a dungeon?



I haven't lost "the wonder". I just dislike dungeoncrawls because, to date, to a dungeon, they've all been basically linear slug-fests.


The-Magic-Sword said:


> City adventures don't seem as interesting as Dungeons in my experience, usually they're bereft of spacial context in a way that renders the point moot, i can say that i'm walking east in a city, but what does that actually mean? Either there's a point of interest for me to interact with, or I'm just going to be meandering around in search of adventure. I've actually tried to run them, but cities and wilderness are just these massive places that can be monotonous to go through, unless you use something like a point crawl procedure, but then they just become dungeons with the serial numbers filed off-- individual areas become rooms, or sub-areas in the dungeon, you don't have hallways so you can go in any direction, but the directions are so abstract, thats not especially more meaningful, its like having four to eight hallways off of each area, based off what the GM has prepped, or is willing to improvise in that direction.



I think a properly prepared, i.e. fully prepared, town can be a lot more interesting than a dungeon because you can go anywhere and do anything. Because it's not just a point crawl. Even if it become monotonous. That's the players' choice. If they want to go bagel shopping for an hour, it's their call. If they want to check in with the inn, jobs board, or local guilds for something to do, great. It's not the DM's job to spoon feed them or lead them by the nose. I think it's the DM's job to provide hooks and rumors and clues, but generally to play the environment the PCs are engaged in, whatever that environment happens to be.


The-Magic-Sword said:


> I feel that Combat as Sport gets a bad rap, and I find Combat as War largely boring because of the way that it emphasizes more arbitrary solutions to problems-- there's less room for the individual abilities of the players, and the individual abilities of the monsters to make a meaningful impact. Any party can create a fire to smoke creatures out of a room, any party can collapse a hallway, and once you've done those kinds of solutions once or twice, they begin to feel somewhat rote. Being able to alter or avoid fights, and solve problems in unique ways is still a key part of play, as far as I'm concerned, but squaring up and taking your foes using the character abilities you chose, expressing yourself in that way, and being able to engage in moment to moment combat tactics is just as important.



I feel that combat as sport is boring and rote. Especially in 5E. The odds are already stacked drastically in the PCs' favor. Winning a fight is a foregone conclusion. Unless the DM chooses to throw deadly fights at you. Which at least they would be more interesting and intense than a boring old square off with perfectly balanced CR monsters for the party.

I think solving things in a unique way and avoiding combat is part of combat as war. I don't see it as part of combat as sport. It would effectively be cheating at the sport.

I'd rather express myself through finding interesting and novel ways to avoid fights or end them before they start. I don't think of squaring off in a fight I'm all but predetermined to win as a form of self expression. I find it boring.


The-Magic-Sword said:


> In that sense OSR games traditionally feel anemic to us, like they're made for people who don't like combat, or who are obsessed with green text style stories, where the ridiculousness is the point. They deny us fun fights in the name of encouraging creative thinking, whereas we do enjoy taking confrontations head on, much of the time. The OSR style is fine and all, but not really for me-- they also tend to to disrupt the narrative by demanding that you be weak enough to always have to game the situation somehow, even when not every good story is about gaming the situation, not every hero is a macguyver, or a guerilla.



I think the narrative is whatever emerges in play at the table. There's no greater narrative we should be worried about. The story we're telling is whatever happens in the game as we play it. If I want a narrative told to me, I'll read a book.


The-Magic-Sword said:


> I also feel like its easier to add combat as war elements to combat as sport, since it just means allowing players to disrupt or split up harder encounters though the use of their environment, and making some areas hard enough for them to want to consider that, than to add combat as sport elements to combat as war, since combat as war traditionally asserts itself by making combat as sport a doomed proposition on a systemic level.



I think combat as sport is wildly unrealistic in every imaginable way. Whatever little narrative there is in a game is destroyed if you have characters acting in wildly unrealistic ways. Like willingly squaring off for a fair and perfectly balanced fight where someone (almost always the monsters) will end up dead. That's not how you fight. That's how you die.


The-Magic-Sword said:


> For an example of this, we ended up picking Starfinder over Stars Without Number, because after reading a combat example, my players noticed exactly how few hit points the player characters actually have, there's fundamentally no way to have a fight where the players can take it head on and be 'playing well' which just throws out so much narrative space we enjoy in our PF2e/5e/4e games.



I think character death and low hit points are far more interesting an obstacle to deal with. I'd rather have a character with low hit points who tries, fails, and dies, than a character with high hit points and can't fail even if he tried. That seems utterly boring to me. There's no challenge. It's not exciting if there's no risk. It's only a name on a character sheet. But whatever advancement I achieved I get to own because it was hard to get that advancement. It wasn't a foregone conclusion that will only not happen if the dice go really, really badly for me in some freak accident. I want whatever advancement I get or loot I get to feel earned. Not like it's a participation trophy.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword (Apr 19, 2021)

In fairness, I play pf2e, 5e has non functional encounter guidelines and acutely limited options, it was a big reason we fled it.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 19, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> I suspect like anything you’d get one shot at the “wow...that’s cool” response before you’d hit diminishing returns. Just like every other monster in the game. After 3-4 your players would be yawning. “Oh, gee, another warren of kobolds...yawn.” Track that out after nearly 40 years of playing and plop a kobold warren in front of them and you’re somehow surprised everyone’s grabbing their phones between turns.



And yet, funnily enough, no, that is not what happens.

Fair cop though.  If you want to turn every town into a dungeon, then, well, I can see why you wouldn't see much difference between a town and a dungeon.  If every town is ooze infested, zombie infested, hell holes just a hair away from tragedy, then, sure, towns can replace dungeons.  

But me?  I'm looking at how towns are presented in most modules and whatnot.  And it certainly isn't what you're talking about.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 19, 2021)

At the end of the day, a dungeon is just a flow chart. That’s all it is. And as such it’s just another tool to be used. Sometimes you want a wide open space and sometimes you don’t.


----------



## transmission89 (Apr 19, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> That sounds like an interesting set up. Thanks for the example. So what will the PCs do in that dungeon?



So I play AD&D and OSE primarily, so it’s still the old school hunting for treasure. It’s a moving target at the moment as I’m still building it and adding in new things as inspiration hits me.

But general high level is kind of Expedition to the Barrier peaks meets Aliens/The Thing (in vibe).

The main challenge of this dungeon is in mapping exploration as it pushes the concept of verticality with paths taking you up and down. 

The pcs will be lured to the mountain region by tales of a lost dwarven kingdom and the dwarven treasure maguffin. They will find a mining town that’s been abandoned, Mary Celeste style, a lot of the town’s treasures (such as silverware, jewellery etc) stripped and some journals that hint at strange going’s on.

As they explore the mine, they’ll find more hints at this, depending on the route taken, they’ll find evidence of dwarves attacking their own, or if they go through an orc lair, find a young orc who’s dad is the chieftain who went to investigate the source of these monsters and not come back (please find him etc).

The ship has crashed nose first at nearly a 45 degree angle, but the local gravity initially makes things “normal”. Of course, you can find the bridge to adjust this to make things interesting. There will be things to explore and prod (like an enhancement machine that may raise/lower stats through brutal automated surgery), on board AI that needs assistance, that laser trap from the first resident evil, some potential allies stuck in a stasis field trap (they can provide information and have potential side quests of their own), an elevator that may or may not collapse but provide a nice shaft that intersects the levels, an area filled with radiation leaks where you need to find a hazmat suit to safely navigate, teleported pads that only function one way to disorient the party, Holographic rec room, a small local bio zoo with “interesting creaturesfound on the travels,and a way to find the other half of the dwarven city through the mines.

Of course, there’s other items to find that delve into sci fi tropes like power swords, jet boots, pulse rifles and heavy flamers.

What keyed combat encounters there are will also play with the tropes to make them interesting. To access the radiated chamber safely, you need the hazmat suit and only one person is given access to the chamber at a time. To wear the hazmat suit, you must strip everything else off. As the room starts to vent and the doors open again, they might also open to expose themselves to irradiated mutants. Can the party member make it back to the rest of the party in time?

Can you successfully fight in zero G?  You want to take on a large monster with that mech rig from Aliens? You bet!

So I’m still working on it, but hopefully you can see that it presents a wide variety of options, exploration, interactivity, goals, more than just combat (and interesting combat when it does break out).


----------



## Arilyn (Apr 19, 2021)

I'm careful about stating "nevers." Not a fan of long sprawling dungeon crawls, except that one time... Don't like the Barbarian class, except the fun I did have when Barbarian was the perfect class for the character I pictured.


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 19, 2021)

Hussar said:


> And yet, funnily enough, no, that is not what happens.



Are you still as excited now when you face a troll as you were the first time? I’d be willing to bet not. 


Hussar said:


> Fair cop though.  If you want to turn every town into a dungeon, then, well, I can see why you wouldn't see much difference between a town and a dungeon.  If every town is ooze infested, zombie infested, hell holes just a hair away from tragedy, then, sure, towns can replace dungeons.



I’m trying to see what the unique draw of dungeons is. As you said up thread, it’s an enclosed space with a focused and limited amount if prep compared to a town or a hexcrawl. I get that. But I don’t see what else the draw is. It’s a game of imagination. If you decide all towns are safe and boring and only dungeons can be awesome, you’re limiting yourself.

I think dungeons are boring because of the way they’re presented in most modules and how every DM I’ve ever played with has presented them as linear hackfests.

Several of you are saying dungeons are awesome. Okay. What’s so awesome about dungeons? So far I’ve got: 1) limited and focused prep; 2) because we’ve arbitrarily decided to make all towns boring; and, 3) dungeons are an excuse to bring the weird.

The first has obvious benefits. But that’s not really a reason dungeons are inherently awesome. That’s dungeons are easier to prep for the DM. As for 2, you don’t have to arbitrarily make all towns boring. And as for 3, you don’t have to limit the weird to dungeons. Those are choices you make. Other options exist and are valid. 

But sure. If for some reason you decide the only place where anything interesting can happen is in a dungeon, I can see why dungeons would be appealing. Those are valid choices you choose to make. Awesome. I can’t see why you would limit yourself like that. 


Hussar said:


> But me?  I'm looking at how towns are presented in most modules and whatnot.  And it certainly isn't what you're talking about.



Sure. They’re typically presented as boring safe havens your PCs go to rest between delves. With maybe a few odd jobs to collect some coin and maybe a few retainers to hire. I make towns way more interesting than modules present them. Absolutely right I do. Otherwise towns are boring. D&D shouldn’t be boring.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 19, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> I've played a lot of D&D over the years, in that time I have never had a DM run a dungeon that wasn't a hack-and-slash-athon. Not once. The vast majority have been published modules. And across several dozen DMs. They've all been kick in the door, murder, loot, kick in the door...



Thing is, what's the only common denominator all those games had?

You.

Are/were you approaching dungeon crawls with a default hack-first mentality perhaps?

Like I said upthread, any dunegon can become a hack-a-thon if that's how you and the other players in-character decide to approach it.

For a contrary example, I just finished running a session for a 1st-level group.  Party is deep in a dungeon.  Session consisted of:

Spelunking.  They'd searched everything except a staircase down from the bottom of a sarcophagus which turns into a shaft leading down to standing water; shaft has a secret door in its side partway down which it took them a while to find.

Puzzle-solving.  Room outside shaft has a big imposing door with a dozen carvings including a ship, a rainbow, a tree, a dragon, a puppy dog, etc.  Party spent a while puzzling over this, then realized they could safely pass the door and carry on. 



Spoiler



DM note: the carvings are pure dungeon dressing and have no actual significance.



Exploration into some empty areas, then a trap, no lasting harm done. (this level is a relatively linear bit of the dungeon, unlike the highly-jacquay-like parts above)

Encounter.  Party hear sounds and voices behind a door.  Instead of charging in they knock on the door and open polite conversation with what they think by its voice is a Hobgoblin (the door remained closed throughout), one of - from the sound if it - several.  Party leave on peaceful terms.

Encounter.  Party find an underground lake with a hut on its beach, hut holds a crazy old man.  Conversation here kinda gets nowhere so party take their leave.

Encounter.  Further along beach party walk into the camp of 8 Neanderthals and 4 Dire Wolves, all starving.  Party try hailing, wolves attack but people do not.  Unwinnable combat and high risk of TPK if party decide to slug it out, but they quickly realized that food was the answer - except for one of the wolves which they had no choice but kill as it just wouldn't stop attacking; it saw one PC in particular as being a better meal than the rations being thrown at it.

Some of the party are still stuck here at session's end: Neanderthals are utterly terrified of something back down the beach, don't want the party to go there, and as peacefully as they can won't allow the whole party to leave (though some have escaped).  Beach ends just past the Neanderthals' camp. 



Spoiler



What's terrified the Neanderthals is the crazy old man in the hut.  He hates their wolves and has managed somehow to "train" the people and wolves alike never to come down the beach toward his hut.  There's no other way the Neanderthals can go, so they're stuck where they are, trying to eke out subsistence from the lake.

How and why all these beings got here is a very long, but internally coherent, story; based around the idea that anyone trying to boat or swim across the lake will meet a two-way somewhat-random planar gate... 



So is that non-combatty enough for you?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 19, 2021)

Troll?  Good grief, who uses trolls anymore?

Lessee, I've got 4, no, 5 new monster books for 5e - Kobold's Tome of Beasts and Creature Codex.  Just picked up a homebrew book The 188 page Monster Hunter's Book.  I've got a mod for Fantasy Grounds for the NPC A Day with some 300 statted out monsters.  And, I know I'm forgetting something, but, not that important right now.

Sure, if you're simply churning out the same boring crap over and over again, yeah, it's boring.  That's a bit self fulfilling.  I haven't used a WotC monster manual, other than a handful of times, since... jeez, I don't think I ever have.  When 3e rolled around, I immediately jumped on the Scarred Lands wagon - 3 full monster manuals of unique monsters.  

So, yeah, if you insist on retreading the same boring old crap over and over again, it will be boring.  What's your point?  Same goes for anything.  Oh, look, it's yet another human cultist.  Yawn.  Same deal.  

I love dungeon crawls because it defines a nice split between civilization - towns, whatnot - and the unknown.  You have no idea what you will find in a dungeon.  Heck, last largish dungeon crawl I ran had pools dedicated to Baphomet that healed you and made you super strong.  Granted, they eventually cost you your soul, but, hey, that made for interesting play once the players who were taking advantage of these free gifts realized that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 19, 2021)

Lanefan said:


> Thing is, what's the only common denominator all those games had?
> 
> You.
> 
> ...



Not really, no. I try to talk to any and all as we go through because combat after combat after combat is so mind-numbingly dull. That is typically shut down with some version of ”they attack you anyway.”


Lanefan said:


> For a contrary example, I just finished running a session for a 1st-level group.  Party is deep in a dungeon.  Session consisted of:
> 
> Spelunking.  They'd searched everything except a staircase down from the bottom of a sarcophagus which turns into a shaft leading down to standing water; shaft has a secret door in its side partway down which it took them a while to find.
> 
> ...



That’s definitely more interesting. How long was the session?


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 19, 2021)

Hussar said:


> Troll?  Good grief, who uses trolls anymore?
> 
> Lessee, I've got 4, no, 5 new monster books for 5e - Kobold's Tome of Beasts and Creature Codex.  Just picked up a homebrew book The 188 page Monster Hunter's Book.  I've got a mod for Fantasy Grounds for the NPC A Day with some 300 statted out monsters.  And, I know I'm forgetting something, but, not that important right now.
> 
> ...



I feel the same. I have 5-6 of those same monster books and use them. I typically use the names and specials for inspiration and homebrew monsters anyway. 


Hussar said:


> I love dungeon crawls because it defines a nice split between civilization - towns, whatnot - and the unknown.  You have no idea what you will find in a dungeon.  Heck, last largish dungeon crawl I ran had pools dedicated to Baphomet that healed you and made you super strong.  Granted, they eventually cost you your soul, but, hey, that made for interesting play once the players who were taking advantage of these free gifts realized that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.



Cool. Don’t the same splits exist at the edge of town? Civilization / not-civilization; known / unknown; etc.

How did you handle the cost for overusing the pools? And how would they learn there was a cost?


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 19, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> That’s definitely more interesting. How long was the session?



6-ish hours.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 20, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> How did you handle the cost for overusing the pools? And how would they learn there was a cost?



They learned after the third time, when they were compelled to bathe because of the first two times that they willingly baptised themselves in what they absolutely knew were demonic fonts.  Those that failed the saving throw, baptised themselves a third time and were told that they had a vision of Baphomet.  The only effect was that they knew that they had tied themselves to Baphomet somehow, and didn't care.  Later effects, unfortunately the campaign died shortly later, would have been Baphomet constantly tempting them with new powers and abilities to use until they eventually completely came under his sway or found some way to free themselves.

Note, when investigating a demonic temple, and you absolutely know that the fonts are evil, don't complain when using the fonts comes with a price.


----------



## overgeeked (Apr 20, 2021)

Hussar said:


> They learned after the third time, when they were compelled to bathe because of the first two times that they willingly baptised themselves in what they absolutely knew were demonic fonts.  Those that failed the saving throw, baptised themselves a third time and were told that they had a vision of Baphomet.  The only effect was that they knew that they had tied themselves to Baphomet somehow, and didn't care.  Later effects, unfortunately the campaign died shortly later, would have been Baphomet constantly tempting them with new powers and abilities to use until they eventually completely came under his sway or found some way to free themselves.
> 
> Note, when investigating a demonic temple, and you absolutely know that the fonts are evil, don't complain when using the fonts comes with a price.



Sounds like a great way to multiclass into a warlock or have a paladin go oathbreaker.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 20, 2021)

overgeeked said:


> Sounds like a great way to multiclass into a warlock or have a paladin go oathbreaker.



Oh, there were all sorts of possibilities percolating in my brain on this one.  Unfortunately, one of my players absolutely revolted.  He was so pissed off and the other player with him, claiming that I was taking away player agency and whatnot.  Plus they absolutely refused to accept that bathing in demonic fonts, willingly, twice, counted as anything bad.  I, to say the least, disagreed.  The campaign came to a crashing halt very shortly later due to a number of personality conflict issues.


----------



## Imaculata (Apr 20, 2021)

I still throw plenty of dungeons at my players in my 3.5e games. The last dungeon they explored was a prison, where they tried (and succeeded) to break their allies out of jail. 

Because a dungeon can be nearly any large building with a bunch of rooms and corridors.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 20, 2021)

Realistically, all a dungeon is is an adventure flow chart.  That's it.  You can replace the rooms with outdoor encounters, and it's still the same thing.  Most people, I find, do have a fairly good idea of the adventure they want to run at the beginning of a session, which means that all a dungeon really provides is a concrete set of order of events.  A series of if/then statements, essentially.  

Which means that any adventure that is keyed to locations is effectively a dungeon, regardless of where it is actually set.


----------



## Marc_C (Apr 20, 2021)

Hussar said:


> Realistically, all a dungeon is is an adventure flow chart.  That's it.  You can replace the rooms with outdoor encounters, and it's still the same thing.  Most people, I find, do have a fairly good idea of the adventure they want to run at the beginning of a session, which means that all a dungeon really provides is a concrete set of order of events.  A series of if/then statements, essentially.
> 
> Which means that any adventure that is keyed to locations is effectively a dungeon, regardless of where it is actually set.




No. All adventures are 'adventures'. Each type of adventure be it a dungeon, wilderness, under water, aerial, extra planar has unique rules that govern them.

D&D provides rules for wilderness adventure that do not apply in a 'dungeon'. Getting lost in wilderness is the first one that comes to mind. Veering of course at in moment is another distinction.

Using the word 'dungeon' for all these different types of adventures is the same as confusing the word player with the word character. It's wrong. Words matters.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword (Apr 21, 2021)

Marc_C said:


> No. All adventures are 'adventures'. Each type of adventure be it a dungeon, wilderness, under water, aerial, extra planar has unique rules that govern them.
> 
> D&D provides rules for wilderness adventure that do not apply in a 'dungeon'. Getting lost in wilderness is the first one that comes to mind. Veering of course at in moment is another distinction.
> 
> Using the word 'dungeon' for all these different types of adventures is the same as confusing the word player with the word character. It's wrong. Words matters.



This is incorrect, the wilderness rules could absolutely apply in a dungeon, if the dungeon is big enough to abstract itself as such-- my Shadowmere Forest Dungeon from upthread features a mechanic for getting lost. These terms also transcend games within the DND sphere, so 5e DND isn't the only game we're discussing-- 3rd edition, 4th edition, Pathfinder 2e, Moldovay, ADND are all on the table here. So 5e DND offering a separate procedure isn't meaningful, especially since its not like its always used.

Speaking of myself, Pathfinder 2e uses the same exploration procedure for exploring a wilderness area as it does for exploring a dungeon, at most the GM just alters the timescale to whatever seems apropo for pacing the narrative.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 22, 2021)

Another example of why I love Dungeons:




By the fabulously creative @Dyson Logos .  

Nothing like a little MC Escher to really have fun in a dungeon.  Anyone else ever want to run the Tesseract dungeon from Dragon magazine back in the day.  I SOOOOOO wanted to run one.


----------

