# Which Edition for a Megadungeon Campaign? Why?



## Reynard (Jan 3, 2022)

I'm not asking for advice. I am not planning on running a megadungeon campaign anytime soon (although I have a long genstating one I'll get to eventually). I am more interested in the discussion broadly.

If you were to run a magadungeon campaign -- by which I mean a campaign focused around the repeated exploration of a single large, complex, dynamic dungeon environment -- which pre-5E version of D&D (or retroclone or simulacrum, I suppose) would you choose for such an endeavor? Why would you choose that version of the game?

And just for giggles, what is your theoretical megadungeon like?

I would be inclined toward B/X I think -- mostly for its simplicity, even if I think AD&D is actually "better" for a campaign never meant to move into wilderness exploration. Note that I have never played OD&D so maybe it is a better fit.

Also, my megadungeon is called The Hellstair. The first couple levels are undercity levels of a long lost, ruined capital city that has only recently been rediscovered. it's basically a California gold rush town except it's dungeons not gold mines. It is called The Hellstair because it actually came up from below (that's what killed the city) and the farther down you go the literally closer you get to Hell.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Jan 3, 2022)

I'd personally favor a not-too-lethal system, just because is dull to have a TPK far from the opening and have the new party go through the already visited layers/levels. 

For megadungeon, I'd go for having a party follow the tunnel of an ever-digging giant worms who swallowed your village/dear ones/whatever, so you go through various regions that the worm dug through, like a old necropolis, a dwarf-hold, a underground forest etc, hoping to catch up with the worm and take back what's yours. In the end, the worm itself could be one living dungeon.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 3, 2022)

Probably 5E, because it doesn't force combat, but when it does it is fast and not excessively lethal.

I'd build a scenario similar to the old Interplay game "Drafon Wars" or the recent "Hades": the PCs trying to get out of some sort of magical prison realm.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 3, 2022)

vincegetorix said:


> I'd personally favor a not-too-lethal system, just because is dull to have a TPK far from the opening and have the new party go through the already visited layers/levels.



For me personally, i think the better solution to that potential problem is to make sure there are plenty of alternative entrances and paths. Also, a megadungeon really shouldn't be "cleared" anyway.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 3, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Probably 5E, because it doesn't force combat, but when it does it is fast and not excessively lethal.



::checks sub-forum::


Parmandur said:


> I'd build a scenario similar to the old Interplay game "Drafon Wars" or the recent "Hades": the PCs trying to get out of some sort of magical prison realm.



The only thing I don't like about that setup is it takes a little more work to include the "home town" element I think is important to megadungeon campaigning.


----------



## Cadence (Jan 3, 2022)

What is your favorite way of getting replacement characters in and do you ever want character background to show up in important ways?

One of my all time favorite memories is a mix of B/X, OD&D, 1e (varied by player) where every new character started at first level (basically teleported in effectively if the party wasn't leaving to camp) and it seemed a big accomplishment to live to 2nd.    I was a pre-teen/young teen at the time and so part of it might have been me not knowing better.  I'd still love to be able to go back and play in Bev's game at Toad Hall in Rockford IL though.

If I want lethal, the character set-up time required in 3/3.5/PF feels a bit annoying to put the effort into.
If I made days actually be days and didn't make me do montages as a player then 13th age might work.
Of the old school things 2e is my favorite system, but I'm trying to remember if we did many big dungeon crawls with it.

If I want the characters to have a better chance of living so they could explore more (checks sub-forum), nevermind.


----------



## John R Davis (Jan 3, 2022)

This forum section for older editions so 5E can't be an answer .

I'd make it for BECMI. No skills to get in the way of narrative exploration. Get lots and lots explored per session so it doesn't take forever to complete!


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 3, 2022)

Reynard said:


> ::checks sub-forum::



I don't view the forum through that lens, I browse new posts from all at the same time. So I'll go B/X, since it seems the most amenable to my playstyle.


Reynard said:


> The only thing I don't like about that setup is it takes a little more work to include the "home town" element I think is important to megadungeon campaigning.



Simple enough: the core of the prison, something like The Village from The Prisoner, can be a homebase.


----------



## Retreater (Jan 3, 2022)

I'd choose 4E. It provides a richer, more tactical encounter experience than any other edition. Each battle can be a cinematic set piece encounter, while exploration can be handled with skill challenges or simple narrative discussions. 
And I'd probably use my home mega-dungeon, Zwaarhold. Thematically it's located in the borderlands where humans have no idea they're building atop a lost civilization of duergar who are now starting to rise to the surface.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 3, 2022)

Retreater said:


> I'd choose 4E. It provides a richer, more tactical encounter experience than any other edition. Each battle can be a cinematic set piece encounter, while exploration can be handled with skill challenges or simple narrative discussions.



Out of curiosity what do you do with random encounters or wandering monsters? Do they become ad hoc cinematic set pieces, or do you deal with them by way of a "combat skill challenge" (does 4E have a "fast battle" system like Savage Worlds?) or do you just not include random encounters?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jan 3, 2022)

OD&D.

Like Coca Cola, it’s the real thing. Accept no substitute. I’m looking at you, RC.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 3, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> OD&D.
> 
> Like Coca Cola, it’s the real thing. Accept no substitute. *I’m looking at you, RC.*



And just like that, Snarf's back on the dark side.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 3, 2022)

2e.  I chose that because with the change in how thief skill progression goes from earlier editions, it offers a better chance at success at lower levels and you'll need it.  It makes thieves important and contributing at level 1, rather than having to level up several levels before they have a good chance at anything besides climb walls.

My ideal megadungeon?  Well, having written one (Felk Mor), one thing really important is to have its own ecology if it's that large.  A place or places where PCs can use as a base of operations and can defend.  A food source.  Allies they can lean on to train and heal.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jan 3, 2022)

Reynard said:


> And just like that, Snarf's back on the dark side.


----------



## Retreater (Jan 3, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Out of curiosity what do you do with random encounters or wandering monsters? Do they become ad hoc cinematic set pieces, or do you deal with them by way of a "combat skill challenge" (does 4E have a "fast battle" system like Savage Worlds?) or do you just not include random encounters?



Just to clarify - I haven't run a megadungeon in 4e, but it would be an experiment I would be most excited to try. (I've participated in megadungeons in all other editions already.)
I think random encounters/wandering monsters are antithetical to the design principles of 4e, where combats are intended to be more dynamic and exciting affairs (not to mention are more time-consuming in practice). 
So I would use the concept of the Quick Encounters (like in Savage Worlds) and retool the experience of wandering monsters as combat skill challenges. Randomly determine surprise so if the party surprises the monsters, they can use Stealth based skills and others to avoid the conflict. If the monsters aren't surprised, roll to see their Reaction, and if they're not outright hostile, make it a social encounter. 
If the monsters detect the party and are hostile, then roll some combat skills. Have failed checks result in losing Healing Surges or (maybe) random daily powers to reflect the attrition of combat. 
I would handle simple traps the same way.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jan 3, 2022)

No hypotheticals here. I'm running a mega-dungeon campaign right now, taking my biggest and best-developed dungeon out for its fourth official spin. The system is red box OD&D, suitably modified. I picked that system initially because it was my go-to system when I was first creating the dungeon, and because it's exceedingly well-suited to mega-dungeon play right out of the proverbial box. The dungeon-stocking algorithm (for each room, roll 1d6; 1-2 = empty, 3 = trap, 4-5 = monster lair, 6 = special weirdness; empties have a 1-in-6 chance of unguarded treasure, traps a 2-in-6 chance, and monsters a 3-in-6 chance) and the treasure and magic item tables make actually crafting the dungeon a breeze (and one all too easily automated if you have some rudimentary coding chops).

My dungeon is called "Shade Abbey" -- I've discussed it before on one of your previous threads, @Reynard, and also shown off a bit more illustration on this thread.


----------



## thullgrim (Jan 3, 2022)

Adopting Savage World Quick Encounters to handle random encounters and simple hazards in 4e is a great idea
Mega dungeon or not.  And for a tactical dungeon crawl I agree I’d run it in 4e.
I also have a soft spot in my heart for PF1. I think a core rule book PF1, 1-12 mega dungeon would be a huge amount of fun.


----------



## payn (Jan 3, 2022)

Im going to say 3E/PF1 just cause its the system I have the most experience running. I seem to be able to make it do anything I want at this point. For me megadungeon is most fun when you have a variety of challenges from easy to nightmare. Loading up on loot to deck out your PCs is also fun which 3e/PF1 is all about. 

I think 5E with its bounded accuracy would be 2nd choice for me. Its a system that handles a variety of challenges, including many combats in a single day easily. My absolute last choice would be PF2 because of its level banding making a variety of challenging encounters nearly impossible. That is up to taste though as I could also see a megadungeon that's "level 1 is level 1, and level 2 is level 2" but find that a little too gamey for my taste with the lack of variety that I like. YMMV.


----------



## Malmuria (Jan 3, 2022)

I would go with OSE.  Characters are quick to make and have abilities specifically helpful for dungeoneering, as a dm you'll have all the rules/info you need but not rules that you don't for the most part, and  the random encounter and treasure tables will produce consistent results.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 3, 2022)

If the choice were mine, I'd run it in BECM, because it's my favorite.
But the choice isn't really mine to make.  If I decide to run it in anything besides 5th Edition, I won't have more than 1 player.  :-/


----------



## delericho (Jan 3, 2022)

I'd use 3.5e, because the megadungeon I own (Castle Whiterock) is for that edition. Or I'd use 5e, simply because it's my current go-to edition. Or I'd use 1st Ed, because it's one of three I've never run and it seems appropriate for something so old school.

As for what my megadungeon is like... dunno. I've never really given it a huge amount of thought - it's one of those things I've occasionally thought could be fun, but just never really gotten around to.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 3, 2022)

John R Davis said:


> This forum section for older editions so 5E can't be an answer .
> 
> I'd make it for BECMI. No skills to get in the way of narrative exploration. Get lots and lots explored per session so it doesn't take forever to complete!




I ran months of Stonehell in 5e, it worked ok but a bit slow. For that reason I think BX or BFRPG would be better as combat plays a lot faster.


----------



## Retreater (Jan 4, 2022)

It's kind of a case of "pick your poison." 
In TSR-era D&D, you have simple rules and speed, but a snowball's chance in Hades of actually surviving or making meaningful progress into the dungeon without being one-shot killed by a kobold or dying instantly to a poison needle trap.
In WotC-era D&D (and PF), you have somewhat slow and cumbersome rules, but greater tactical options and better odds of living through an encounter. 
Honestly, if I were going to run a dungeon crawler, I'd just run HeroQuest or Descent, either of which would capture the experience better than D&D.


----------



## aco175 (Jan 4, 2022)

I think I would go with 3e so the players could make any character they wanted.  I love those multiclass rules for 3e.  There would be lots of combat and big magic reminiscent of the Gygax articles on the original Castle Greyhawk.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2022)

Retreater said:


> Honestly, if I were going to run a dungeon crawler, I'd just run HeroQuest or Descent, either of which would capture the experience better than D&D.



I would argue -- rather vehemently, in fact -- that neither of those games is ANYTHING like a megadungeon exploration campaign. In fact, a megadungeon exploration campaign isn't the same genre as a "dungeon crawler" in the way you are putting it. You are talking about tabletop Diablo, which is not what a megadungeon campaign is.


----------



## Blue (Jan 4, 2022)

Well, the Megadungeon that I most want to run is Eyes of the Stone Thief, and it was written for 13th Age, a d20 system that would do admirably for mega-dungeons.  Eyes of the Stone Thief has won a lot of awards and accolades.

If I'm staying strictly within D&D editions, I think the strengths of 4e are a good match for what I look for megadungeons.


----------



## Malmuria (Jan 4, 2022)

Retreater said:


> It's kind of a case of "pick your poison."
> In TSR-era D&D, you have simple rules and speed, but a snowball's chance in Hades of actually surviving or making meaningful progress into the dungeon without being one-shot killed by a kobold or dying instantly to a poison needle trap.
> In WotC-era D&D (and PF), you have somewhat slow and cumbersome rules, but greater tactical options and better odds of living through an encounter.
> Honestly, if I were going to run a dungeon crawler, I'd just run HeroQuest or Descent, either of which would capture the experience better than D&D.



you could go with a “darkest dungeons” vibe and have each player responsible to 2-3 characters, some of which stay back at the home base


----------



## Retreater (Jan 4, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I would argue -- rather vehemently, in fact -- that neither of those games is ANYTHING like a megadungeon exploration campaign. In fact, a megadungeon exploration campaign isn't the same genre as a "dungeon crawler" in the way you are putting it. You are talking about tabletop Diablo, which is not what a megadungeon campaign is.



They have combats, traps, treasure, leveling up, a little bit of story (as much as you'd like to add), secret doors - everything to craft a thematic, original dungeon.
HeroQuest was my Red Box/Basic D&D, so I'm definitely going to defend it as a viable, fun tabletop game that certainly meets the needs of dungeon fun for my players and me. Not the only option, but certainly a suitable one for me.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 4, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Out of curiosity what do you do with random encounters or wandering monsters? Do they become ad hoc cinematic set pieces, or do you deal with them by way of a "combat skill challenge" (does 4E have a "fast battle" system like Savage Worlds?) or do you just not include random encounters?



I'd go with 4e as well, primarily because the unit that matters in 4e is the encounter.  So, all that stuff about adventuring days and daily resource tracking, which in a mega dungeon doesn't work worth a damn, gets folded into the economy of 4e much more easily.  Additionally, because 4e has a much broader range of encounter difficulty (you can generally go +/-5 levels for any given opponent) it's so much easier to fill in the dungeon without having to repeat monster after monster after monster that is pretty much the same as the last monster.  An orc brute and an orc skirmisher are totally different monsters in 4e.  In other editions, an orc is by and large an orc unless you start down the road of adding class levels and that's far too much work to prep.

As far as random encounters go, that's always been a myth that 4e doesn't do random encounters.  That's just not true.  Presumably random encounters would have a bunch of sort of "stock" random encounter maps to use, complete with a handful of stock terrain effects, and you're off to the races.  It's very, very simple to do and because the math is very clear and open, you can judge the effects pretty quickly.

No, for my money, 4e would be the best system for a mega-dungeon.  Just by far the best system for that amount of combat.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 4, 2022)

I get the impression most posters here are not aware of what a 'megadungeon campaign' is in the OSR/old school D&D context. 
Extended exploration and mapping of a very large simulated environment is a very important element of this kind of campaign. Resource management is a big factor - not necessarily torches & rations, but certainly spell slots & hit points. The game is played at strategic, operational & tactical levels, so a purely tactical RPG like 4e D&D is a very poor fit - and I have tried! Nor is it a story game like Dungeon World.

@OP Have you tried asking on a dedicated OSR forum? Eg Dragonsfoot has a Megadungeon dedicated forum Megadungeons - Dragonsfoot


----------



## LoganRan (Jan 4, 2022)

vincegetorix said:


> I'd personally favor a not-too-lethal system, just because is dull to have a TPK far from the opening and have the new party go through the already visited layers/levels.
> 
> For megadungeon, I'd go for having a party follow the tunnel of an ever-digging giant worms who swallowed your village/dear ones/whatever, so you go through various regions that the worm dug through, like a old necropolis, a dwarf-hold, a underground forest etc, hoping to catch up with the worm and take back what's yours. In the end, the worm itself could be one living dungeon.



Interestingly, I believe megadungeons actually are the campaign _best_ suited for MORE lethal systems like ODD, B/X and AD&D. There isn't (or at least shouldn't be IMO) a "story" for a megadungeon so it is perfectly acceptable for a group to roll up an entirely new party because there is no long running narrative thread which will be lost at the moment of a TPK. Plus, it can be grimly amusing (if you are wired that way, and I am) for a party of freshly rolled PC's to see the groups former characters decorating the walls of the dungeon.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2022)

S'mon said:


> @OP Have you tried asking on a dedicated OSR forum? Eg Dragonsfoot has a Megadungeon dedicated forum Megadungeons - Dragonsfoot



No. I was interested in what folks here had to say about it. It's true that the definition seems to have slipped, but it is kind of to be expected when WotC marketed DoMM as a megadungeon, which it isn't.


----------



## Retreater (Jan 4, 2022)

Reynard said:


> No. I was interested in what folks here had to say about it. It's true that the definition seems to have slipped, but it is kind of to be expected when WotC marketed DoMM as a megadungeon, which it isn't.



I'm curious of what published examples you would use to put us all on the same page, because I was reading "megadundeon" as "a big dungeon filled with rooms, hallways, traps, and monsters." 
What pops into my head are Rappan Athuk, Barrowmaze, Temple of Elemental Evil, and The Caverns of Thracia. I'd also describe Undermountain as one, though the 5e version left much to be desired.


----------



## Blue (Jan 4, 2022)

S'mon said:


> I get the impression most posters here are not aware of what a 'megadungeon campaign' is in the OSR/old school D&D context.
> Extended exploration and mapping of a very large simulated environment is a very important element of this kind of campaign. Resource management is a big factor - not necessarily torches & rations, but certainly spell slots & hit points. The game is played at strategic, operational & tactical levels, so a purely tactical RPG like 4e D&D is a very poor fit - and I have tried! Nor is it a story game like Dungeon World.



What you are saying isn't incorrect, but it's only half the picture.  I've done Undermountain and homebrew megadungeons back in AD&D 2nd days.  I understand the strategic aspects - what do we have left, how can we camp safely, do we push, do we take this elevator down to what may be a lot more deadly, etc.  You are right on all of that.

But a megadungeon is ultimately a narrower set of experiences vs. a full world.  Exploration of a constrained type, puzzles, some RP with different groups, and lots of combat.  So you need a system that can make all of those consistently interesting.  Of D&D version, 4e normally isn't what I reach for first.  But it is the only one to actually provide a complex challenge resolution framework with skill challenges.  And combat in a megadungeon is often a larger percentage of play time because of how common it is and the heavy focus on set-piece combat with interesting terrain/hazards and lots of movement/area effects to interact with it is another strength of 4e.

So the issue is not that 4e is the perfect ruleset for it.  The issue is that repetitive aspects of a megadungeon is where 4e is good at providing differentiation and therefore keeps things fresh.  And therefore fun.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2022)

Retreater said:


> I'm curious of what published examples you would use to put us all on the same page, because I was reading "megadundeon" as "a big dungeon filled with rooms, hallways, traps, and monsters."
> What pops into my head are Rappan Athuk, Barrowmaze, Temple of Elemental Evil, and The Caverns of Thracia. I'd also describe Undermountain as one, though the 5e version left much to be desired.



Of those you listed only Barrowmaze is a true megadungeon -- although Rappan Athuk may be at this point, since it has gone through major expansion and revision since it first appeared. I haven't seen the latest version. Both ToEE and Thracia are "big dungeons" which aren't the same thing.

The key difference at least as is usually discussed is that a megadungeon is dynamic underground environment where adventures take place -- not an adventure in and of itself. There are rooms and traps and treasure and monsters, of course, but there is no "plot." PCs enter and explore a megadungeon for lots of reasons, but none of them are "to clear it" since it can't be cleared.

In short "megadungeon" =/= "big dungeon."


----------



## Greggy C (Jan 4, 2022)

2e so the combat was not slow...


----------



## mhd (Jan 4, 2022)

I've always been reluctant to play with megadungeons, as I like my occasional change of scenery and city adventures. So I guess that my "MD" would have a lot of features of those. Cultural centers, probably merging several different locations into a big whole, or at least several strata (!= levels) of a common theme that allow for some variation.

I'd ber tempted to use something like Knave for this, where by loot alone the PCs are set in motion. But if the premise is an official edition, I would probably opt for one of the following:

OD&D plus so many house rules that this entry might count as cheating. Spell points, no clerics etc.
Dragon Fist, where the stunt die would serve neatly for creative obstacle avoidance.
3.0 – not 3.5, and only the core book. I like the original buff spells for exploration, the classes aren't that much bloated, but you still have some toys to play with.


----------



## Retreater (Jan 4, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Of those you listed only Barrowmaze is a true megadungeon [SNIP]



So I can help with that, using Barrowmaze as an example. I've run it somewhat recently in 5e, for my wife and her brother who just wanted to run through something and kill a lot of monsters. I'd describe the 5e experience as not overly challenging at all or needing any real planning, strategy, or conservation of resources. 
To do Barrowmaze "properly," I think you'd want to use B/X, OD&D, Old School Essentials, Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, or another similar B/X or OD&D retroclone (they all play basically the same). 
For any system you're considering, if you want a "classic old-school dungeon feel," I'd look for the following red flags: 
1) 0-level spells/on-demand magic (especially _Light_, which makes torches unnecessary)
2) rapid healing (if it's more than 1/hp per day - without magic - it's probably too easy to heal and your party won't retreat from the dungeon to resupply and recover that often)
3) Perception checks (making die rolls to spot traps - or worse - Passive Perception; this lowers engagement with traps and the narrative description)


----------



## billd91 (Jan 4, 2022)

I'm not that keen on megadungeon campaigns, but if I had to run one and couldn't use 5e, I'd go back to the AD&D 1e/2e hybrid that we played throughout the 1990s. 

I'd skip the 3e family because I'm not that enamored of being so grid-bound in combat and the extra funky configuration options of 3e's multiclassing doesn't seem worth it for a dungeoncrawl. And I'd skip 4e because of the grid as well as the focus around the encounter as the unit of all resource management since resource management and rest *should *be an important aspect of a dungeon crawl - plus, I didn't particularly like the edition's gameplay either.


----------



## Monayuris (Jan 4, 2022)

I'd recommend B/X or Old School Essentials without hesitation.

It is quick to create characters, characters are streamlined and simple allowing more focus on exploration of the dungeon and interacting with the environment.
It includes some very precise and detailed dungeon exploration procedures that help create structure to a dungeon crawl session.
Combat is fast in these games. You don't get bogged down too much with complex combat mechanics. Megadungeons are about exploration and discovery not about tactical combat. You want a system that gets combat over with quickly when it happens.
Reaction rules and morale allow more variety in encounters. Not every encounter needs to be a combat and reactions that end up being friendly or neutral can open up faction play which takes megadungeon exploration to higher levels.
Mixed characters can adventure together so you can easily get new players in the game (for West Marches style play). If a character dies it is quick to roll a new one and get them in the action (without worrying too much about balance).
They are easy to house rule and mod to your tastes. There's tons of content out there in that regards. If you need a little more character development, you can find a simple feat / skill system you can bolt on.

I'd highly suggest Old School Essentials if you do go that route. It is B/X but better organized. It is 100% compatible with anything written for B/X (or Labyrinth Lord for that matter). It also has an Advanced Fantasy line where it takes the classic AD&D classes (paladin, ranger, druid) and redesigns them in B/X. It gives you a best of both worlds situation where you can get all the class options of AD&D but with the simplicity of B/X.


----------



## Monayuris (Jan 4, 2022)

Retreater said:


> It's kind of a case of "pick your poison."
> In TSR-era D&D, you have simple rules and speed, but a snowball's chance in Hades of actually surviving or making meaningful progress into the dungeon without being one-shot killed by a kobold or dying instantly to a poison needle trap.
> In WotC-era D&D (and PF), you have somewhat slow and cumbersome rules, but greater tactical options and better odds of living through an encounter.
> Honestly, if I were going to run a dungeon crawler, I'd just run HeroQuest or Descent, either of which would capture the experience better than D&D.



I feel the opposite. When I see HeroQuest or Descent or any other dungeon crawler, I think why not just play D&D instead, it is better at it in every way.

I don't get the freedom to approach problem solving in a creative way. I don't get the ability to come up with clever plans and approaches or the infinite ways I can interact with the environment/dungeon.

Those games can be fun but they really break down to just rolling dice to do something since they are designed as board games not role-playing games.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2022)

Monayuris said:


> I'd highly suggest Old School Essentials if you do go that route. It is B/X but better organized. It is 100% compatible with anything written for B/X (or Labyrinth Lord for that matter). It also has an Advanced Fantasy line where it takes the classic AD&D classes (paladin, ranger, druid) and redesigns them in B/X. It gives you a best of both worlds situation where you can get all the class options of AD&D but with the simplicity of B/X.



I always wonder why people sell hard on OSE when Labyrinth Lord was first and does everything OSE does.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2022)

Monayuris said:


> I feel the opposite. When I see HeroQuest or Descent or any other dungeon crawler, I think why not just play D&D instead, it is better at it in every way.
> 
> I don't get the freedom to approach problem solving in a creative way. I don't get the ability to come up with clever plans and approaches or the infinite ways I can interact with the environment/dungeon.
> 
> Those games can be fun but they really break down to just rolling dice to do something since they are designed as board games not role-playing games.



They are really just combat simulators, and all combat all the time in a megadungeon campaign just makes for a short campaign, or one with a l lot of character sheets pinned to the wall.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 4, 2022)

Retreater said:


> I'm curious of what published examples you would use to put us all on the same page, because I was reading "megadundeon" as "a big dungeon filled with rooms, hallways, traps, and monsters."
> What pops into my head are Rappan Athuk, Barrowmaze, Temple of Elemental Evil, and The Caverns of Thracia. I'd also describe Undermountain as one, though the 5e version left much to be desired.




Barrowmaze is designed as a smallish megadungeon. Stonehell is a notably big megadungeon. Dwimmermount is a small to medium dungeon. Each can sustain a campaign. Thracia is too small, it's a module.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 4, 2022)

Retreater said:


> So I can help with that, using Barrowmaze as an example. I've run it somewhat recently in 5e, for my wife and her brother who just wanted to run through something and kill a lot of monsters. I'd describe the 5e experience as not overly challenging at all or needing any real planning, strategy, or conservation of resources.




Running it in 5e myself. We discovered that at level 4 the encounters on the Barrowmoor become a lot more dangerous than most of the dungeon!  I did have a lot of deaths in the mounds & dungeon at 1st level though.


----------



## Monayuris (Jan 4, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I always wonder why people sell hard on OSE when Labyrinth Lord was first and does everything OSE does.



I mainly prefer the organization of OSE over LL. OSE is also more faithful to the original B/X rules (if that matters to you). LL has some differences from the original B/X.

Right now, OSE is just more supported and more accessible. With an excellent online SRD and tons of module / zine support. LL has kind of been dead for a while. They're both great games, but I think OSE has replaced LL as the B/X clone / OSR Rosetta Stone.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 4, 2022)

Monayuris said:


> I mainly prefer the organization of OSE over LL. OSE is also more faithful to the original B/X rules (if that matters to you). LL has some differences from the original B/X.
> 
> Right now, OSE is just more supported and more accessible. With an excellent online SRD and tons of module / zine support. LL has kind of been dead for a while. They're both great games, but I think OSE has replaced LL as the B/X clone / OSR Rosetta Stone.



It is always interesting to me what becomes the Flavor of Now or the current It Game. I am playing a session of Blades in the Dark tonight just to try and figure out how that game became the darling it has.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jan 4, 2022)

Blue said:


> So the issue is not that 4e is the perfect ruleset for it.  The issue is that repetitive aspects of a megadungeon is where 4e is good at providing differentiation and therefore keeps things fresh.  And therefore fun.




I am going to disagree with this- other than noting the caveat that if someone prefers 4e, then, sure, that's a fine system to run.

But it is certainly not a great system for the standard tropes of the megadungeon. The very things that it is good at (set pieces, challenge resolution framework through skill challenges, carefully calibrated combats) are the very things you don't need in a mega dungeon.

Conversely, the things that 4e doesn't care about or do well (resource management, short combats, 'old school' skilled play, lethality, need to retreat/not engage, etc.) are all the things that megadungeons exist for.

You certainly could do a mega dungeon in 4e, and I'm sure it would be fun, but it would be fun in a very different way than the traditional megadungeon, which is more about mapping, and carefully considering your resources, and even recognizing that many combats need to be avoided (and not engaging in set pieces). 

That's not a mark against 4e, by the way- I think that there's a reason that megadungeons have largely fallen out of favor.


----------



## Retreater (Jan 4, 2022)

Monayuris said:


> I feel the opposite. When I see HeroQuest or Descent or any other dungeon crawler, I think why not just play D&D instead, it is better at it in every way.



Pacing. We can playing through a dungeon in an hour or so.
Simplicity. I can play it with children or non-D&D players and have a great time.
Tactile. It's fun to move models and scenery around.
Little-to-no GM prep. I can throw open a HeroQuest adventure book and be playing in less than 5 minutes. 
Fast combats. Most monsters die in a single wound in HQ. Stats are simple. You don't have to look at attack matrices to see if you accomplished your goal.
Everything good about D&D I can add to HQ: Description, role-play. It's easier to add stuff to fill out a game than to take away stuff to streamline it.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I am going to disagree with this- other than noting the caveat that if someone prefers 4e, then, sure, that's a fine system to run.
> 
> But it is certainly not a great system for the standard tropes of the megadungeon. The very things that it is good at (set pieces, challenge resolution framework through skill challenges, carefully calibrated combats) are the very things you don't need in a mega dungeon.
> 
> ...



Agreed. I like 4e and I like megadungeons (as part of a campaign, I get bored if they're all there is) but the two don't work together. You can play '4e in a big dungeon' but at best it would look more like a highlights reel of an actual Greyhawk/Blackmoor style dungeon campaign.


----------



## J.Quondam (Jan 4, 2022)

I guess ultralites aren't really actual "editions" of D&D, but it might be fun to try a megadungeon with one of the Microlite74 variants or something.

Super-fast chargen and rules that fit on a few pages make for a low buy-in cost, so might be easier to sell to some players (and even certain older GMs like me with, umm, crumbling brains). Balance is usually awful and character options are limited, but IMO that's not really a concern in an old school megadungeon, anyway. And it's easy enough to bolt on whatever rules modules you need (eg, "detailed" resource management; no skills vs few skills; spell slots vs spell points; all d6 weapons, etc) for the specific game you want to run.

But if I had to choose an _official_ version of D&D, I'd probably go with Basic.


----------



## Randomthoughts (Jan 4, 2022)

Reynard said:


> If you were to run a magadungeon campaign -- by which I mean a campaign focused around the repeated exploration of a single large, complex, dynamic dungeon environment -- which pre-5E version of D&D (or retroclone or simulacrum, I suppose) would you choose for such an endeavor? Why would you choose that version of the game?



So, I've been wanting to get back into playing 4e regularly [edit: this time] on a VTT (Fantasy Grounds in my case) and I've been considering dungeon exploration as an easier "in" so this is beyond a theoretical exercise for me. I'm going to start with a smaller dungeon just to get the kinks out with the eventual goal of a mega-dungeon. So my pick would be a _modified 4e _b/c I think it offers all the tools I need.



S'mon said:


> Extended exploration and mapping of a very large simulated environment is a very important element of this kind of campaign. Resource management is a big factor - not necessarily torches & rations, but certainly spell slots & hit points. The game is played at strategic, operational & tactical levels, so a purely tactical RPG like 4e D&D is a very poor fit - and I have tried! Nor is it a story game like Dungeon World.



Yes, this was my experience back in 1e and 2e, so that's what I'm shooting for. A few caveats:

I did mapping in the day, but I'm not sure if that's necessary for the experience now (since in VTT, it should "auto map").  Personally, I didn't care for it (and I'm sure my players will thank me for it).
Not mentioned in your post but "shorter combat length" was mentioned elsewhere. While I normally run 4e in a cinematic style focusing on set pieces, for this game, I wouldn't mind if filler combats would take some time since there isn't a "plot" to follow. Exploration and combat can move at their own pace. And this would encourage avoiding monsters as well. However, I would consider using minions (or what I've used in the past - "super minions"), lower level monsters or variants of SCs. Boss battles can remain the awesome set pieces they are.
As to why I would use 4e, @Blue and @Hussar explain it pretty well:



Blue said:


> What you are saying isn't incorrect, but it's only half the picture.  I've done Undermountain and homebrew megadungeons back in AD&D 2nd days.  I understand the strategic aspects - what do we have left, how can we camp safely, do we push, do we take this elevator down to what may be a lot more deadly, etc.  You are right on all of that.
> 
> But a megadungeon is ultimately a narrower set of experiences vs. a full world.  Exploration of a constrained type, puzzles, some RP with different groups, and lots of combat.  So you need a system that can make all of those consistently interesting.  Of D&D version, 4e normally isn't what I reach for first.  But it is the only one to actually provide a complex challenge resolution framework with skill challenges.  And combat in a megadungeon is often a larger percentage of play time because of how common it is and the heavy focus on set-piece combat with interesting terrain/hazards and lots of movement/area effects to interact with it is another strength of 4e.
> 
> So the issue is not that 4e is the perfect ruleset for it.  The issue is that repetitive aspects of a megadungeon is where 4e is good at providing differentiation and therefore keeps things fresh.  And therefore fun.






Hussar said:


> I'd go with 4e as well, primarily because the unit that matters in 4e is the encounter.  So, all that stuff about adventuring days and daily resource tracking, which in a mega dungeon doesn't work worth a damn, gets folded into the economy of 4e much more easily.  Additionally, because 4e has a much broader range of encounter difficulty (you can generally go +/-5 levels for any given opponent) it's so much easier to fill in the dungeon without having to repeat monster after monster after monster that is pretty much the same as the last monster.  An orc brute and an orc skirmisher are totally different monsters in 4e.  In other editions, an orc is by and large an orc unless you start down the road of adding class levels and that's far too much work to prep.
> 
> As far as random encounters go, that's always been a myth that 4e doesn't do random encounters.  That's just not true.  Presumably random encounters would have a bunch of sort of "stock" random encounter maps to use, complete with a handful of stock terrain effects, and you're off to the races.  It's very, very simple to do and because the math is very clear and open, you can judge the effects pretty quickly.
> 
> No, for my money, 4e would be the best system for a mega-dungeon.  Just by far the best system for that amount of combat.



I would add:

I've ran 4e with more strategy in mind. For example, PCs have prepped for an encounter (resolved as a SC) and the results of which gave them advantages in the encounter, including surprise, optimal placement, "advantage" (before that became a thing) or other benefits. I would do that here.
Healing surges are strategic elements, which are lost on failed SCs rolls or through the disease tracker.
IIRC, DS had exhaustion mechanics using the Disease Tracker - or I remember seeing that somewhere. I would definitely use this to give it more a Darkest Dungeon vibe.
I used a "Wounds" system where your total healing surges would be reduced if you fell unconscious or suffered a bad critical (i.e., took more damage than your CON).
Rituals of course is a strategic element that I would certainly encourage.
I used the Adventuring Day from 4e DS and I would probably use that here. Or split food from water.
Everyone using the Encounter/Daily model would make it easier to modify it e.g. Long Rests take 48 hours and only in a Safe Place. I don't mind folks normally refreshing their Encounter powers - instead, I would expand encounters beyond one simple room (e.g., a single encounter could be a section of a dungeon).
When I ran DS, I used a house rule where you rolled 3d20 for your Death Save immediately (so you could theoretically die immediately) and you could not heal your DS even after a Long Rest.
Puzzles & traps can be resolved the old fashioned way (describing what you do etc.) or through SCs or mix of both.
I think I can manage it with 4e (with modifications of course). Pretty excited about the possibilities!

EDIT: minor typos


----------



## MNblockhead (Jan 4, 2022)

I don't think I would use any prior edition.  Currently I'm running the massive megadungeon Rappan Athuk using 5e.  But if I were to use a different system I would go with Sword and Wizardry or Dungeon Crawl Classics.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 5, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Of those you listed only Barrowmaze is a true megadungeon -- although Rappan Athuk may be at this point, since it has gone through major expansion and revision since it first appeared. I haven't seen the latest version. Both ToEE and Thracia are "big dungeons" which aren't the same thing.
> 
> The key difference at least as is usually discussed is that a megadungeon is dynamic underground environment where adventures take place -- not an adventure in and of itself. There are rooms and traps and treasure and monsters, of course, but there is no "plot." PCs enter and explore a megadungeon for lots of reasons, but none of them are "to clear it" since it can't be cleared.
> 
> In short "megadungeon" =/= "big dungeon."



Ah,  I didn't realize that there was a distinction here and that having stories actually made something not a "mega-dungeon".  So, I guess I've never run a mega-dungeon using this definition and something like The World's Largest Dungeon would not fit this criteria either since apparently mega-dungeon means pretty much random conglomeration of encounters with nothing connecting them - since that would make a plot - and no actual events - since that's a plot as well.

Yeah, I'd only play that on some sort of Rogue platform because what you just described is about as far from a tabletop RPG experience as I want to get.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 5, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Yeah, I'd only play that on some sort of Rogue platform because what you just described is about as far from a tabletop RPG experience as I want to get.



I mean...Rogue was just an exercise in progra.ming stuff from the DMG. A Megadungeon,by my definition, is a tabletop Rogue-Like.


----------



## Malmuria (Jan 5, 2022)

Reynard said:


> It is always interesting to me what becomes the Flavor of Now or the current It Game. I am playing a session of Blades in the Dark tonight just to try and figure out how that game became the darling it has.



I think faithfulness to b/x and layout is what OSE brings to the table.  There's also online tools.  The advanced version includes an expanded set of race-as-class classes, which is appealing to me.  That said if you are already familiar with LL or the original b/x booklets or whatever it's probably not worth buying something new


----------



## Reynard (Jan 5, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Ah,  I didn't realize that there was a distinction here and that having stories actually made something not a "mega-dungeon".  So, I guess I've never run a mega-dungeon using this definition and something like The World's Largest Dungeon would not fit this criteria either since apparently mega-dungeon means pretty much random conglomeration of encounters with nothing connecting them - since that would make a plot - and no actual events - since that's a plot as well.
> 
> Yeah, I'd only play that on some sort of Rogue platform because what you just described is about as far from a tabletop RPG experience as I want to get.



Note that I didn't say stories did not happen in a megadungeon campaign. They certainly do, but like most good RPG campaigns,  those stories emerge from play where the PCs interact with the environment and the things in it. What differentiates a megadungeon from, say, ToEE is that ToEE is itself a "story" -- just another adventure along the way. ToEE could easily happen within a megadungeon, just being a few levels in the larger scheme of the environment. In fact, a great way to build a megadungeon is to lash together a bunch of dungeons from other adventures as individual levels or regions. Ultimately a megadungeon is just the "frontier wilderness" in which a "normal" campaign takes place, but as a more structured and confined space.


----------



## Hex08 (Jan 5, 2022)

I would choose 2nd edition if I had to use an edition of D&D. The first mega dungeon/dungeon crawl I ever ran was Night Below and I have really fond memories of it. I've recently been thinking about running it again using the Castles & Crusades rules, which would be ruleset I would choose if not limited to pure D&D editions.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 5, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I mean...Rogue was just an exercise in progra.ming stuff from the DMG. A Megadungeon,by my definition, is a tabletop Rogue-Like.




Totally fair. Just not something I’d enjoy.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 5, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Totally fair. Just not something I’d enjoy.



Yeah, not sure for myself either.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jan 5, 2022)

As Reynard said, you can have plot and stories IN and around a mega-dungeon, but typically they are things that happen _within _it- it does not exist principally to service a given plot. 

I don't think it exclusively has to be played in a Rogue-like fashion, either, but navigating the space and "solving" navigation puzzles are definitely part of the point, which makes it not 100% suited to 4E. 

I did run Thunderspire Mountain in 4E back in the day, which was an interesting 4E-style take on a megadungeon.  Instead of pages and pages or poster maps of mapped dungeon levels, 4E abstracted the vast majority of the labyrinth, providing a single high-level map showing relative positions of special and important locations (some of them detailed in the module, others briefly described for the DM to develop if desired). Skill checks could be used to navigate around the dungeon, and there was a list of random encounters, some or most of which had some connection to various sub-plots in the dungeon.  If I rolled one I'd pull out a random dungeon battle map to represent wherever the encounter happened to occur.  Detailed battle maps were given for planned set-piece encounters, and a map was given for the Seven-Pillared Hall, a small town of sorts, the base camp for various explorers and adventurers delving Thunderspire, run by a group of mages with their own agendas.  I enjoyed it a good bit and as I recall my players did too. 

I do think OSE or B/X, with a couple of house rules, would be my first choice for such a campaign.  I used Labyrinth Lord a bit when I first started exploring the OSR, but I'm not super into the rules departures it makes.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 5, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> I do think OSE or B/X, with a couple of house rules, would be my first choice for such a campaign.  I used Labyrinth Lord a bit when I first started exploring the OSR, but I'm not super into the rules departures it makes.



Out of curiosity, what rules departures does it make?


----------



## Mannahnin (Jan 5, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Out of curiosity, what rules departures does it make?



Mostly lots of little stuff. 

Changes to the xp charts. 
Giving Clerics a spell at 1st level. 
Expanding advancement to 20th level. 
Adding 7th-9th level spells. 
Adding more (mostly redundant) weapon and armor options from AD&D.
Making alterations to the treasure types, dungeon-stocking, and Reaction tables which are kind of arbitrary and create confusion if you're already accustomed to the B/X or OSR ones (or trying to use material written for one game while running the other) etc. 

Some of the changes were understandably intended to reduce legal exposure and reduce the chance of an IP violation claim by WotC back when retroclones were less-charted territory and folks were being more cautious, but turned out not to really be necessary.


----------



## timbannock (Jan 5, 2022)

*TL;DR:* OD&D and B/X are the best older editions. Preferably using _Delving Deeper_ or _Old School Essentials_ (respectively) for ease of use. But if your group hates some major aspect of old school gameplay -- mapping dungeons, tracking resources, or something else -- then consider an OSR game that does away with or modifies that specific piece. _Knave _gets my recommendation, with _Five Torches Deep_ as runner up.

*Long Version:*

After seemingly countless years of test-driving OSR games and the original editions they've been based on ever since Castles & Crusades was released, I've pretty much landed on this viewpoint regarding megadungeons, specifically:

If your group is into the old school gameplay loop -- primary goal is getting treasure, secondary goal is exploring the campaign setting's backstory; mapping, resource-tracking, and general survival are all on the table -- you really can't beat OD&D (by way of _Delving Deeper_) or B/X (by way of _Old School Essentials_). These editions just have the most tightly wound mechanics (bounded accuracy, consistent X-in-6 chance of doing so-and-so for each character) sitting alongside the least complex/intrusive tools (encounters happen X in 6 turns, light runs out in X turns, wandering monster tables by dungeon level, oh and here's a simple but comprehensive hexcrawl system to get from site to site).

IMHO the two OSR games I mention organize the info a thousand times better than the original sources, and have the hindsight of errata and rules-as-intended to clarify vague bits. I was always a fan of "more options" in terms of races/classes until I read a great series of forum posts in various spots about why the Thief class kinda messes with the balance of the dungeon exploration mechanics, so those feelings have caused me to prefer _Delving Deeper_/OD&D without any supplementary classes (I'd argue for maybe including a ranger and/or druid in hexcrawl campaigns), but if you love your Thief class -- and especially if you like the ability to layer in more options like the _Advanced Fantasy_ stuff on occasion -- then OSE is superior.

(I'm currently using _Delving _alongside the AD&D _MM1_, _MM2_, and _Fiend Folio_, and finding it's just as fun and makes hexcrawling/wilderness stuff a bit more interesting. I suspect they are equally handy for a megadungeon in order to keep the challenges fresh and interesting, rather than relying on too many of the same types of monsters over a dozen levels.)

If your group is not interested in any one (or more) of the major gameplay loop pieces, then I feel like the real best answer is not an older edition, but an OSR game that gets the "feel" right and does away with the parts you don't like. For example, _Five Torches Deep_ greatly cuts down on gear resource tracking, plus it's broadly compatible with 5e _and_ B/X. I absolutely adored FTD -- everything Sigil Stone puts out is so good! -- but I ultimately enjoyed the equipment stuff, and in fact, think that should be a bigger deal than class features and such. That lead me to _Knave _and its many hacks. It can work great with the megadungeon stuff, but having a universal system for rolling ability tests also allows you to simplify/ignore the parts of megadungeons your group hates. That could be mapping, or it could be appraising treasure, or making stealth checks, etc.

(I'm a little worried about higher level _Knave _and how the characters will eventually be awesome at finding and avoiding traps whereas OD&D and the like have a mostly static "you always kinda suck at this" thing going on, but it's easy to just rule that traps are still 2-in-6 and characters only use their ability checks for saves in _Knave_. Leaning into using K_nave_'s ability checks as saves [which is what they are called in that game, after all], you can literally run OD&D on your side of the screen and the players run _Knave _on their side, and there's very little dissonance.)

Oh, and a bonus (that is a slap in the face of the fact that this is the older edition forum, but I'll say it anyway) is the D&D 5e equipment chapter is the absolute best IMO, and works in any edition. You could argue against variable damage and/or ascending versus descending Armor Class based on your preferences, for sure, but the gear write ups of how things like burning oil, acid, caltrops, ball bearings, and holy water and all that works is something I use regardless of my system choices now.


----------



## LoganRan (Jan 5, 2022)

MNblockhead said:


> I don't think I would use any prior edition.  Currently I'm running the massive megadungeon Rappan Athuk using 5e.  But if I were to use a different system I would go with Sword and Wizardry or Dungeon Crawl Classics.



I never actually fully answered the OP but for my money, Original D&D is the most appropriate system for old school megadungeons (even though I never played ODD) and as Swords & Wizardry is just the modern, cleaned up version of ODD, it would probably be my personal selection.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 5, 2022)

LoganRan said:


> I never actually fully answered the OP but for my money, Original D&D is the most appropriate system for old school megadungeons (even though I never played ODD) and as Swords & Wizardry is just the modern, cleaned up version of ODD, it would probably be my personal selection.



I am _this_ close to deciding on OD&D (by way of S&W or the above mentioned Delving Deeper, which I need to look into) simply because I have never played or run OD&D and have always felt I should rectify that.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jan 5, 2022)

I ran Barrowmaze (a huge negadungeon) for both 5e and Swords & Wizardry and both did fine.

If I was going to do it again I'd use DCC, but in fainess I use DCC for most stuff these days


----------



## Mezuka (Jan 5, 2022)

To run a megadungeon like I did in the early 80s, at age 15, with traps, random encounters, etc, I would use 4e. It's perfect for that kind of play. We used a battle grid and coins because we were wargamers before we discovered Basic D&D.

I would also use the tiles and miniatures of the 4e D&D board games.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 5, 2022)

Does anyone know what important differences there might be between Swords & Wizardry and Delving Deeper? Now that I own both I am going to pick one but am not necessarily inclined to do a line by line comparison.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jan 5, 2022)

Delving Deeper is a mostly faithful clone of white box OD&D. S&W takes liberties, the most important few being the reduction of five saving throw categories to a single save number (that increments by +1 per level for, IIRC, all classes) and a total re-write of the treasure tables and allocation methods. One might say that Delving Deeper is the "OSE" of white box, and S&W is its "Labyrinth Lord."

(Editing to add: If I were to run a white box based game, I'd actually look to either "White Box Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game" or Chris Gonnerman's "Iron Falcon." Both are even clearer presentations of the original material, with the main difference being that Iron Falcon is a very faithful rendition of original D&D + Greyhawk, while WB:FMAG is a S&W-derivative clone that sticks to the first three booklets but does add a thief class that uses a beautifully simple single d6-based "thievery" progression for all thieving skills.)


----------



## Reynard (Jan 5, 2022)

Jack Daniel said:


> Delving Deeper is a mostly faithful clone of white box OD&D. S&W takes liberties, the most important few being the reduction of five saving throw categories to a single save number (that increments by +1 per level for, IIRC, all classes) and a total re-write of the treasure tables and allocation methods. One might say that Delving Deeper is the "OSE" of white box, and S&W is its "Labyrinth Lord."
> 
> (Editing to add: If I were to run a white box based game, I'd actually look to either "White Box Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game" or Chris Gonnerman's "Iron Falcon." Both are even clearer presentations of the original material, with the main difference being that Iron Falcon is a very faithful rendition of original D&D + Greyhawk, while WB:FMAG is a S&W-derivative clone that sticks to the first three booklets but does add a thief class that uses a beautifully simple single d6-based "thievery" progression for all thieving skills.)



Thanks. I'll check both out!


----------



## timbannock (Jan 6, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Thanks. I'll check both out!



Yeah, the biggest changes are thieves, saving throws, and treasure/encounter tables. Therein lay the answers you seek as to which one will do what you want best!


----------



## Orius (Jan 6, 2022)

I would recommend a version of the classic D&D game of your choice, B/X or RC.  BECMI is also a possibility, but RC has the advantage of being one volume instead of spread out and you can ignore the optional stuff like general skills and weapon mastery.  Companion is more important for domain play and the War Machine which you probably won't need.  Masters rules mostly sets up the divine ascension to Immortals and you don't need the Immortals rules for megadungeoning.  Go RC primarily if you don't want B/X's level 14 cap and you want access to the Companion and Masters level monsters and magic, but be aware that thieves get hurt with skill progression stretched out to 36 levels.  You can also do any of the retroclones that copy the various classic D&D rules.

Another possibility is running 2e without getting into the various options. A core or near core game of 2e is simple enough to do a megadungeon and it's a more organized game than 1e.  Just don't go heavy into optional stuff stuff like NWPs, kits, Player's Option and so.

The thing with the classic megadungeon is that it works best with some classic rules elements like XP for GP, resource management and so on.  I'll say right off that 3e is a really bad choice for running a megadungeon.  You'd have to do a good deal of work tweaking things first.  3e is structured with a lot of assumptions that aren't the same as the balances of previous editions so there's a lot of fiddly things to look at and adjust to make it work.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 6, 2022)

2e de-emphasised sandbox play and made gold for xp non-core, so it's not ideal.

OD&D has the most support for megadungeon play (in The Underwold & Wilderness Adventures), followed probably by B/X - nearly all in the B though. AD&D 1e oddly assumed the reader already knew about megadungeons and the GM advice is much more about wilderness play. BECMI model is much more 'lots of dungeons in a wilderness' rather than a single megadungeon.

My current favourite clones are BFRPG and S&W; especially BFRPG with the S&W single save mechanic.


----------



## Orius (Jan 6, 2022)

S'mon said:


> 2e de-emphasised sandbox play and made gold for xp non-core, so it's not ideal.




Which is why I mentioned it as a secondary recommendation.  XP for GP is optional in 2e, but a DM could go with it and ignore the individual XP awards which I think would be the best approach.  2e doesn't cover the traditional dungeon crawling experience as much as earlier rules, but the elements are there for the DM who recognizes them.   But again, I mentioned a low option 2e after classic D&D which I still feel is the better out of the box option.


----------



## cavalier973 (Jan 14, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I always wonder why people sell hard on OSE when Labyrinth Lord was first and does everything OSE does.



LL gives clerics spells at first level. That is suspicious to me.


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 14, 2022)

2E because it is both simple and complex enough for what I'd be doing.

As far as the megadungeon, that'd be my old mountain campaign, Tsre Vestu and its 100 levels, but with new maps.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 14, 2022)

Stormonu said:


> 2E because it is both simple and complex enough for what I'd be doing.
> 
> As far as the megadungeon, that'd be my old mountain campaign, Tsre Vestu and its 100 levels, but with new maps.



2E is interesting because I don't associate it mentally or emotionally with those kinds of campaigns (based on what I was doing with it at the time) but ultimately it is mechanically similar to other Old School versions of the game that you can do a megadungeon just fine with it.


----------



## Jer (Jan 14, 2022)

I am currently running a megadungeon campaign using 13th age (Eyes of the Stone Thief) so I'd actually use that.

But since this is an "Older Editions" forum if I have to pick an edition of D&D I'd use 4e.

And the reason for that is because of what my theoretical megadungeon would be.  Because if I had the time to design it it would be a megadungeon set within the corpse of a dead god floating in the Astral Plane. Different factions in the dungeon would be attempting to harness the divine power still stuck within the corpse for their own purposes, and on the surface of the dead god would be a number of settlements as well as its own ecosystem (giving a form of "wilderness exploration" as well as the potential for city adventures).  I feel like 4e (and 13th Age) gives the right feel for that kind of exploration.  (Eyes of the Stone Thief does have some of these elements, though I think it has a different feel than what I'd be going for given the nature of the dungeon).

As for the random monster question in 4e - random encounters could be resolved as either combat or skill challenges depending on the encounter. Back in the day we often tried to resolve random encounters without combat since wandering monsters rarely had treasure anyway. But these days I like to make my random encounters springboard for narrative events, so I'd probably write up my random encounter table to allow for all sorts of encounters and if it turns into a combat encounter, well, it'll be a cinematic one because that's probably what my players would be wanting.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jan 14, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I always wonder why people sell hard on OSE when Labyrinth Lord was first and does everything OSE does.



I like LL and I gave a hand with the translation in Italian, but I think that an advantage that OSE has is that it is more organized and more clearly written. It is also a much closer clone of B/X, but whether this is an advantage or not, depends on personal opinion.


----------



## cavalier973 (Jan 15, 2022)

Clearly, the correct answer is Risus


----------



## hedgeknight (Jan 19, 2022)

I'm torn between 1E and 2E, but leaning toward 2E without all of the options & skills. 
As for a dungeon crawl, I have several caverns linked to a small port town (Lathtarl's Lantern in the Realms or Gradsul in Greyhawk) where townsfolk are beginning to disappear. Upon investigation, there is a small band of Drow and their bugbear slaves who have been snatching townsfolk for sacrifice to an evil...well, I don't want to spoil the BBEG  
There is also a hidden tunnel leading deeper into the Underdark where a clan of Svirfneblin struggle against a brutal tribe of Quaggoth which are threatening to wipe them out.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 19, 2022)

*B/X (OSE) *- The play feedback loops and support for this style of game are clearly there.


----------



## Edgar Ironpelt (Jan 19, 2022)

Based on the success of my "Brotherhood of Rangers" wilderness campaign, I'd use 3.5e with gestalt characters and with lots of material rule-zeroed out. Maybe have all the characters be gestalt-rogues (Fighter-rogue, cleric-rogue, wizard-rogue, etc.) and hand out high starting ability scores for survivability.


----------

