Swords are overdone as well.  Try halibut.  Along with healing spells.  Whatever happened to rubbing dung on the wounds?

In seriousness, I'd suggest dungeons don't get much attention because they're not the point of the game.  That'd be the characters,  IMO, and those typically are all unique in some way.

Quote from: mcbobbo;756048In seriousness, I'd suggest dungeons don't get much attention because they're not the point of the game.  That'd be the characters,  IMO, and those typically are all unique in some way.

Good observation. Still, a character will play out very differently in different settings, right? A character making choices in the Warhammer 40k universe is going to be very unlike one making choices in the Exalted universe. So the dungeon you offer to the players could matter in a similar way. Tired cliché venues could encourage tired cliché characters and choices.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;756063Good observation. Still, a character will play out very differently in different settings, right? A character making choices in the Warhammer 40k universe is going to be very unlike one making choices in the Exalted universe. So the dungeon you offer to the players could matter in a similar way. Tired cliché venues could encourage tired cliché characters and choices.

No.  I disagree completely.  The player decides, not the GM.  The setting might influence superficial things but the core character won't change because of more creative dungeons.

Quote from: estar;756027A boring dungeon is boring because it inhabited by boring people doing boring things. Want to make it more exciting make the inhabitant and what they are doing more interesting. The same with a city, wilderness or whatever. Exotic trappings/locale only go so far. In the end it comes back to what inhabitants the dungeon and what they are doing.

Truth.


"In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort."

I would say that Bag-End was pretty run of the mill as far as hobbit holes go. It was interesting because of who lived there and the things he did.

For campaign play, I believe that how a given dungeon or similar locale fits natutrally into the flow of the area is more engaging than the factor.

That old abandoned house is probably not worth looking twice at-except why are there flashes of light seen coming from it at night, and who or what are those shadowy cloaked forms coming and going in the dead of night?

Quote from: estar;756027A boring dungeon is boring because it inhabited by boring people doing boring things. Want to make it more exciting make the inhabitant and what they are doing more interesting. The same with a city, wilderness or whatever. Exotic trappings/locale only go so far. In the end it comes back to what inhabitants the dungeon and what they are doing.

Couldn't agree more.

Quote from: mcbobbo;756048Swords are overdone as well.

While you're being sarcastic, there are no swords in the game Planescape: Torment *specifically* because Chris Avellone was sick and tired of swords all the time.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;756035Good points, but would you concede that some trappings are better for facilitating some content? Going back to the tree example, to me a swim up though a vertical shaft of viscous sap to reach and negotiate with a colony of possibly friendly giant burrowing insects feels more right amidst the tree trappings than it does amidst the shadow cult crypt trappings.

Swimming through tree sap adds nothing but the challenge of negotiating - and breathing in - a liquid filled passage, which can also be achieved with a flooded mine shaft, a cave complex in a cenote, an aqueduct under a city, et cetera, et cetera.

The tree itself isn't intrinsically interesting, and in fact it can become quickly limited and limiting. This is one of the reasons I don't care for 'theme' dungeons; it's also why I think big dungeons work better than small dungeons, because of the greater range of challenges the players must negotiate.

Frex, a dungeon set on the Elemental Plane of Fire can quickly become repetitive. Take a portion of an otherwise bog-standard dungeon complex and create a tear between the planes, which turns a portion of the dungeon into a molten hellscape, and now you have options for fire-related monsters and hazards without being limited to them exclusively.

Personally, I think that the reason why one resorts to recurring tropes, is because of two reasons:
One:
They are like modular parts, that you can put together as you like, in order to concentrate on other things, like story/plot/intrigues, characterization, or, y'know, Gaming.
Two:
You aren't really using tropes, but several tropes are deliberately interpreted to be wide, so even if the "mad scientist"s lab is run by goblins, and they have an overseer that is a Mage, the mage will easily be seen as the Mad Scientist, unless the GM clearly points it out.
It is, in that case, a situation of recognizing certain wellknown patterns, while at the same time ignoring less known patterns.

As for alternative dungeouns, i'd suggest a dungeoun that is practically run like a corporate building in Shadowrun .... but it is set in a fantasy setting- of course.
^_^

Quote from: estar;756027...

A boring dungeon is boring because it inhabited by boring people doing boring things. Want to make it more exciting make the inhabitant and what they are doing more interesting. The same with a city, wilderness or whatever. Exotic trappings/locale only go so far. In the end it comes back to what inhabitants the dungeon and what they are doing.

Quote from: jeff37923;756044A distinct lack of imagination in the userbase is my own opinion.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;756067...

That old abandoned house is probably not worth looking twice at-except why are there flashes of light seen coming from it at night, and who or what are those shadowy cloaked forms coming and going in the dead of night?

Yes! (Exploderwizard's suggestions now make me want to go figure out what the hell is going on in that house!)

I remember some advice (maybe a DM's guide?) suggesting you can use the construct of a "dungeon" adventure in a wilderness or urban setting as well. Instead of rooms you have "locales" and instead of hallways you have roads, pathways, game trails, rivers etc. You can connect them to be as linear or open as desired. Certainly different dressings could offer some unique obstacles or limits on movement, but after a couple dozen adventures you are going to get used to pretty much ANY obstacle the DM introduces. The DM should be making these different "dressings" feel unique.

It's the mysteries, and interesting NPCs, and strange creatures and even events (hurricane, festival, infrequent alignment of the three moons...) that make it fun.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;755970For a hobby built on imagination we sure do love retreading the same old dungeon cliches!

"Edgy" cult temples, abandoned mines, dark fortresses, caverns of unnatural evil, volcano tunnels, necromancer labs, creepy catacombs, haunted houses, slimy sewers, entrances to Hell... we're up to our eyeballs in professional and personal interpretations of these rote concepts. And of course video games are even more suffused with them.

Every now and then someone takes a big risk and goes way out on a limb... by applying an Egyptian or Mesoamerican veneer to one of the above! Oh shit, look out, we've got a maverick here!

In another thread I asked for examples of dungeons inside giant trees, expecting a healthy selection of what I thought was an obvious but not too overexposed idea. I got about two or three results.

As a collective, why are we so hidebound on this subject?

SSI's Pools of Darkness had you dungeoncrawling through... Moander's not-quite-dead body. Godcrawling?

Gearhead has you dungroncrawling a mad godesses/superweapon's womb. Wombcrawling???

Expedition to the Barrior Peaks has you Starshipcrawling.

Famin in Far-Go and Hor-Mel Horror had you exploring meat processing factories.

Baba Yaga's Dancing Hut had you exploeing a tesseract.

Quote from: mcbobbo;756066No.  I disagree completely.  The player decides, not the GM.  The setting might influence superficial things but the core character won't change because of more creative dungeons.

I'm not sure I follow. Wouldn't you say the same magic-hating zealously monotheistic vampire hunter is going to evolve differently in Ravenloft than in Planescape? Consider the opportunities, liabilities and choices she would face in one versus the other - are the differences superficial? If they are, why do we bother using any campaign setting other than Greyhawk?

Quote from: Black VulmeaSwimming through tree sap adds nothing but the challenge of negotiating - and breathing in - a liquid filled passage, which can also be achieved with a flooded mine shaft, a cave complex in a cenote, an aqueduct under a city, et cetera, et cetera.

Intelligent burrowing insects living inside a giant sacred tree are likely to have very different values, behaviors and objectives that the sort you would find inside the trash filled aqueduct of a city of thieves, and in the second example the fluid will likely poison you instead of making you sticky to everything you touch.

I see what you're saying about re-skinning challenges and all, but if we believe that there is value to players investing time and effort in making their characters aesthetically/behaviorally interesting then surely it's not unreasonable to expect the GMs to do a little more of the same for locales and their themes?

Quote from: Black VulmeaThe tree itself isn't intrinsically interesting, and in fact it can become quickly limited and limiting. This is one of the reasons I don't care for 'theme' dungeons; it's also why I think big dungeons work better than small dungeons, because of the greater range of challenges the players must negotiate.

Frex, a dungeon set on the Elemental Plane of Fire can quickly become repetitive. Take a portion of an otherwise bog-standard dungeon complex and create a tear between the planes, which turns a portion of the dungeon into a molten hellscape, and now you have options for fire-related monsters and hazards without being limited to them exclusively.

Good point. If I take "mish-mash" dungeons into account I'm sure I will find more variety tucked away inside them than what I was bemoaning in my initial post. That said, I have noticed a majority of mish-mash dungeons tend to just be combinations of the clichés I listed there!

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;756144I'm not sure I follow. Wouldn't you say the same magic-hating zealously monotheistic vampire hunter is going to evolve differently in Ravenloft than in Planescape? Consider the opportunities, liabilities and choices she would face in one versus the other - are the differences superficial? If they are, why do we bother using any campaign setting other than Greyhawk?

Considering for a moment the possibility that dungeons are equivalent in significance to CAMPAIGN SETTINGS, yes I would say that even then the setting's impact is going to be superficial in almost every case.  Assuming they are plane hopping and not groomed specifically for a given setting and assuming that their levels taken don't specifically anticipate being in one planar setting over another,  then yes,  same character in both campaign settings.

Now if you groom a character specifically for Ravenloft gaming it will reflect that.  Certainly.

But who grooms a character for one specific dungeon?

Quote from: mcbobbo;756146But who grooms a character for one specific dungeon?

Initial character preparation is not what I meant. Consider my choice of words in the previous post: opportunities, liabilities and choices. These are reactive. Whatever your character may be initially, she will be gradually formed by how she reacts to what she is presented. An naïve idealist druid will react (and therefore be formed) differently to a sacred tree theme than a filthy aqueduct under a city of thieves theme. Imagine a parallel universe scenario: the same character from potentially the same setting goes into two different dungeons and after several sessions of exploration emerges as two different people.

No, sorry.  I don't see these two people as different in any tangible way.  Dungeons aren't any more profound to adventurers than my work day is to me.  Campaigns, okay.  But every individual dungeon?  I think not.

Put it this way, why don't random wilderness encounters likewise shape characters along parallel universes?

Further, what goes on the sheet that demonstrates how the character has changed?

Loot I guess.  Can't think of much else.

Quote from: mcbobbo;756150No, sorry.  I don't see these two people as different in any tangible way.  Dungeons aren't any more profound to adventurers than my work day is to me.  Campaigns, okay.  But every individual dungeon?  I think not.

Put it this way, why don't random wilderness encounters likewise shape characters along parallel universes?

But random wilderness encounters do shape characters differently! The naïve idealist druid who encounters and makes decisions based on the following in the wilderness...

1. A charming con artist who robs her blind.
2. A massacring aberration mostly immune to the powers of nature she has always depended on.
3. A community of selfish villagers poaching endangered animals for sport.

... is likely going to start turning into a different person than the parallel universe version that runs into the following...
1. A cowardly and obvious thief open to being persuaded onto the right path.
2. A great sacred animal who must be subdued before it can be cured of the disease that maddens it.
3. A community of starving villagers forced to poach endangered animals for sustenance.

Quote from: mcbobbo;756150Further, what goes on the sheet that demonstrates how the character has changed?

But I wasn't talking about character sheets at all, just roleplaying and fun decision-making opportunities.
-

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;756152But random wilderness encounters do shape characters differently! The naïve idealist druid who encounters and makes decisions based on the following in the wilderness...

1. A charming con artist who robs her blind.
2. A massacring aberration mostly immune to the powers of nature she has always depended on.
3. A community of selfish villagers poaching endangered animals for sport.

... is likely going to start turning into a different person than the parallel universe version that runs into the following...
1. A cowardly and obvious thief open to being persuaded onto the right path.
2. A great sacred animal who must be subdued before it can be cured of the disease that maddens it.
3. A community of starving villagers forced to poach endangered animals for sustenance.



But I wasn't talking about character sheets at all, just roleplaying and fun decision-making opportunities.
-

All of this is up to the player running the character and whether they want to adapt their concept or not.