TheRPGSite

From the Troll in the Corner blog, a post about "classic dungeons." (http://trollitc.com/2012/04/building-a-dungeon-in-classic-dd/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+troll-in-the-corner+%28Troll+in+the+Corner%29)

The guy calls himself a 21st century Renaissance man. It's like shooting ducks in a bathtub.

A poorly written one, maybe.

Can we not have blind links please.

Maybe to him it is.

So how would you define a dungeon then?

The blog has some over-generalized breakdowns, but I think it could be handy for starting out GMs.

I have no problems with thinking of dungeons as a series of scenes, though. Reminds me of how adventure areas (buildings, levels, etc) are broken down in published adventures into individual room or encounter descriptions. Calling them a "scene" is just rebranding them as particular moments in an over-arching adventure. Shrug.

I think I understand what he is trying to say but dungeons are not scenes they are places that do things on their own and act or react to whoever or whatever is in them. Or I guess interact, whichever you like better.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;533406So how would you define a dungeon then?

Either or both an environment to interact with or a setting to host planned action (which may or may not be scenes).

I don't object to someone seeing a dungeon that way, but that is sort of the mindset wizards got stuck in when they started with the whole "delve format" thing, to the detriment of the game.

I don't think what he's actually getting at there is all that offensive of a dungeon design philosophy - he doesn't seem to be using the term "scene" in a "high school drama / storygame playacting" sort of way.  All the categories he's listed are pretty indicative of old school dungeons, he's just arriving at them from a different angle.

I can see where his premise statement would set off alarm bells, though.

Quote from: Géza Echs;533408I have no problems with thinking of dungeons as a series of scenes, though. Reminds me of how adventure areas (buildings, levels, etc) are broken down in published adventures into individual room or encounter descriptions. Calling them a "scene" is just rebranding them as particular moments in an over-arching adventure. Shrug.

I would quibble here. It makes sense to me if the blogger claimed that an adventure was a series of scenes. I can easier see a dungeon as a scene than as a placemat upon which scenes occur.

This bit makes me go "bwah?" a bit.
 

QuoteWhen designing your dungeon, start with the sites that you want to feature. Draw those on a piece of paper, simply as circles connected by lines. Then, flesh out each site. How big is it? How many rooms does it include? Where are the exits? What monsters should be included?

I think this is actually an outgrowth of his "series of scenes" stuff and is the opposite of some of the better dungeon design stuff I've seen (e.g. "Let There Be A Method To Your Madness" in Dragon/Best of Dragon) where you instead start by imagining what the original purpose of the complex was, who built it, its history, adding reasonable decay, and so on -a process giving a more logical layout and helping to suggest ideas.
 
You want to put cool traps and monsters in, sure, but I think that's the last step, not the first.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;533413Either or both an environment to interact with or a setting to host planned action (which may or may not be scenes).

I don't object to someone seeing a dungeon that way, but that is sort of the mindset wizards got stuck in when they started with the whole "delve format" thing, to the detriment of the game.

Neither of those exclude a dungeon also being a series of scenes.
You have the temple of doom. it is a place in the swamps. people fear it, evil radiates from there and sometimes the things dewlling in it steal local villagers. It is a place, it interacts with the setting.

You have the temple of doom. It is dark and dank, with poor lighting. Corridors are flooded etc. It is a setting in which you host some scenes.

you have the temple of doom. Where you brave the temple guard, survive the collapsing corridor, rescue the troglodyte princess and slay the evil wizard. It is a series of scenes.

I think all of those are correct, depending on where in the adventure you are and what is happening.

I am the only one who remembers Advanced Fighting Fantasy?

Everything in that was broken down into scenes.  The GM was called the Director.

Was that a storygame?

A dungeon is a set upon which scenes are played out.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;533427This bit makes me go "bwah?" a bit.
 

 
I think this is actually an outgrowth of his "series of scenes" stuff and is the opposite of some of the better dungeon design stuff I've seen (e.g. "Let There Be A Method To Your Madness" in Dragon/Best of Dragon) where you instead start by imagining what the original purpose of the complex was, who built it, its history, adding reasonable decay, and so on -a process giving a more logical layout and helping to suggest ideas.
 
You want to put cool traps and monsters in, sure, but I think that's the last step, not the first.

While I certainly appreciate dungeons that have a theme and a history and a purpose...weren't the "Gygaxian dungeons" known for being a collection of esoteric elements that made little sense with one another?

I think one reason I barely got into the idea of running dungeon crawls as a DM was because most of the published examples I saw fell more along those lines, rather than dungeons with an actual purpose and theme to them.

I've been reading this guy's blog, and there's something just . . . off . . . about his take on old school games.

Like (http://trollitc.com/2012/04/treasure-in-classic-dd/), "In OD&D, as your character leveled up, you rolled for extra HP, and if you played a spellcaster, you got to choose new spells. That was it. No new abilities. No extra attack bonus or damage. This means that the difference between a first-level and a tenth-level fighter was primarily equipment." Except, of course, that your fighting ability did improve every three, four, or five levels, depending on your class; a first level fighting man hit AC 2 20% of the time and a 10th level hit AC 2 80% of the time.

I can't tell if this guy's just a poor writer or if he doesn't understand what he's doing.

The idea that dungeons are made up of scenes could be his attempt to redefine the use of the word 'scene' as it applies to roleplaying games. Or it could be an attempt to merge new school and old school. Or if could be something else entirely.

The whole thing just has a very odd vibe about it.

A dungeon is a series of tubes!

Quote from: thedungeondelver;533467A dungeon is a series of tubes!

It's not a big truck.

I think it's just a case of someone not really knowing what it is he is looking at. What's funnier is to see the story-dudes crowd this thread to try and claim the dungeon as a narrative device. Priceless.

Quote from: Benoist;533475I think it's just a case of someone not really knowing what it is he is looking at. What's funnier is to see the story-dudes crowd this thread to try and claim the dungeon as a narrative device. Priceless.

We're sneering at a guy who called himself "21th century man of Renaissance". It's like shooting ducks in a bathtub. Fun, but y'know...where's the challenge.

Agreed. I don't think there's a particular aim to this blogger's misuse of language, or his lack of understanding of the game's rules or purpose. He just doesn't know what he is talking about is all.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;533462While I certainly appreciate dungeons that have a theme and a history and a purpose...weren't the "Gygaxian dungeons" known for being a collection of esoteric elements that made little sense with one another?
 
I think one reason I barely got into the idea of running dungeon crawls as a DM was because most of the published examples I saw fell more along those lines, rather than dungeons with an actual purpose and them to them.

Sounds heretical, but I couldn't give you a good answer to this in any detail, as I'm primarily a 3E/2E guy as regards D&D (+Tunnels and Trolls and Dragon Warriors, in general, as regards dungeon delving) rather than OSR.
 
With most of the series of dungeons I am familiar with the "collection of esoteric elements" dungeons are definitely the most crap though.
A couple of the early Fighting Fantasy ones do come to mind ("here is a revolving room complex and an endless corridor for no particular reason...and then over here in the middle of the dungeon is a shop being run by dwarves"). The T&T solos vary wildly in quality as well, from "a wizard did it" setups through to French castle adventures and haunted forests.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;533439Neither of those exclude a dungeon also being a series of scenes.

I think when I said that a dungeon may or may not host scenes, I was pretty clear that I don't think they're exclusive, so I'm not sure what you are getting at... and I'm not sure you get what I'm getting at.

What I someone says "a dungeon is a series of connected scenes", there are two implications I get from that, stemming on the words series and scene:
- Series suggests to me something about the way it is structured--serially, sequentially. Some dungeons are like that, but they aren't the best ones, and it would certainly be boring if they were the only ones. The best ones have flexibility and complexity in the way that they are approached, feature shortcuts, back alleys, interconnected regions, which can make the dungeon more than a railroad.
- Scenes was the word that suggested me the format of the D&D "delve", wherein rooms are explicitly "encounters" or set-pieces. These can be interesting if well done, but again, I think if that's the only tool in your dungeon design toolbelt, you are missing out. Sometime the best gameplay in a dungeon comes out of not single area pre-scripted encounters, but the texture of multiple inter-related areas that may not play out in a scripted fashion.

... and then his examples seem to contradict what I would initially interpret out of his beginning statement. What I think he means to say is "Collection of Regions" instead of "Series of Scenes."

Quote from: Benoist;533475I think it's just a case of someone not really knowing what it is he is looking at. What's funnier is to see the story-dudes crowd this thread to try and claim the dungeon as a narrative device. Priceless.

Eh? Who's doing that?

Quote from: David Johansen;533457A dungeon is a set upon which scenes are played out.

Yeah, I think that's a valid way of looking at it. I hesitate about it, though, because, well, a dungeon doesn't actually exist - it's not a place or even a set representing a place. I think I'd agree fully if what we're talking about is a dungeon, but not a dungeon in an adventure. Like a generic dungeon, or a map with bare-bones ideas but no adventure attached.

As I said before, if it's a published or pre-written adventure I have no problem with seeing the room descriptions as loose descriptions of scenes, all leading up to the finalé - the end of the dungeon. But I don't think that's quite what the blog author was going for.

Quote from: Benoist;533479I don't think there's a particular aim to this blogger's misuse of language, or his lack of understanding of the game's rules or purpose. He just doesn't know what he is talking about is all.

That was my first impression as well, but I wasn't sure if I was just missing something.

Who is this idiot?!

Also, Black Vulmea, as OHT said, and I am now requesting as well, please go back to edit your OP and present context to your link.  theRPGsite does not allow blind links.

If you don't do this, I'll have to close this thread.

RPGPundit

There are at least two things we are talking about here:

• structure (function)
• backdrop (form)

The dungeon as a game structure is not "a series of scenes". The dungeon as a game backdrop can be "a series of scenes". That's the difference.

Quote from: Melan;533638There are at least two things we are talking about here:

• structure (function)
• backdrop (form)

The dungeon as a game structure is not "a series of scenes". The dungeon as a game backdrop can be "a series of scenes". That's the difference.

With this in mind I think the asessment of him not using the language correctly rather than being a troll is correct.

I think the notion of "series of scenes" is inoffensive and maybe even useful. It's clear that the linked writer doesn't mean "scene" as in "part of a narrative," which is likely to grate on the sensibilities of those who believe that role-playing games are about delivering raw experience. Instead, he means "scene" in the sense of "place," which seems to be a standard meaning of the word (e.g., "the scene of the crime"), as these definitions from dictionary.com suggest:

QuoteNoun:   

• The place where an incident in real life or fiction occurs or occurred.
• A place, with the people, objects, and events in it, regarded as having a particular character or making a particular impression.

Calling a dungeon a series of scenes hearkens back to the view that likens it to a computer flowchart, which is an old school view if ever there was one.

Yet if you replace the word "dungeon" with "adventure" it all makes much more sense.

Quote from: jeff37923;533651Yet if you replace the word "dungeon" with "adventure" it all makes much more sense.

Sure. But what's the difference between a dungeon and an adventure?

Quote from: Bill White;533653Sure. But what's the difference between a dungeon and an adventure?

Well a dungeon is usually a specific place where an adventure may or may not happen. YMMV

Quote from: Bill White;533653Sure. But what's the difference between a dungeon and an adventure?

A dungeon is more of a set piece. An adventure is a framework for what happens or can happen in that set piece.

Quote from: jeff37923;533656A dungeon is more of a set piece. An adventure is a framework for what happens or can happen in that set piece.

Hrm. But when we're talking about dungeons that are in published adventures, there's no way to differentiate the two. The dungeon and the adventure are all one piece - since, as I said, the dungeon doesn't actually exist anywhere.

Quote from: Marleycat;533644With this in mind I think the asessment of him not using the language correctly rather than being a troll is correct.

I don't believe him to be a troll. However this:

[quote from blog]

A dungeon is a series of scenes. Each scene is a major event–a fight or conflict–which occurs within a limited geographic area that I call a site. A few common site types are listed below.

[end quote]

seems to indicate that scene and site are clearly defined terms.

I played a one shot of his Dungeon Raiders system last month (he was the DM). The game was a blast with very simple OD&D style mechanics. He is a nice guy and fun to game with but this blog indicates that he has a lot to learn about old school.

In fact this method of dungeon design is as new school as it gets.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;533462While I certainly appreciate dungeons that have a theme and a history and a purpose...weren't the "Gygaxian dungeons" known for being a collection of esoteric elements that made little sense with one another?

I think one reason I barely got into the idea of running dungeon crawls as a DM was because most of the published examples I saw fell more along those lines, rather than dungeons with an actual purpose and theme to them.

I feel (or felt, at the time I started gaming) the same way. I didn't like or understand the idea of a dungeon crawl, and I never liked any of the published ones I saw from TSR. They just seemed like randomly thrown together rooms with connecting hallways.

Quote from: Géza Echs;533659Hrm. But when we're talking about dungeons that are in published adventures, there's no way to differentiate the two. The dungeon and the adventure are all one piece - since, as I said, the dungeon doesn't actually exist anywhere.

Sure there are ways to differentiate. The key part being where the PCs are have the adventure. The dungeon and adventure exist as one piece here in the real world where it was purchased, but the place where the Players immerse themselves in the game has differentiation - even if it does not exist in the real world.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;533664I don't believe him to be a troll. However this:

[quote from blog]

A dungeon is a series of scenes. Each scene is a major event–a fight or conflict–which occurs within a limited geographic area that I call a site. A few common site types are listed below.

[end quote]

seems to indicate that scene and site are clearly defined terms.

I played a one shot of his Dungeon Raiders system last month (he was the DM). The game was a blast with very simple OD&D style mechanics. He is a nice guy and fun to game with but this blog indicates that he has a lot to learn about old school.

In fact this method of dungeon design is as new school as it gets.

Definitely, but it really just sounds like he has the terminology a bit borked. I can't say much given I am just learning myself and still don't understand some of the shadings in definition of the terms.

But the bolded part is definitely about as new school as it is.

Quote from: Marleycat;533655Well a dungeon is usually a specific place where an adventure may or may not happen. YMMV

Okay. I hear you saying that an adventure is a given instance of running through a particular dungeon (i.e., a "specific place"). So you can "prep" a dungeon, but you can't really prep an adventure, because that's what PCs do by making their choices in the dungeon. Do I get you right?

Quote from: jeff37923;533656A dungeon is more of a set piece. An adventure is a framework for what happens or can happen in that set piece.

This is different from what Marleycat says. It sounds like you're saying that a "dungeon" is just the description of an imagined physical setting, while an "adventure" (by which I think you mean the GM's prep) includes that physical description plus some sense of the activities taking place in that setting (and how they might be affected by PC action). Yes?

Quote from: Géza Echs;533659Hrm. But when we're talking about dungeons that are in published adventures, there's no way to differentiate the two. The dungeon and the adventure are all one piece - since, as I said, the dungeon doesn't actually exist anywhere.

I agree with this.

Quote from: Bill White;533668This is different from what Marleycat says. It sounds like you're saying that a "dungeon" is just the description of an imagined physical setting, while an "adventure" (by which I think you mean the GM's prep) includes that physical description plus some sense of the activities taking place in that setting (and how they might be affected by PC action). Yes?

Yes.

The adventure is where the immersive play of a tabletop RPG occurs, while the dungeon is its physical location in that adventure. For this, dungeon is interchangeable with starship, secret lair, village, castle, space station, or what have you.

Quote from: Bill White;533668Okay. I hear you saying that an adventure is a given instance of running through a particular dungeon (i.e., a "specific place"). So you can "prep" a dungeon, but you can't really prep an adventure, because that's what PCs do by making their choices in the dungeon. Do I get you right?

Yes. This is why anything or nothing may happen. The dungeon is just a backdrop which really can mean whatever or wherever.

A dungeon is a dynamic environment ripe for adventure.

The "adventures" the PCs live within the confine of this dynamic environment are completely up to them, their own determined goals, objectives, and whatnot.

Quote from: Benoist;533678A dungeon is a dynamic environment ripe for adventure.

The "adventures" the PCs live within the confine of this dynamic environment are completely up to them, their own determined goals, objectives, and whatnot.

Benoist says it more eloquently than myself but yeah.

I'll put forth that a good dungeon is also dynamic.  When you kill off the pig-faced Grummsh-botherers, bandits might well move in and work with the bugbears to make the dungeon less vulnerable.  Or the swine-snouted hog-bangers might not get any new regular tenants; perhaps a gaggle of ghouls feasting on the greenskins' corpses, or the patch of yellow mold, gray ooze and a Gelatinous Cube for good measure here and again.

It should not inexplicably stay empty or just "bam, more orcs doing exactly the same thing" when the players come back.

I had a love/hate affair with this in Bethsoft's TES: Oblivion.  Dungeons would re-populate (good!) with commensurately more powerful creatures (very good!) but always the same types doing the same things (bad!).  So if you cleared out a fortress dungeon of marauders and collected a shedload of heavy, expensive gear (rusty iron at low levels) on day 10 of your adventuring career, then on day 300 you come back, they'll be toting ebony armor and weapons and have more hits...

Sorry, I got sidetracked.

Anyway: a dungeon is Dynamic.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;533664I played a one shot of his Dungeon Raiders system last month (he was the DM). The game was a blast with very simple OD&D style mechanics. He is a nice guy and fun to game with but this blog indicates that he has a lot to learn about old school.

In fact this method of dungeon design is as new school as it gets.

Interesting.

Quote from: Géza Echs;533659Hrm. But when we're talking about dungeons that are in published adventures, there's no way to differentiate the two. The dungeon and the adventure are all one piece - since, as I said, the dungeon doesn't actually exist anywhere.

I'd actually argue there is no way to differenciate the two (the setting and "the adventure") when the module is badly designed, with the expectation that the module in fact is a script to follow, that the text itself is the adventure. This isn't always the case.

Good modules in my mind present a setting and starting situation as the basis for play. Play itself becomes the adventure. The PCs find ways to interact with the setting and deal with the situation as depicted in the module, and from there the "adventure" arises as an emergent property of play that is not scripted in advance by the module. Take G1 which basically describes the basic problem with the giants, how the PCs might be hired, and from there, basically lets the PCs choose the way they want to deal with the compound. That's what makes it a great adventure with infinite replay value, in fact, that it is *not* a script for adventure, but lays out a site of adventure along with a possible way to get involved with the problem of the Hill Giants.

Another example is T1-4, which doesn't give you a point A to point B script of the "adventure", but basically lays out the entirety of Hommlet, describes the environs, talks about Nulb and the Temple, how all these elements are linked together and the past history most folks in the region know about, as well as problems going on around town, and basically lets the adventuring party do whatever it wants to do with it from there.

Quote from: Benoist;533708I'd actually argue there is no way to differenciate the two (the setting and "the adventure") when the module is badly designed, with the expectation that the module in fact is a script to follow, that the text itself is the adventure. This isn't always the case.

Good modules in my mind present a setting and starting situation as the basis for play. Play itself becomes the adventure. The PCs find ways to interact with the setting and deal with the situation as depicted in the module, and from there the "adventure" arises as an emergent property of play that is not scripted in advance by the module. Take G1 which basically describes the basic problem with the giants, how the PCs might be hired, and from there, basically lets the PCs choose the way they want to deal with the compound. That's what makes it a great adventure with infinite replay value, in fact, that it is *not* a script for adventure, but lays out a site of adventure along with a possible way to get involved with the problem of the Hill Giants.

Another example is T1-4, which doesn't give you a point A to point B script of the "adventure", but basically lays out the entirety of Hommlet, describes the environs, talks about Nulb and the Temple, how all these elements are linked together and the past history most folks in the region know about, as well as problems going on around town, and basically lets the adventuring party do whatever it wants to do with it from there.

Amen.

Scenes have a place in pre-scripted stories not rpg adventures.

What an rpg adventure needs is a setting and a starting scenario as it exists when the PCs enter the picture.

From that point on the adventure = actual play.

Plots have their place and I use many of them. All plots in my games follow the one simple rule I have for them: each plot is to belong to some entity (or group) inhabiting the game world.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;533716All plots in my games follow the one simple rule I have for them: each plot is to belong to some entity (or group) inhabiting the game world.

Yeah, npcs follow plots, right up the point where the adventurers interact with them.

After that, all bets are off.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;533841Yeah, npcs follow plots, right up the point where the adventurers interact with them.

After that, all bets are off.

Sometimes the npc(s) behind the plot will try and continue with it depending on the level of interaction. Once the PCs have made themselves known then future plots by those that are aware of the PCs might start including them.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;533860Sometimes the npc(s) behind the plot will try and continue with it depending on the level of interaction.

Right, that interaction can result in plans accelerating, or going sideways, or not changing at all.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;533860Once the PCs have made themselves known then future plots by those that are aware of the PCs might start including them.

The adventurers in my campaign have earned a sufficient reputation that now they are getting approached with offers and opportunities - dangerous offers, and opportunities frought with risk, of course.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;533391From the Troll in the Corner blog, a post about "classic dungeons." (http://trollitc.com/2012/04/building-a-dungeon-in-classic-dd/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+troll-in-the-corner+%28Troll+in+the+Corner%29)

No. That's a terrible way to design a dungeon. It's a terrible way to think about a dungeon. It is the epitome of My Precious Encounter(TM) design.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;533860Sometimes the npc(s) behind the plot will try and continue with it depending on the level of interaction. Once the PCs have made themselves known then future plots by those that are aware of the PCs might start including them.

Whenever this comes up in conversation, I encourage people to refer to this sort of thing as a "scheme" or a "plan": It means the same thing, but carries none of the linear baggage and poor preparation technique that "plot" brings with it.

When I prep my campaign, I fill it to the brim with schemes. But I never prep a plot (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots).

Quote from: Justin Alexander;533960No. That's a terrible way to design a dungeon. It's a terrible way to think about a dungeon. It is the epitome of My Precious Encounter(TM) design.



Whenever this comes up in conversation, I encourage people to refer to this sort of thing as a "scheme" or a "plan": It means the same thing, but carries none of the linear baggage and poor preparation technique that "plot" brings with it.

When I prep my campaign, I fill it to the brim with schemes. But I never prep a plot (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots).

Usually you're so black and white on gaming so I don't prefer to respond to you directly because I'm a casual gamer at best.  But that use of plan or scheme is wonderful. It also fits NPC's.

Quote from: Marleycat;533976Usually you're so black and white on gaming...

About the only thing I'm black-and-white on in terms of gaming is that using railroads and linear prep in a roleplaying game is like using a screwdriver to hammer in a nail.

If you enjoy it, more power to you. But if you're a fan of the medium, you are undercutting its strengths. And if you're a fan of the linear story you're trying to tell, then you're using the wrong medium.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;533986About the only thing I'm black-and-white on in terms of gaming is that using railroads and linear prep in a roleplaying game is like using a screwdriver to hammer in a nail.

If you enjoy it, more power to you. But if you're a fan of the medium, you are undercutting its strengths. And if you're a fan of the linear story you're trying to tell, then you're using the wrong medium.

No, you have me all wrong. Your choice of language is usually too aggressive for me to comfortably engage you in discussion. Your ideas are another matter. That's all I wanted to point out specifically. Usually I just lurk on whatever thread you enter and go hmm...and find ways to see if I can use them in my games in any capacity.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;533960Whenever this comes up in conversation, I encourage people to refer to this sort of thing as a "scheme" or a "plan": It means the same thing, but carries none of the linear baggage and poor preparation technique that "plot" brings with it.

When I prep my campaign, I fill it to the brim with schemes. But I never prep a plot (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots).

I appreciate this clarity of usage. It removes any ambiguity regarding plots having scripts, versus schemes (or plans) having partial measures towards a goal. One interpretation favors adherence to structure to "reveal story" -- which is self-defeating for a game that prides itself on infinite methods of response -- and the other favors interactive dynamism.

I will try to remember to use this definition. It sounds useful.