Quote from: Ratman_tf;855663A Megadungeon is bigger than an Ultradungeon, but smaller than a Gigadungeon.

I think it's one of those terms that wasn't very well defined in the beginning.

It's the same as the OD&D Underworld. It's bigger than the standard Dungeon which is more derived from the example dungeons in the 1e DMG (the 1-level Abbey dungeon), the 1983 Mentzer set (3-level dungeon) and the published module dungeons (notably B2 Caves of Chaos, the G1-3 dungeons, et al).

The big issue which caused drift away from the OD&D Underworld/Megadungeon is that all the published examples of Dungeons were much smaller, and the 1e AD&D DMG didn't really explain the difference. So people got to thinking of the module-size dungeon as standard. Moldvay's dungeon creation advice led this way, and by the time of 1983 Mentzer Basic it was institutionalised, with the Underworld/Megadungeon receding rapidly.

Any of you who played any Zelda games or Super Metroid should know what Angry GM is going for here.

There are linear bottlenecks, but within each zone between them there's an open endeed space to explore. Each space has restricted areas that can only be opened up by progressing further linearly, acquiring a powerup / item / key, then backtracking and opening up the restricted area.

So in that sense it's both linear and exploration based.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;855663A Megadungeon is bigger than an Ultradungeon, but smaller than a Gigadungeon.

I'm raising the bar with my Teradungeon, Petadungeon, Exadungeon, Zettadungeon and Yottadungeon.

Quote from: Luca;855795I'm raising the bar with my Teradungeon, Petadungeon, Exadungeon, Zettadungeon and Yottadungeon.

The Yottadungeon can never be created because it requires more graph paper the current world supply. If we all pull together and stockpile, we might have enough to map half of level one by the year 2035.

Lets get to it!

Quote from: RandallS;855373All this does is make me very happy that I do not run modern versions of D&D where one has to worry about XP budgets and the like.

The exact same issues will affect your old school campaigns, you're just choosing to ignore them. Which I largely consider a good thing (although having some tools that make it relatively easy for GMs to eyeball a ballpark of difficulty -- whether that's monster HD in OD&D or monster CR in 3E -- generally remains useful).

One of the reasons these issues can be ignored when you're using old school design principles is because a properly designed sandbox allows the players to modulate the amount of difficulty they want to face (instead of the GM trying to guess what they want and then futilely attempt to calculate it down to multiple decimal points). A properly executed megadungeon using the original design principles of Arneson and Gygax is the Platonic example of this: If they go down to the 4th level and things are too tough for them, they can go back up to the 3rd level and noodle around for a bit until they've leveled up and decided it's safe to go back down and give the 4th level a try again.

Skimming through what the Angry GM is doing on the other side of that link... Jesus, he's completely missed the entire point.

QuoteIn fact, these two distinct modes of gameplay – linear progression through an adventure and free-form exploration and discovery – would seem to be at odds. Except they aren't.

And those two sentences are complete nonsense.

Quote from: S'mon;855558IME 5e works fine ignoring encounter balance and treating CR just as you would Monster Level in AD&D - a rough guide to monster toughness and which (mega)dungeon level to put the critter on. What Angry is doing seems completely unneccessary for 5e and possibly counterproductive, though I can see a case for in in 4e.

I would argue that 4E is the only edition of D&D where you can't use old school encounter design principles and absolutely HAVE to pay close attention to individual encounter balance:

First, the system was designed around totally refreshing your character after every encounter. Because there was no meaningful strategic depletion of resources, encounters have to be challenging in and of themselves. (They don't become challenging as a result of being in a sequence of several weaker encounters.)

The exception to this, however, is the hard limit of healing surges: Once you're out of healing surges for the day, you're done for the day and there's really no way around that.

The result is that the GM is pushed into having every encounter be of basically the exact same difficulty. And they're also pushed into having a very specific number of encounters per day. (Which translates into a really narrow design space for 4E scenarios.)

Quote from: Doughdee222;855563I wonder what defines a "megadungeon"?

The best definition I've seen is that what distinguishes the "megadungeon" from a "dungeon" is that (a) it has enough content to support an entire campaign by itself and (b) a single group of player characters are not expected to clear the megadungeon. (And, in fact, are probably incapable of doing so.)

In terms of mapping, this means that the megadungeon is going to be heavily jaquayed. (Because if it's linear, the PCs will have to clear the level in order to proceed to the next level.)

In terms of mechanical design, this means that each level of the megadungeon must have MORE XP available than is required to advance to the point where PCs can proceed to the next level of the dungeon. (Because if that isn't true, they'll have to clear the level in order to proceed to the next level.)

("Level" here refers to the original design principles of Arneson and Gygax. But you could also have a megaduneon featuring a lot of smaller levels that collectively operate on the same principles. Rappan Athuk is an example of that.)

The general rule of thumb I think works is that you want to include about 3x the necessary experience on each level of the megadungeon if you're designing it for a single group of dedicated players. If you're designing it for an open gaming table, on the other hand, you probably want to aim for 10x the XP (and also include robust mechanisms for restocking the dungeon).

Quote from: Justin Alexander;855901The exact same issues will affect your old school campaigns, you're just choosing to ignore them. Which I largely consider a good thing (although having some tools that make it relatively easy for GMs to eyeball a ballpark of difficulty -- whether that's monster HD in OD&D or monster CR in 3E -- generally remains useful).

One of the reasons these issues can be ignored when you're using old school design principles is because a properly designed sandbox allows the players to modulate the amount of difficulty they want to face (instead of the GM trying to guess what they want and then futilely attempt to calculate it down to multiple decimal points). A properly executed megadungeon using the original design principles of Arneson and Gygax is the Platonic example of this: If they go down to the 4th level and things are too tough for them, they can go back up to the 3rd level and noodle around for a bit until they've leveled up and decided it's safe to go back down and give the 4th level a try again.

Skimming through what the Angry GM is doing on the other side of that link... Jesus, he's completely missed the entire point.



And those two sentences are complete nonsense.



I would argue that 4E is the only edition of D&D where you can't use old school encounter design principles and absolutely HAVE to pay close attention to individual encounter balance:

First, the system was designed around totally refreshing your character after every encounter. Because there was no meaningful strategic depletion of resources, encounters have to be challenging in and of themselves. (They don't become challenging as a result of being in a sequence of several weaker encounters.)

The exception to this, however, is the hard limit of healing surges: Once you're out of healing surges for the day, you're done for the day and there's really no way around that.

The result is that the GM is pushed into having every encounter be of basically the exact same difficulty. And they're also pushed into having a very specific number of encounters per day. (Which translates into a really narrow design space for 4E scenarios.)

The best definition I've seen is that what distinguishes the "megadungeon" from a "dungeon" is that (a) it has enough content to support an entire campaign by itself and (b) a single group of player characters are not expected to clear the megadungeon. (And, in fact, are probably incapable of doing so.)

In terms of mapping, this means that the megadungeon is going to be heavily jaquayed. (Because if it's linear, the PCs will have to clear the level in order to proceed to the next level.)

In terms of mechanical design, this means that each level of the megadungeon must have MORE XP available than is required to advance to the point where PCs can proceed to the next level of the dungeon. (Because if that isn't true, they'll have to clear the level in order to proceed to the next level.)

("Level" here refers to the original design principles of Arneson and Gygax. But you could also have a megaduneon featuring a lot of smaller levels that collectively operate on the same principles. Rappan Athuk is an example of that.)

The general rule of thumb I think works is that you want to include about 3x the necessary experience on each level of the megadungeon if you're designing it for a single group of dedicated players. If you're designing it for an open gaming table, on the other hand, you probably want to aim for 10x the XP (and also include robust mechanisms for restocking the dungeon).

Good post - as far as 4e goes, I disagree a bit - been running my current 4e game since early 2011, 25 levels & 91 sessions now. It's completely different from other D&Ds, but not totally inflexible.

Encounters per day - this can be any number up to the healing surge depletion limit. A single moderate difficulty fight is viable if the players don't know it's the only fight. In fact it's ok for the number of fights per day to be random. The main reason to limit # encounters is the massive time sink; 8 moderate-difficulty fights in a day could be 16 hours of play, for me that's probably 4-6 sessions, 2-3 months of fortnightly play! The published WotC adventures are written like that and work very poorly.

Encounter difficulty - this can be anything from a massive 'Spike' battle that tests PCs to the limit (from which they may need to flee, and possible PC deaths) to a moderate battle maybe EL 1 under Party Level.
But I agree that is really a fairly limited range, say EL-1 to EL+7 at higher level, with EL+7 about 4 times the difficulty of EL-1.
What 4e can't do well is the really trivial fight, it will take ages, be dull, and not attrite any resources.

Edit: Anyway, the kind of videogame-based "fake megadungeon" approach Angry is taking, with mini-bosses at the end of each 'day' sequence, looks like an appropriate approach for 4e. But in 4e there is really no meaningful Exploration element, the game doesn't support that at all, and IME is even best done without a map - just telling the PCs "you trek through the megadungeon, until... (Encounter X)" is what works best in that system. 5e is completely different and IME (GM'd 34 sessions of online Wilderlands 5e sandboxing) the design supports old-school exploratory play. I use mostly OSR material (and Caverns of Thracia) in my 5e game, and it works a charm. I found using Dyson's Delve dungeon maps a complete waste in 4e, but in 5e they work a treat.

Quote from: S'mon;855905Edit: Anyway, the kind of videogame-based "fake megadungeon" approach Angry is taking, with mini-bosses at the end of each 'day' sequence, looks like an appropriate approach for 4e. But in 4e there is really no meaningful Exploration element, the game doesn't support that at all, and IME is even best done without a map - just telling the PCs "you trek through the megadungeon, until... (Encounter X)" is what works best in that system. 5e is completely different and IME (GM'd 34 sessions of online Wilderlands 5e sandboxing) the design supports old-school exploratory play. I use mostly OSR material (and Caverns of Thracia) in my 5e game, and it works a charm. I found using Dyson's Delve dungeon maps a complete waste in 4e, but in 5e they work a treat.

He does mention that 5E math works out in such a way that you have to have a certain number of encounters every day to exhaust the party's resources enough for them to rest. Is that only unique to 4E/5E?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;855931He does mention that 5E math works out in such a way that you have to have a certain number of encounters every day to exhaust the party's resources enough for them to rest. Is that only unique to 4E/5E?

It's a 4e concept which the designers carried over to 5e. With 5e using mostly Daily resources it makes less sense there, and I've not seen any reason to use it  - not that you need to use it in 4e either. It's best seen as a limit, not a requirement.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;855901One of the reasons these issues can be ignored when you're using old school design principles is because a properly designed sandbox allows the players to modulate the amount of difficulty they want to face (instead of the GM trying to guess what they want and then futilely attempt to calculate it down to multiple decimal points).

Came to say this, and now I don't have to. I'd just add that, as a player, having the DM (try to) do this for me would eliminate most of what I enjoy about exploration-focused, location-based D&D.

This is a theme park, complete with "you must be this tall to go on this ride" regulations. I'd still probably prefer it to a plotted, story-focused game (assuming they don't hand you the map at the entrance), but it wouldn't be my preference.

http://theangrygm.com/welcome-to-the-megadungeon-the-adventuring-day/

Here's the next part of the mega dungeon.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;856099http://theangrygm.com/welcome-to-the-megadungeon-the-adventuring-day/

Here's the next part of the mega dungeon.

One thought I had reading this one, is that in a game like Super Metroid or Axiom Verge, there are designated "camp" spots, the save spots where you can save, and more important, replenish resources. What if clearing out a goblin camp turned it into a "save spot" where adventurers could rest with a minimum chance of wandering enounters. But leaving old save spots, they are reclaimed by monsters.
I also like the idea of the dungeon backfilling as the adventurers move forward. Eventually getting back out would be just as dangerous as pressing forward.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;856099http://theangrygm.com/welcome-to-the-megadungeon-the-adventuring-day/

Here's the next part of the mega dungeon.

This installment was pretty funny overall. Here, Angry GM wrestles with problems at great length that were solved by typical OD&D campaign play about 40 years ago.

I suppose if the majority of the audience isn't familiar with old school D&D then these solutions might seem really inventive and fresh.

What if wandering monster encounters were a nuisance resource drain and not just a heap of extra XP?  What a concept!!  :rolleyes:

I suspect future installments will be every bit as entertaining.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;856396What if wandering monster encounters were a nuisance resource drain and not just a heap of extra XP?  What a concept!!  :rolleyes:

And other monsters might move into cleared out areas when no PC or NPC explorers are in the area. I'm sure that this will also be hailed as innovative by people unfamiliar with OD&D.

Quote from: RandallS;856419And other monsters might move into cleared out areas when no PC or NPC explorers are in the area. I'm sure that this will also be hailed as innovative by people unfamiliar with OD&D.

Well, in a way, every new generation of players has to learn all the old stuff again. So it's true.

I thought the whole, having monsters act naturally in response to the environment was common sense though.

For instance, my players in 5E cleared out a monster's cave filled with treasure. They took some with them and left the rest of it in the cave to come back and pick it up at their leisure in the future when they want.

You already know where I'm going with this so I won't say it.

Hah, yes. A couple of years ago I was running the Caves of Chaos (Keep on the Borderland) for some players who wreaked great slaughter on a tribe of orcs but were repulsed at a last stand. The remainder did not sit around waiting for the invaders to return and massacre them. They packed up the females and young, and what treasure they had, and became underlings of a neighboring band (the escape of their chief female being an asset in this transaction). A trap left behind on their escape route not only alerted them but actually dissuaded the players.