TheRPGSite

First installment is up.

http://theangrygm.com/category/lets-build-an-angry-megadungeon/

I've been looking forward to this, as a follower of Angry and his rants and video game... videos. This first installment is a lot of XP pacing math. Kinda dry but necessary for what he's attempting.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;855346First installment is up.

http://theangrygm.com/category/lets-build-an-angry-megadungeon/

I've been looking forward to this, as a follower of Angry and his rants and video game... videos. This first installment is a lot of XP pacing math. Kinda dry but necessary for what he's attempting.

All 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. Designing a dungeon level is much, much easier in old school D&D. Design s few special areas for the level, draw up the level around the special areas. For each room not in a special area roll top see if it is empty, has a monster, has treasure or has a monster and treasure. If it has a monster either put one of your choice their or roll a random monster using the dungeon tables from the game (or some you have created for the area). Do the same for treasure.

Agreed, trying to set up "balanced encounters" in 3e & 4e burned me out on DMing for a long time.

Quote from: Ddogwood;855375Agreed, trying to set up "balanced encounters" in 3e & 4e burned me out on DMing for a long time.

On rereading the article, it seems like this is even less of what I think of as a megadungeon: a place where PC enter and do whatever they want. It looks like Angry DM is designing it as a bunch of mini-adventure paths so the characters can start one and have a satisfying mini-boss encounter at the end in one session. I hope I'm reading this article wrong as this seems to negate almost all the appeal a megadungeon campaign has for me as a player or a GM. Perhaps I'm just too old school but I loathe adventure paths. I don't want to be a character in the adventure novel following along the preset path of set piece encounters designed to tell a story when I play.

Best Megadungeon I ever set up, the party basically cleaned out the top 4 levels and established it as a mini-fiefdom; they still had to deal with wandering monsters from lower levels coming up to find out what's up (WHAT'S GOIN' ONNNNNNN), but that was great gym-work for them to clean up on XP, so they could move further down.

They did this until the true "master" of the place decided they were getting too uppity, and while they were out on a wilderness adventure cast move earth, transmute rock to mud and so forth to put an end to their little condominium development :D


But that's not at all what this project of "the angry DM" sounds like.

When I read "xp pacing math," I thought that meant something like figuring out how much treasure there should be on the first level to provide for a couple dozen adventurers or so (about 50,000 g.p., more if a lot of that is hidden).

Following the link, all I see is one little paragraph. I'm guessing it refers to a video somewhere, which is not my bag -- but neither is making a bunch of spreadsheets to make up a fantasy adventure scenario.

Yes, yes, can we just take it as read that the Old School method is intellectually and morally superior, approved by Demogygax himself, and get on with it? :p

A megadungeon designed on the principles of encountardization?

No thanks.

I finally found the first installment of actual material.

QuoteNow, you know I'm a big fan of videogames in general. ... And those video games, when done right, take that whole giant sprawling mass and make an art of the design. Without really letting on, they carefully control traffic flow to provide a well-paced adventure with a solid difficulty curve. They provide enough optional exploration and chances to go off the beaten path that the player really is free to explore and to choose how to deal with the game. They just never face more than a manageable chunk of the game at any one time.

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 that's the beauty of the design. So often, we get wrapped up in the fight over "sandbox" or "railroad" that we forget that the truth always lies somewhere in between. And that SHOULD be our goal, most of the time. Because those two distinct structures provide different types of satisfaction. A well-paced, well-structured narrative and a sense of freedom and accomplishment.

I think the linear and the freely exploratory are indeed at odds, at least in terms of the classic D&D underworld.

It's a pretty basic question: Are the players free to choose from a huge domain of paths through the dungeons, a range of significant possible histories that defies prediction in advance, or not?

Quote from: Phillip;855433Following the link, all I see is one little paragraph. I'm guessing it refers to a video somewhere, which is not my bag -- but neither is making a bunch of spreadsheets to make up a fantasy adventure scenario.

That link takes you to the article. I assume the page linked about will hold links to all the articles as they come out.  Here's a link straight to the first article:

http://theangrygm.com/megadungeon-intro/

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;855453Yes, yes, can we just take it as read that the Old School method is intellectually and morally superior, approved by Demogygax himself, and get on with it? :p

I would not say that, but it is a hell of a lot less work to create an old school  megadungeon -- and the resulting megadungeon will likely be just as much fun to explore (but probably not "fair & balanced" in the modern D&D sense of the terms).  

If people are expected to do what Angry GM is doing to design a "good" adventure setting for modern D&D, I can finally understand why so many GMs of modern D&D refuse to design their own adventures and expect "support" in the way of a constant stream of new first and third party adventures before they will commit to running a campaign.

Quote from: RandallS;855485That link takes you to the article. I assume the page linked about will hold links to all the articles as they come out.  Here's a link straight to the first article:

http://theangrygm.com/megadungeon-intro/

Yeah. My bad there.

Quote[E]ven though we want it to look like a seamless dungeon that you can explore in any direction, we really want a series of interconnected adventuring days... we're stapling a bunch of mini-adventures together and fuzzing up the edges.

...[W]e realize that each day should probably have some sort of milestone at the end. The heroes have a big fight. Or discover a special treasure. Or a unique piece of lore.

It looks like a proper dungeon to somebody's eye, but the aim is for it not really to be that.

Hey, if people are having fun then that's what D&D is for. However, expecting enthusiasm over a substitute from those who enjoy the real thing is like serving tofu and non-cheese to somebody who sees no problem with a genuine Philly cheesesteak.

IMO, what he's designing is definitely not a megadungeon -- it's just a largish (possibly fairly linear) dungeon. I dare say that a lot of the pushback in this thread could have been avoided if he'd chosen a different word to define the project.

Beyond that, I find what he's doing quite interesting, and I doubt it will be as stale as all the number-crunching may lead one to believe at first glance. Stupid amounts of number-crunching and analysis are something I used to do a lot of just for the hell of it, back when I had a lot more time on my hands. What I rarely managed to do was follow through on all that back-end work and show something of value at the end.

Will the finished result of this guy's efforts be something that's fun to play through? I don't know, but I think it's a bit early to be claiming that it won't be just because it's not really a megadungeon.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;855492IMO, what he's designing is definitely not a megadungeon -- it's just a largish, (possibly fairly linear) dungeon. I dare say that a lot of the pushback in this thread could have been avoided if he'd chosen a different word to define the project.

Beyond that, I find what he's doing quite interesting, and I doubt it will be as stale as all the number-crunching may lead one to believe at first glance. Stupid amounts of number-crunching and analysis are something I used to do a lot of just for the hell of it, back when I had a lot more time on my hands. What I rarely managed to do was follow through on all that back-end work and show something of value at the end.

Will the finished result of this guy's efforts be something that's fun to play through? I don't know, but I think it's a bit early to be claiming that it won't be just because it's not really a megadungeon.

I'm mostly interested in how he takes video game exploration tropes and applies them to dungeon design.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;855494I'm mostly interested in how he takes video game exploration tropes and applies them to dungeon design.

Yeah, I did like his "bracketing" theory. If it works as intended, I can see real value there.

Quote from: Ddogwood;855375Agreed, trying to set up "balanced encounters" in 3e & 4e burned me out on DMing for a long time.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I largely avoided creating "balanced encounters" for 3e. Instead, I created random encounter tables......and had plausible random (and non-random) events that would occur.....whether or not they were "level appropriate". Not that I tried to kill characters, but I focused more on creating a living environment that made sense.....rather than focusing on arbitrary notions of "balance".

I did the same thing for 3e that I did for AD&D, in regards to encounter difficulty, world-building, and "balance". It worked just fine. The only real difficulty I had was that 3e stat blocks were harder for me to write. More detail, and more customization for 3e.....but 3e was harder to write. So it was a trade-off.

After this thread, I was prepared for Elaine eye rolling. I was wrong.

See, I'm just starting to dig into 5e. I learned to hate 3/3.5 and never played 4e. I'm not a big fan of the whole adventure game/encounter balance. At the same time, I feel you ignore it at your peril. So anything that breaks it down and teaches you how to make it your bitch sounds cool to me!

So while yes, the goals and practices are at odds with my instincts, the series is shaping up to be a good inside view into how to manipulate the 5e design principles to do some cool things.

But yeah, AD&D was easier to design for, mostly because you didn't have to sweat all this weird math. But even Gygax always said designing an adventure for publication was more complicated than it looked on its face. And I haven't read anything about his process. I doubt he was busy with spreadsheets but I suspect it was more than rolling for empty rooms. So, I'm interested. Let's see where it goes.

Tom

Quote from: Blusponge;855540See, I'm just starting to dig into 5e. I learned to hate 3/3.5 and never played 4e. I'm not a big fan of the whole adventure game/encounter balance. At the same time, I feel you ignore it at your peril. So anything that breaks it down and teaches you how to make it your bitch sounds cool to me!

IME 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 wonder what defines a "megadungeon"? I once created one where the top level, "ground level" was, I think, 6 graph papers big. The second level was about equal to that. The third was down to 4, the ones below that were just 1-2 graph papers in size. Is that big enough for the "megadungeon" rank or too small? (The scenario involved an army besieging a large fort and the PCs are sent inside to investigate what was going on.)

Or maybe I'm mistaken and number of graph papers doesn't matter? Does it take something like the Drow series Underdark map to qualify?

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

Clearly size is necessary, but I don't think there's any exact cutoff where you could be one room short of a megadungeon. The size should be such that the players can only explore a tiny portion at a time, but the exploration is cumulative; the megadungeon should be big enough to support an entire campaign of many sessions.

I think sprawling (multiple sheets of graph paper for one level, probably) is necessary because it shouldn't have a nearly singular path through it; a sequence of rooms which can only be explored in order wouldn't be a megadungeon no matter how many rooms there were.

I don't know that there's anything else that a megadungeon would have to have; maybe there's a crucial balance between diversity (so it's not a monster suburbia with every room having the same kind of opponents) and theme (so there's some potential for understanding it or a significant portion of it enough to inform future exploration).

Question from someone who has no experience with this era/form of tabletop gaming:

  Would Castlevania in Symphony of the Night qualify as a megadungeon?

Here's a whole forum devoted to megadungeons (http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewforum.php?nomobile=1&f=28) and a good thread there. (http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?nomobile=1&f=28&t=168)

Quote from: Doughdee222;855563I wonder what defines a "megadungeon"? I once created one where the top level, "ground level" was, I think, 6 graph papers big. The second level was about equal to that. The third was down to 4, the ones below that were just 1-2 graph papers in size. Is that big enough for the "megadungeon" rank or too small? (The scenario involved an army besieging a large fort and the PCs are sent inside to investigate what was going on.)

Or maybe I'm mistaken and number of graph papers doesn't matter? Does it take something like the Drow series Underdark map to qualify?

I don't have it at hand, but the original D&D text said something like that a proper dungeon should have no less than thirteen levels, with sub-levels branching off, and ongoing modification and addition.

The original advice was also that there should be plenty of ways among the levels, because players won't appreciate being hemmed in.

I don't think human nature has changed radically in a few decades, that we old-timers are a different species. However, if all you offer is a railroad then people who aren't looking to buy a ticket for that kind of trip -- or find it's delivered better by, say, video games -- naturally go elsewhere.

As long as the author creates a cool, fun dungeon.....with a dynamic environment, that's all I really care about (megadungeon or not).

Random Encounter Tables will definitely help him build on that environment.

"Megadungeon" simply seems to be what the "cool kids" call what we used to call a "dungeon."

One thing I like about the original underworld/town/wilderness setup is that it gives a good return on the work (which really need not be very much to start).

The big payoff is from not needing to work out a sequence of events, then start over. Instead, we have elements than can keep generating a wide range of events. Characters don't need specific plotted moves because they have motives. Instead of scenery for a scene, we have living places.

Big stat blocks are of course more cumbersome. Snakepipe Hollow is remarkably big for a RuneQuest dungeon, not so much for old D&D, and Big Rubble adopts a more procedural than detail-mapped approach.

A 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.

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! :p

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 (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2050/roleplaying-games/revisiting-encounter-design) (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 (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/5813/roleplaying-games/hard-system-limits-in-scenario-design) 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 (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/13085/roleplaying-games/jaquaying-the-dungeon). (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 (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1223/roleplaying-games/opening-your-game-table), on the other hand, you probably want to aim for 10x the XP (and also include robust mechanisms for restocking the dungeon (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/5/roleplaying-games/re-running-the-megadungeon)).

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 (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2050/roleplaying-games/revisiting-encounter-design) (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 (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/5813/roleplaying-games/hard-system-limits-in-scenario-design) 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 (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/13085/roleplaying-games/jaquaying-the-dungeon). (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 (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1223/roleplaying-games/opening-your-game-table), on the other hand, you probably want to aim for 10x the XP (and also include robust mechanisms for restocking the dungeon (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/5/roleplaying-games/re-running-the-megadungeon)).

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.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;856396This 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.

Shit, Angry wrestles to fix things that aren't even problems!

http://theangrygm.com/why-race-isnt-broken/

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;856441Well, in a way, every new generation of players has to learn all the old stuff again. So it's true.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it... and the rest of us are doomed to watch.

Quote from: nDervish;856667Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it... and the rest of us are doomed to watch.

And weep.  Omnes plangite mecum!

Quote from: Ratman_tf;856535Shit, Angry wrestles to fix things that aren't even problems!

Oh, man. I decide my elf was raised by gun-toting meerkats, and the default setup in the books is some kind of medieval Nordic and Celtic mix. This is such a problem! I mean, how could I be expected to use imagination and common sense?

The latest update.

http://theangrygm.com/welcome-to-the-megadungeon-how-to-award-xp/

He addresses some of the balance concerns.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;857596The latest update.

http://theangrygm.com/welcome-to-the-megadungeon-how-to-award-xp/

He addresses some of the balance concerns.

The update in which this guy takes over-thinking this project to a whole new level.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;857739The update in which this guy takes over-thinking this project to a whole new level.

I guess if you grew up on modern "the GM is responsible for the Story and the Fun" type advice then this over-structuring is understandable. There's a whole bunch of them out there - Gnome Stew, Newbie DM are a couple others I can think of. The best counter is Noism's advice to players : "You are responsible for your own orgasm" - ie it's up to the players to be proactive, make decisions, do stuff, and create an enjoyable game, without the GM pre-writing everything that will happen.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;857739The update in which this guy takes over-thinking this project to a whole new level.

I created and stocked a new sub-level for my dungeon (about 70-80 rooms) this week. I doubt I spent as much time on it as he did writing that post. And I expect my players will enjoy it just fine -- well, except "enjoy" is probably not the best term for the "Mad Mummy" special area. As I may have said before, What Angry GM is doing is what players playing WOTC D&D "new school style" expect of their DMs, I can see why most just buy adventure paths.

Do you guys disagree that what he's doing would make a fun game? Or is it just because it takes longer?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;857806Do you guys disagree that what he's doing would make a fun game? Or is it just because it takes longer?

Someone might find it fun I suppose. I find it amusing because he completely misses the point of a large (mega) dungeon.

He is putting an awful lot of work into creating what is essentially, an adventure path set in a single dungeon.

In an old school mega-dungeon setting, character advancement is uncertain. One party could have terrible luck and struggle to find enough treasure to advance, while another group could hit the jackpot scoring major haul after haul. Where the players go and when, and how many encounters they have or the nature of those encounters are all up to the players.

So planning something like exactly how many fights are needed to level up, and placing mini-bosses at timed level up points is kind of the antithesis of exploratory play.

So if your group is one that loves adventure paths, and leveling up and gaining rewards on a regular orderly schedule, then you will probably enjoy this dungeon.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;857806Do you guys disagree that what he's doing would make a fun game? Or is it just because it takes longer?

I don't doubt that Angry's overwrought design process can produce a fun game.

What I disagree with is the idea that it's necessary to go through such a process to get a fun game.

If he enjoys spending his life poring over spreadsheets, plotting out experience progressions, and making the occasional side-trip into inventing revolutionary concepts like wandering monsters, well, then, more power to him.  But I'll be very surprised if the end result is more fun, or does more to encourage truly exploratory play, than the dungeons I was producing in high school by just sitting down, drawing a bunch of shit on graph paper, and then filling it with whatever monsters and treasure felt right to me when I stocked it.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;857806Do you guys disagree that what he's doing would make a fun game? Or is it just because it takes longer?

Well, it seems less fun than letting players choose their own path and be surprised by the results. The strength of the megadungeon format is the freedom to explore it offers within the constrained space of the graph paper. Turning it into a series of linear quests was already done by WotC in their "Expedition to..." series, I have the Greyhawk one.

Quote from: S'mon;857745I guess if you grew up on modern "the GM is responsible for the Story and the Fun" type advice then this over-structuring is understandable.

Speaking from experience this seems to be a case of older player that can't play as much as they are used to and filling the time with this.

Quote from: nDervish;857865I don't doubt that Angry's overwrought design process can produce a fun game.

What I disagree with is the idea that it's necessary to go through such a process to get a fun game.

If he enjoys spending his life poring over spreadsheets, plotting out experience progressions, and making the occasional side-trip into inventing revolutionary concepts like wandering monsters, well, then, more power to him.  But I'll be very surprised if the end result is more fun, or does more to encourage truly exploratory play, than the dungeons I was producing in high school by just sitting down, drawing a bunch of shit on graph paper, and then filling it with whatever monsters and treasure felt right to me when I stocked it.

If they guy wants to go through his process and put it online, what harm does it do? Either ignore the stuff you already have considered, or wait until there's an update that covers something you may have not considered.
Also, he plans to publish this, which means a bit more process than the average GM eyeballing and on-the-fly adjustments. I can run a session off of a single sticky note, but I'd flesh it out before sharing it with the world. :)

"The primary driver of XP in D&D is monster encounters." Is that really still the case in 5E?

In old D&D, the primary source of XP is treasure.

The original XP value for monster slaying is an order of magnitude greater for 1st-level monsters than in Supplement I and later, but trying to level up on that alone is still suicidal. I think it's actually well balanced, the higher values below 9th level -- and especially at very low levels -- being appropriate to the danger.

The great value of treasure involved presents a problem: what to do with it? Hire armies to pillage still more treasure (for fewer if any XP)? Buy magic items?

This has been addressed with extravagant upkeep and training costs and onerous taxation, and the variant of having to spend money to get XP (as opposed to keeping both XP and GP). I'm increasingly inclined to think it best
(a) to give smaller treasures (in terms of buying power) worth the same XP, and
(b) to give significant awards for magical treasures (without trading them for cash).

I usually ignore the whole XP counting fuss and just wing it. If a module/scenario/adventure is large I let them level at the completion of it. If smaller then the PCs have to hack trough several to level up.

/shrug.

Quote from: Phillip;857921The great value of treasure involved presents a problem: what to do with it? Hire armies to pillage still more treasure (for fewer if any XP)? Buy magic items?

One thing I'm going to yoink from 4th ed Dark Sun is the idea of favors and boons. In this case, favors recorded as a GP value worth of goods and services that a group or individual feels they owe a character or a group of characters.
Actual treasure is nice, but I feel that there are lots more interesting ways to reward players that aren't simple coins and gems.
Formalizing and writing it down lets the players still feel rewarded even if they aren't clutching any bags of loot.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;857806Do you guys disagree that what he's doing would make a fun game? Or is it just because it takes longer?

I'm sure that some people who enjoy it. However, I would neither enjoy playing in an Angry DM-style mega-dungeon or running one. I'm just don't find adventure paths much fun -- so a dungeon full of mini-adventure paths wouldn't work for me.

To me a mega-dungeon is all about being able to explore in any way you want -- and that includes suddenly deciding you want to go another direction. Another way to put it is in the type of mega-dungeon I enjoy, all encounters are basically optional and character advancement depends on what the party decides to do or not do -- that there's no real way to predict that when you are designing the dungeon.

What exactly is the difference between an "adventure path" and just a prewritten module? I see the term thrown around a lot.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;857959What exactly is the difference between an "adventure path" and just a prewritten module? I see the term thrown around a lot.

An adventure path is a pre-sketched story of a kind. Events happen in a certain order, and locations are visited as dictated by the overall plot. Some adventure paths have multiple branches, but they usually end up all leading to the same places, which usually involves a climactic confrontation or other big dramatic finish.

Progression and level ups are usually doled out at certain points to ensure that the protagonists have the required assets to deal with the threats that come up in later chapters.

An old school adventure module is just that. There may be a scenario or hook to get the players involved but beyond that there is no story sketch. Locations and their contents are detailed and may be used in whole or in part by the DM in conjunction with other material. A classic dungeon has its own ecosystem, power players and groups, and the players just sort of interact with it as they see fit. It is a living place that keeps doing what it does before the players ever arrive and probably long after they leave for the last time. There is no dramatic finale.

Quote from: Doughdee222;857926I usually ignore the whole XP counting fuss and just wing it. If a module/scenario/adventure is large I let them level at the completion of it. If smaller then the PCs have to hack trough several to level up.

/shrug.

I used to do this as well, but I stopped when I realized that I could use XP as a gauge of how well the players performed. As in, engaging 50% of the adventure would result in a "win", but 100% completion involves exploring, discovering various hidden encounters and engaging optional encounters.

An "adventure path" is the apodaemonis* of a module.




*made up word intended to be the antonym of apotheosis

Quote from: Ratman_tf;857988I used to do this as well, but I stopped when I realized that I could use XP as a gauge of how well the players performed. As in, engaging 50% of the adventure would result in a "win", but 100% completion involves exploring, discovering various hidden encounters and engaging optional encounters.

That only works if you're saying there is a pre-approved path to take and objecives. What if they try to do something that wasn't part of the story before?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;857989An "adventure path" is the apodaemonis* of a module.




*made up word intended to be the antonym of apotheosis

And people wonder why the OSR can give the impression of "One True Way" thinking. ;)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;858016And people wonder why the OSR can give the impression of "One True Way" thinking. ;)

I think it is a good point, though. D&D gave rise to CRPGs, which by circumstance and necessity had to have a definitive "adventure path". Wizardry and Bard's Tale, for instance, have an "end game". All actions taken in either strive to meet the win condition. By no means does this make them bad games whatsoever, but they were products for a specific medium. Why anyone would want to do the same thing for a table-top RPG which is possibly limitless in scope is beyond me.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;858016And people wonder why the OSR can give the impression of "One True Way" thinking. ;)

Beats me, I have nothing to do with any "Renaissance" of any type, I'm playing the game the way I always did.

I thought modules were a bad idea when G1 came out.  I still do.  Others disagree.

This is my opinion.  There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Eh, pretty much everyone thinks their way is best or they wouldn't do it. I hear all the time how the kind of "no script immunity" games are no fun and from an asshole DM.

Example: https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/3ltsd3/elemental_evil_spoilers_so_my_dm_tpked_our_level/cv9u3kf

Me and some guy on reddit who's mad over a TPK on principle.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;857959What exactly is the difference between an "adventure path" and just a prewritten module? I see the term thrown around a lot.

Modules are place components: a Giant's castle, a trap and treasure laden tomb, a haunted mansion, a temple compound, a city, the warrens of ratmen or serpent folk beneath a city, a mysterious island, etc.

"Adventure paths" (after Paizo's name for its line) are plotted sequences of events premised on assumptions as to what the players DO. When the assumptions are enforced, riding roughshod over whatever the players try to do instead of following the script, it's a 'railroad.'

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;858003That only works if you're saying there is a pre-approved path to take and objecives. What if they try to do something that wasn't part of the story before?

I wouldn't call it pre-approved. More like the expected path. When the players decide to take on the space pirates of the denebian star cluster, I feel pretty confident that I can prep an adventure where they take on space pirates.
If not, I can always wing it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;858034Beats me, I have nothing to do with any "Renaissance" of any type, I'm playing the game the way I always did.

I thought modules were a bad idea when G1 came out.  I still do.  Others disagree.

This is my opinion.  There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Did you remember to give it a girl's name?

http://theangrygm.com/welcome-to-the-megadungeon-critical-path/

Angry talks about the contradiction of his mega dungeon approach in this latest update.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;859291http://theangrygm.com/welcome-to-the-megadungeon-critical-path/

Angry talks about the contradiction of his mega dungeon approach in this latest update.

Wait. D&D dungeons are inspired by video games? It`s it the other way round?

The amont of work this guy is doing seems incredibly pointless.

The whole thing seems incredibly pointless, including his shifting of word definitions.

So an autistic video gamer is telling people how to generate an algorithm in which to best facilitate the proper amount of utility within the rpg paradigm.

Quote from: Daztur;859311Wait. D&D dungeons are inspired by video games? It`s it the other way round?

As I read it, he's saying that his specific adventure module (which he happens to dress up in megadungeon clothing) is inspired by videogames, not that (mega)dungeons as a whole are.

Quote from: Daztur;859311The amont of work this guy is doing seems incredibly pointless.

So very, very true...

But I think I finally got the reason for that in the start of his "F$&% Philosophy" section.  He seems to be operating under the assumption that, to be a viable product, a megadungeon needs to have a specific, structured "adventure" in that dungeon for the GM to lead the players through.

However, there are several existing, published products which are megadungeons presented solely as setting.  While they often have some level of "story" embedded in them in the form of the site's history and what the current occupants are doing, they don't have a "critical path" or other assumptions about how the PCs are "supposed to" get from the beginning of the megadungeon to the end of it.  (Indeed, they often don't even have a "beginning" or an "end" in the first place.)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;859316The whole thing seems incredibly pointless, including his shifting of word definitions.

Yeah. It's almost amazing. On the other hand, I just learned there was a point to the whole model railroad thing besides watching trains go around the table in a circle while saying "Choo Choo." :p So I'm trying to be more tolerant of other people's ideas of fun.

Quote from: nDervish;859362As I read it, he's saying that his specific adventure module (which he happens to dress up in megadungeon clothing) is inspired by videogames, not that (mega)dungeons as a whole are.



So very, very true...

But I think I finally got the reason for that in the start of his "F$&% Philosophy" section.  He seems to be operating under the assumption that, to be a viable product, a megadungeon needs to have a specific, structured "adventure" in that dungeon for the GM to lead the players through.

However, there are several existing, published products which are megadungeons presented solely as setting.  While they often have some level of "story" embedded in them in the form of the site's history and what the current occupants are doing, they don't have a "critical path" or other assumptions about how the PCs are "supposed to" get from the beginning of the megadungeon to the end of it.  (Indeed, they often don't even have a "beginning" or an "end" in the first place.)

Yeah he calls those, games where you have to "find the fun" after poking around for hours, instead of actually having it be fun from the start. Same with hexcrawls. The fun is hidden from the player and they must wrestle it out of the game like it was a grudge.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;859377Yeah he calls those, games where you have to "find the fun" after poking around for hours, instead of actually having it be fun from the start. Same with hexcrawls. The fun is hidden from the player and they must wrestle it out of the game like it was a grudge.

That seems to be an attitude of a lot of people nowadays...fun is something that should be IN YOUR FACE. I've heard people complain about reading a book because they "just wanted to know the whole backstory instead of figuring it out from context." God forbid you actually have to use your fucking brain. Probably the same reason these sorts of people hate sports because they're hard and it's not "fun" unless you win, but winning takes a lot of effort, so why bother?

Quote from: Brad;859381That seems to be an attitude of a lot of people nowadays...fun is something that should be IN YOUR FACE. I've heard people complain about reading a book because they "just wanted to know the whole backstory instead of figuring it out from context." God forbid you actually have to use your fucking brain. Probably the same reason these sorts of people hate sports because they're hard and it's not "fun" unless you win, but winning takes a lot of effort, so why bother?

Some folks were weaned on advice from the 4E DMG which had a whole section on " finding the fun". It was so incredibly useful. :rolleyes:

 It defined fun for you, told you what was fun and what wasn't, and provided instructions for how to skip all the stuff that just simply wasn't fun and no one would enjoy such as role playing an encounter with guards at a city gate.

Quote from: Brad;859381That seems to be an attitude of a lot of people nowadays...fun is something that should be IN YOUR FACE. I've heard people complain about reading a book because they "just wanted to know the whole backstory instead of figuring it out from context." God forbid you actually have to use your fucking brain. Probably the same reason these sorts of people hate sports because they're hard and it's not "fun" unless you win, but winning takes a lot of effort, so why bother?

To be fair there is a good way to start off sandbox campaigns with a hexcrawl setting, and a way that just leaves it totally to chance.

The good way, the one that I found drives players to act for themselves, is to give them a suitable background for their characters that leads to adventure. I call the whole thing the initial context.

It doesn't need to be overly detailed, often a paragraph will suffice but it does require some thought so that the player is motivated to pursue the initial leads for adventure.

But doing what this guys is doing for his megadungeon is way overkill and has its own problem. Namely that despite all the work the whole thing just sucks like a bad computer game, bad novel or a bad movie.

I have a friend who likes the idea of Dwimmermount of being a complete megadungeon but find the actual details boring and uninteresting.

Even with my sandbox campaign there are times when the initial context and the specific situation that the players start out with prove to be uninteresting and the campaign ends early.

Quote from: Brad;859329So an autistic video gamer is telling people how to generate an algorithm in which to best facilitate the proper amount of utility within the rpg paradigm.

I'm sure there's some synergy in there too.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;859377Yeah he calls those, games where you have to "find the fun" after poking around for hours, instead of actually having it be fun from the start. Same with hexcrawls. The fun is hidden from the player and they must wrestle it out of the game like it was a grudge.

Watching my kids play Minecraft, slowly figuring out how to build portals into the Nether, tame wolves, and build golems, I'd have to say that "find the fun" games tend to be a lot more engaging in the long run.

I mean, there's nothing inherently WRONG with what he's doing, but it's very prescriptive.

He works on the assumption that dungeon exploration is inevitably going to be "go to Room A, run encounter; go to room B, run encounter; choose between Room C or D, run encounter...".

In my experience, dungeon exploration is more like "go to Room A, dick around for a while; go to Room B, argue about something, decide to return to town.  Spend some time shopping and debate about whether to return to the dungeon or pursue a totally different adventure.  Six weeks later return to Room A, run encounter..."

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;859377Yeah he calls those, games where you have to "find the fun" after poking around for hours, instead of actually having it be fun from the start. Same with hexcrawls. The fun is hidden from the player and they must wrestle it out of the game like it was a grudge.

Horseshit, cowshit, pigshit, dogshit, and aardvarkshit.

For some of us with an attention span of more than six seconds, exploration IS the fun.

Of course this goes way back.  As early as 1976 some of the whiny dicks were complaining that the Origins tournament dungeon actually had empty rooms in it.

Waah waah waah waah fucking waah.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;859584Horseshit, cowshit, pigshit, dogshit, and aardvarkshit.

For some of us with an attention span of more than six seconds, exploration IS the fun.

Of course this goes way back.  As early as 1976 some of the whiny dicks were complaining that the Origins tournament dungeon actually had empty rooms in it.

Waah waah waah waah fucking waah.

Some people cannot see empty rooms for what they are- player resources.

Kind of reminds of that ambush scene from the movie Heartbreak Ridge.

Corporal 'Stitch' Jones: We're here for that, man. We've ambushed Major Powers three times, and always right here. We know what we're doing.

Highway: Well, shit-for-brains, who says we're gonna ambush Major Powers right here?


Empty rooms aren't interesting because of whats in them. They are interesting because of what players can make happen in them.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;858016And people wonder why the OSR can give the impression of "One True Way" thinking. ;)

Funny double standard, the NSE (new school establishment) seeing things the other way getting a free pass. Apparently it's not OTW when you really slam just one way, eh?

Sort of like how crimes cease to get treated as crimes once you're stealing big enough?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;859377Yeah he calls those, games where you have to "find the fun" after poking around for hours, instead of actually having it be fun from the start. Same with hexcrawls. The fun is hidden from the player and they must wrestle it out of the game like it was a grudge.

Thing is, plenty of people find the fun right there. If someone doesn't like it, doesn't find it fun, it's a counter-intuitive choice. Then again, all that work of calculation doesn't look like fun to us but it's how that guy gets his kicks.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;858016And people wonder why the OSR can give the impression of "One True Way" thinking. ;)

If I say that an apple is not an orange, I am not proclaiming a One True Fruit.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;859807If I say that an apple is not an orange, I am not proclaiming a One True Fruit.

Yeah, but straw man arguments have retained their popularity over the years because it's far easier to attack something you didn't say.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;859807If I say that an apple is not an orange, I am not proclaiming a One True Fruit.

No, but if you call it a demonic fruit, can you see why people might get that impression?

EDIT: But on reflection, it wasn't fair to call it OTWism or single out the OSR.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;859820No, but if you call it a demonic fruit, can you see why people might get that impression?

I keep telling people durian is just misunderstood. :p

Quote from: Opaopajr;859824I keep telling people durian is just misunderstood. :p

There are a surprising number of people have misunderstood the flavor as tasty and the smell as acceptable. :p