The layout of almost every dungeon in almost every D&D adventure module ever made makes no sense at all (with the exception of a very few historical-accuracy type adventures, and a few where they were semi-credible cave complexes rather than 'intelligent design').
That is, if you look at real "dungeons", real burial chambers, real tombs, even mines, catacombs or ancient sewers, NONE of them look like the often seemingly-random spattering of corridors, rooms, and multiple levels that you see in a D&D dungeon. They make no sense even from a construction perspective; and of course, most of the times the ecology of the dungeon makes no sense at all (sometimes this last note is worse than others, like dungeons that have giants or dragons that literally couldn't fit through the door out of the room they're found in, or ancient sealed dungeons unopened for centuries that somehow have contemporary equipment, groups of randomly-placed goblins, etc.).
So how do you handle all this?
Do you just not give a shit, and not address it at all?
Do you create some kind of flimsy justification for it ("a crazy wizard did it. Yes, all of them!")?
Do you actually make some kind of effort to at least try to have your dungeons be internally logical to the setting somehow?
Anyone actually want to try to defend the dungeon with some argument other than "fuck you, it's fun and I don't need to think about it"?
RPGPundit
I view it as a trope of the genre that is dungeon crawling. As such it should generally just be accepted as part of D&D and dungeon crawling. Usually.
Perhaps here and there we've jokingly asked what the heck the builder was on when they made the dungeon, but it's not something that gets discussed often.
I just see things like that as part of the game- a crazy obstacle that we the players have to try and overcome.
I don't "build" too many of my own dungeons, but when I do, I make at least some effort to keep things rational (if not completely realistic) especially since one of the keys for the players is the challenge of figuring out what it is, why it's there in the first place and how to take advantage of its features.
I never have really understood the ideas of using canned adventures. Unless they are heavily doctored, and even still, that is part of the fun of GMing, making your own stuff.
The only adventure I have used (and heavily doctored) since 83 was Caverns of Thracia, I think partially because Jaquay's work made and makes logical sense. My doctoring made it fit within the context of the setting.
I frankly agree with Pundit here how most adventures break verisimilitude by lacking internal or external logic. And the older I get, the more careful I get. I have had to go back and redo some of my older stuff.
But part of this is tied to World Building. If you play short, dungeon-centric campaigns, not such a big deal. But the more care that goes into crafting the setting, the more you can take advantage, or screw up, the verisimilitude in the Dungeon. Done well, the adventure can really distill essences of the setting.
Quote from: RPGPundit;802219The layout of almost every dungeon in almost every D&D adventure module ever made makes no sense at all (with the exception of a very few historical-accuracy type adventures, and a few where they were semi-credible cave complexes rather than 'intelligent design'
Roger E. Moore actually addressed this one to me when I was young and stupid enough to be submitting to Dungeon back in the day. The in-house view was that realistic, functional architecture was boring because symmetry, repetition and other features of a working site would at best detract from the adventure experience. Accuracy was always subordinate to ambience.
I mostly design what I'd call realistic "dungeons" On the other hand, the continent is a cosmic fungal infection with hyphae/tunnels that spread out across much of one of my worlds giving rise to the belief that hell lies beneath the earth.
Flimsy excuses usually work fine. Like rationalizing giant, flying, fire breathing lizards and undead wizards.
A real dungeon is a jail, there's really no reason to go into one unless there's a prisoner there you want to free, or whatever. There's no chests full of treasure or fiendish traps. Just some locked cells that smell like shit and human despair.
I suppose a better term might be lair, and it sometimes happens to be that the hobgoblin lair is in the dungeon of a ruined keep.
Or if we're talking about the more crazy dungeons, like White Plume Mountain, in that case, it's literally a crazy wizard who done it.
A dungeon could be posessed by a malevolent spirit or force. I've been toying with the idea of a shattered chaos stone, and every sliver has a pull towards the others. Over the years, the chaos essence will warp areas into dungeon-like lairs, and draw creatures to it, with the "intent" (Though I like to think of these shards like the One Ring, not really intelligent) of having a suitably powerful creature claim the shard and eventually encountering other shard-corrupted creatures, and over the course of the campaign, the stone slowly comes back together as these creatures defeat each other and claim more shards.
Just to outline one hypothetical excuse for dungeons.
Quote from: RPGPundit;802219...Anyone actually want to try to defend the dungeon with some argument other than "fuck you, it's fun and I don't need to think about it"?
RPGPundit
Nope.
I realized the silliness of the "Dungeon" when I was really young and I created a dungeon themed around the idiotic idea the whole dungeon was shaped like a skull on my graph-paper. It was meta before there was meta - my friends were like - "that is so cool! But if this dungeon were underground... who would know what it was shaped like?" (give me a break - I was like 12.)
As an adult - I don't use "dungeons" in the old-school sense very much. Sure I use tombs and labyrinthine underground structures that many would assume were "Dungeons" - but nothing exists in those things, or is part of those structures that does not have a reason for being there. I don't do random dungeons very much - unless it's supposed to represent some place long-abandoned. In which case I populate it like I would any region: what available food/water sources are there? what could live there? How long has it been abandoned - etc. and extrapolate from there.
Quote from: RPGPundit;802219Anyone actually want to try to defend the dungeon with some argument other than "fuck you, it's fun and I don't need to think about it"?
If we're treating rpgs as an actual game, any other argument is essentially meaningless. Surely the streets in Atlantic City don't form a square pattern! If you're trying to come up with an in-game rationale for the existence of a dungeon, that's a completely different question.
In my games, I always assume dungeons exist because Wizards Are Assholes(tm) a la Dying Earth. Realistically there is NO reason for such places to exist other than to trap people as a sort of sick pastime. Basically a bunch of sociopathic dicks made all these dungeons to show the other sociopaths they could kill more greedy treasure hunters. This fits in the genre D&D tries to emulate.
When we played C&S, the only dungeons I had were actual dungeons under castles than were very symmetrical and boring, not at all full of treasure and goblins. But, again, it fit the game.
Quote from: tenbones;802232the whole dungeon was shaped like a skull on my graph-paper.
This brings back memories:) I loved dungeons that formed crude pictures of things like that on graph paper. That and land masses that resemble things like dragons or weapons on maps. Gold!
Quote from: RPGPundit;802219So how do you handle all this?
Do you just not give a shit, and not address it at all?
Probably the one sane way to handle it.
Quote from: RPGPundit;802219Do you create some kind of flimsy justification for it ("a crazy wizard did it. Yes, all of them!")?
Do you actually make some kind of effort to at least try to have your dungeons be internally logical to the setting somehow?
Anyone actually want to try to defend the dungeon with some argument other than "fuck you, it's fun and I don't need to think about it"?
Closest I've seen is (of course) ACKS, in which harvesting monster parts for spell research and magic item creation is a big part of the endgame; and guidelines are given for high-level spellcasters who want to build dungeons as "monster farms" of sorts.
If I recall correctly, you build a dungeon, bait it with treasure, and roll on the local Wandering Monster table using "% found in lair" as the probability that the critters will set up shop. If the result is "NPC Party" adventurers raid your dungeon! :D And of course, a dungeon puts neighboring communities at risk for monster attacks. Fun stuff.
I ran a D&D style dungeon as part of Delta Green -- the party had started visiting the Dreamlands as part of a secure covert communication system.
But, of course, Dreamlands is hazy pastiche fantasy.
The dungeon was well-known to locals, and they eagerly helped the party.
Going into the tomb, the first batch of traps were all well-worn, often broken. The trigger step was obvious (the only unworn step), a spear trap was headless and just splintered uselessly before sticking, then slowly, stutteringly, withdrawing to reset.
The party grabbed treasure, left. When they next visited, the locals had cleared the rest of the treasure, happy that the party had finally neutralized the final few traps.
This old gag again.
Rarely is a D&D dungeon an actual Dungeon = Prison.
More often they are the abodes of people who built them according to some plan. Others are built by chaotic or at least somewhat alien creatures and do you REALLY expect a kobold to tunnel in a straight line for long before going off in some weirdass direction just because it felt right or they flipped a coin?
Havent some of you dim wits never seen a mine or natural cave? Alot of mines if you looked at their floor plans do not follow a regular pattern. They follow the ore veins or the path of least resistance.
(http://www.aditnow.co.uk/cache/Littleton-2-3-Coal-Mine-User-Album/Littleton-2-3-Coal-Mine-User-Album-36988.jpg)
Natural caves repurposed to dungeons will also be somewhat haphazard in layout.
Also. Take a look at the Steam Tunnels under any given university. Those rarely follow a pattern.
(http://tunnels.tripod.com/gfx/ucla.gif)
Oh hey, fun real world examples:
Kaymakli is interesting to consider, with an eye toward dungeons:
(http://www.goreme.com/kaymakli-underground-city-2.jpg)
http://www.goreme.com/kaymakli-underground-city.php
Also, mythical Xibalba is basically a 'dungeon dimension' from Mayan mythology!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xibalba
Quote from: Will;802249Oh hey, fun real world examples:
Kaymakli is interesting to consider, with an eye toward dungeons:
(http://www.goreme.com/kaymakli-underground-city-2.jpg)
http://www.goreme.com/kaymakli-underground-city.php
Also, mythical Xibalba is basically a 'dungeon dimension' from Mayan mythology!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xibalba
That is very cool. Thanks for posting it.
You don't have to work too hard to find underground labyrinths in the real world.
The Paris Catacombs. Perfectly built for the lair of Jean-Luc the Unmaker, lich noble and necromancy enthusiast.
http://www.uer.ca/urbanadventure/www.urbanadventure.org/members/catas/13thadr.jpg (http://www.uer.ca/urbanadventure/www.urbanadventure.org/members/catas/13thadr.jpg)
Here is another. The tunnels under Hadrians estate.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/21/article-2398711-1B6466BD000005DC-731_634x455_popup.jpg)
Beijing's underground city.
(http://www.deconcrete.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/beijing-underground-map-rufina-wu.gif)
In the old days I never ran dungeons and thought most of the published ones read as ridiculously random treasure hoards.
This is one of the things of value I took away from World of Warcraft... the 'dungeons' there are always living places that have an extended presence in the areas surrounding them and lack that random element of old D&D modules... instead there's always a strong story behind what the inhabitants are doing there. The architecture might not always be plausible but it's never just a sprawling maze of rooms without purpose.
They DO have a lot of monsters just standing around... waiting... but there's always the sense that they have a purpose there beyond being killed by PCs.
My main homebrew setting is low magic and pretty low on anything that looks like a traditional D&D 'dungeon'... but it does have places that resemble those WOW instances... fortresses and ruined monasteries and cavern systems... old mines where bandits hide their loot.
What I find hilarious about that Cappadochian city image is that it's labeled like a module map. ;)
"Room 11: Five milner stations and the bones of three dead early Christians..."
'I search for traps!'
"Well, the floor over by the north entrance is a little dodgy..."
I do both: weird and unrealistic, and inspired by real stuff. Sorry for the big picture, but the one at the bottom right for my current campaign is from a real set of underground water tunnels, and frankly I think it looks really cool.
(http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g141/rajzwaibel/mappreviews_zps55a44008.jpg)
Quote from: RPGPundit;802219The layout of almost every dungeon in almost every D&D adventure module ever made makes no sense at all (with the exception of a very few historical-accuracy type adventures, and a few where they were semi-credible cave complexes rather than 'intelligent design').
That is, if you look at real "dungeons", real burial chambers, real tombs, even mines, catacombs or ancient sewers, NONE of them look like the often seemingly-random spattering of corridors, rooms, and multiple levels that you see in a D&D dungeon. They make no sense even from a construction perspective; and of course, most of the times the ecology of the dungeon makes no sense at all (sometimes this last note is worse than others, like dungeons that have giants or dragons that literally couldn't fit through the door out of the room they're found in, or ancient sealed dungeons unopened for centuries that somehow have contemporary equipment, groups of randomly-placed goblins, etc.).
So how do you handle all this?
Do you just not give a shit, and not address it at all?
Do you create some kind of flimsy justification for it ("a crazy wizard did it. Yes, all of them!")?
Do you actually make some kind of effort to at least try to have your dungeons be internally logical to the setting somehow?
Anyone actually want to try to defend the dungeon with some argument other than "fuck you, it's fun and I don't need to think about it"?
OF COURSE I don't give a shit.
But on the other hand, I've got some reasons.
First: Looking at maps of actual ancient excavations, some of which are already posted upthread, it's pretty obvious that twistiness and randomness are not unrealistic features of dungeons. If anything, fantasy dungeons aren't twisty enough, a feature they share with fantasy towns compared to medieval and ancient towns. It's the compactness and straightness of fantasy dungeons that's unrealistic. Aside from someone's basement, wine cellar, or oubliette, underground excavations are often sprawling and crooked. If you are digging through soft rock and hit either harder rock your Bronze-Age tools can't deal with or a weaker, unstable area, you wind up diverting around it. Tunnels collapse, and you have to dig new routes. And sometimes, you just get a little lost in the inky blackness and your tunnels change direction, or slope up or down unexpectedly.
Second: Although rational design might make sense for smaller projects, megadungeons don't feel right without an element of mystery and irrationality. I buy into the theory of the dungeon as mythic underworld. To my way of thinking, surface dwellers start out making small, one-or-two level excavations, then supernatural forces well up from below and turn it into a sprawling underworld. And I do mean "well up"; I absolutely detest the idea of demon-lords and eldritch gods of evil digging conventional mundane mine shafts up as part of an invasion.
Third: I really don't like the scientific approach to legendary material. I hate biological explanations of a dragon's flaminng breath, I hate applying conventional physics to magic spells, and I hate "dungeon ecology" or an overconcern with architectural limitations. This ties into #2 above, but also comes from wanting to play a fantasy adventure game specifically to reconnect with older, fantastic ways of thinking.
Dragons don't make any sense either...not just the whole "intelligent", and "flying" and "likes gold, even though dragons have no economic system and almost no social system" issues. You've also got the massive size and caloric needs, the huge territories they'd need to cover and somehow survive the armies that would inevitably track them down.
Thing is, you must give a game its premise. So, with D&D, you pretty much have to accept that there are dungeons, and dragons.
That said, if you're criticizing strictly upon layout, then I'd have to disagree anyway. It's *tough* tunneling below ground, and you rather have to work with what you have, or what you immediately need (hey, ever tried playing Dwarf Fortress?)--and unlike building above ground, whatever you dig out, is pretty much dug out forever. You can't just knock the building down and start over.
Now for ecology, yeah, there are some major issues (which is why real world caves generally don't have herds of creatures in them), but I just suck that up and roll the dice already.
They only don't make sense because you're looking at it from a humano-centrically biased PoV. If an Umberhulk, Giant Crab, Hook Horror, Tribe of Gnolls, Gelatinous Slime, and Wight King all decided to live together in a place where they could gather treasure and wait patiently for groups of adventurers to come by every few years, the result would be an underground maze. Dungeons are basically monster co-ops.
Fantasy worlds have all kinds of weird shit.
Dwarfs and elves have different psychology and culture from humans, to say nothing of Mind Flayers, Beholders, Kuo-Toa, Aboleth, etc.
Even more relatable people get resources and power to build whatever they want undreamed ofin our real world. I wouldn't think it unusual for a D&D style fantasy world for some random guy with no idea of architecture getting to build some massive complex to suit his fancy. A mad Wizard did it is the most common variation of this, but it might just as well be a thief who found a genie in a bottle or some sellsword who got a big haul.
Then we have gods, fiends and angels involved, who might demand this or that layout for mystical mojo reasons.
And that is for worlds where our known rules of physics and biology mostly aply. Once we get into places where they are different or suspended (wether one of the more gonzo worlds or placed on another plane of existence) all bets are of.
So basically, flimsy excuses consistent with the internal logic of the setting.
Works well enough for me.
to expand on Gold Roger's post, if someone could create this in real life, then a dungeon isn't so odd
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7voWRpt7Li4/TFfFU48R2AI/AAAAAAAAMks/0Fi_5wKnXVg/s640/13-33-Worlds-Top-Strangest-Buildings-habitat67+Montreal+Canada+3.png)
Also, the Winchester Mystery House in San Jose... where a madwoman took her remodeling/home decorating tips from spirits.
I've got no issues with crazy dungeon designs if they fit the setting/story... dream cysts of crazy mages budding off the colon of the underworld... mazes that grow organically and feed on greedy visitors... Piranesi-esque sargasso planes of masonry and wood and statuary that join up at nonsensical angles.
What doesn't make sense is applying real world logic to a world that is not real.
Do we have wizards? Monsters? Dwarves? Not in the D&D sense.
Quote from: RPGPundit;802219Do you just not give a shit, and not address it at all?
I'm personally done with investing time in realism that most players never notice. "We just want to play dammit, enough with the prepping!"
Randomly dungeons starting bothering me when I was about 12. I was really concerned about where the bugbears defecated and what the umber hulk lived on if the dungeon traps hadn't been disturbed for 200 years, and how the fuck would that work anyway.
I ran city games wildernesses and castles.
Now I have deliberated made a point of visiting most major 'sites in the world, from the Paris catecomes, to castle bran, from palenque to Ankor wat, from the London war rooms to the great pyramid. I still don't do many dungeons but when I do they make sense.
Animal warrens are a great match for goblin or kolbold layers. A temple can be symetrical and interesting (if you ever get a chance to play tag with your daughter in knonossos take it as its awesome fun) underground cities will often follow geological features which appear pretty random. Tomb builders will build false sections to protect the graves, trapping these is not so far fetched...
An internally logical design actually aids play as the players engage more with a logical space they grokk it easier.
If you have magic as part of the setting you can use it to make dungeons fantastical without loosing reason.
This results in some interesting things. Goblin warrens are only 5 feet high if the goblins dug them,that will affect armour and combat and preclude some weapons. Wizards that can use mage hands at will might well protect their treasure with mechanisms that have to be operated remotely, etc...
on the matter of dragons fitting through the door remember that many dragons can take human form (of course those are mostly good dragons so your unlikely to be fighting them)
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;802286I'm personally done with investing time in realism that most players never notice. "We just want to play dammit, enough with the prepping!"
Crom's hairy nutsack, yes.
YMMV and all appropriate disclaimers.
When I started back into OD&D a few years back, I discovered it was a lot more fun if I simply accepted it for what it was... a goofy fun game inspired by some history, some fairy tale, and some pulp stories from the 30s to the 60s.
In other words, I don't worry about it. In fact, I ANTI worry about it. I put some soft earth in the middle of a stone wall, and told my players that I actively don't care if it works that way in real life.
Just like when I put an adventure in an old copper mine, I actively avoided researching medieval mining techniques. I. Do. Not. Care.
Fortunately, my players are OK with this. I wouldn't play with people who aren't.
Remember, when Phil Barker (Prof MAR Barker) razzed me about "what do all those monsters eat," I put a McDonald's on the sixth level of the dungeon.
"What do they eat? They eat "FUCK YOU," Phil, that's what they eat."
I just don't worry about "realism" in dungeons. People who do might be happier playing another game.
I've long been more in favor of realistic dungeons. But in recent years I have given in to the fun of letting go and just letting my imagination run wild. I think there is something to be said for the implausible dungeon. It does free you up quite a bit. Still I do tend to balance that with some effort at realism and purpose.
Quote from: Old Geezer;802298Just like when I put an adventure in an old copper mine, I actively avoided researching medieval mining techniques. I. Do. Not. Care.
mostly i agree with you but i think the copper mine would auctualy be better with research
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;802286I'm personally done with investing time in realism that most players never notice. "We just want to play dammit, enough with the prepping!"
I like realism, but one thing I have come to realize is a huge benefit of fantasy settings is that they can free up your imagination. Part of my initial attraction to fantasy was that it defied normal explanation. I remember reading somewhere that the whole reason Howard made his Hyborian Age was so he didn't have to waste time researching, he could just make stuff up. I read history all the time, I spent years writing history papers. Now when I game, I am becoming much more inclined to separate that from my fantasy world building. I turn it off and just let myself have fun, get creative. Some of what I have absorbed from reading is bound to find its way in there, but I don't worry about whether every last detail matches up with historical realities any more.
Quote from: tuypo1;802302mostly i agree with you but i think the copper mine would auctualy be better with research
Sure, but it's a YMMV thing.
I tried the 'heavy research' thing years ago, complete with money in pounds, shillings, and pence, not to mention groats, farthings, crowns, and guineas. Historical weights and prices for everything... I spent several years researching prices. Et cetera. Real city maps. The whole nine yards.
My players didn't give a shit. Except that they wanted to go back to "10 copper equals one silver, 10 silver equals one gold."
I save my historical research jones for my model railroading.
Also, lad, as a personal favor could I ask you to please use some capitalization and punctuation? Your posts are hard for these old eyes to read.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;802303I like realism, but one thing I have come to realize is a huge benefit of fantasy settings is that they can free up your imagination. Part of my initial attraction to fantasy was that it defied normal explanation. I remember reading somewhere that the whole reason Howard made his Hyborian Age was so he didn't have to waste time researching, he could just make stuff up. I read history all the time, I spent years writing history papers. Now when I game, I am becoming much more inclined to separate that from my fantasy world building. I turn it off and just let myself have fun, get creative. Some of what I have absorbed from reading is bound to find its way in there, but I don't worry about whether every last detail matches up with historical realities any more.
This. This with knobs on.
I like realism sometimes, or realism as a launching point (since I think your imagination can really get supercharged from things like, say, the Cappadochian underground city or whatnot), or at least some vague handwavy logic.
I mean, in D&D, considering at mid to high levels you could have a cubic habitat on the moon and teleport there for vacations, weird dungeons seem less hard to believe.
Quote from: tuypo1;802302mostly i agree with you but i think the copper mine would auctualy be better with research
If the group specifically asks for one or more educational adventures, it could be entertaining. But in general, you don't need much research. A quick survey of the topic, yes, certainly, just to get some ideas of the possibilities.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;802303I like realism, but one thing I have come to realize is a huge benefit of fantasy settings is that they can free up your imagination. Part of my initial attraction to fantasy was that it defied normal explanation. I remember reading somewhere that the whole reason Howard made his Hyborian Age was so he didn't have to waste time researching, he could just make stuff up. I read history all the time, I spent years writing history papers. Now when I game, I am becoming much more inclined to separate that from my fantasy world building. I turn it off and just let myself have fun, get creative. Some of what I have absorbed from reading is bound to find its way in there, but I don't worry about whether every last detail matches up with historical realities any more.
I'm a big believer in letting historical and real-world sources be an inspiration for a fantasy world. Sometimes, I may let it box me in too much, ruling out ome things because "that's not medieval". But I try not to let reality become a strait jacket.
In fact, I like a very sketchy approach to the world in general, letting it grow organically. Barely any solid details of the world's history, politics, economics, ecology. Just fill in the details during play, and let those discovered facts determine what happens next, or what the players could do?
On realism in any gaming, go the Traveller way.
Use just enough realism so that it does not destroy the suspension of disbelief created in order to play. Otherwise, be imaginative.
Not sure I have much to add to this but I will second or third the notion that I used to make my dungeons with designated areas for kobolds to use as a shitter, cook adventures, and dream of the love dragons; every ecological need of the dungeons' denizens needed to be attended to.
And the players did not care; they were to busy tapping on every single wall looking for the secret door that lead to that 50 copper piece stash they knew those kobolds hid somewhere.
Since getting more into some of the new OSR modules I have come to love dungeons made of giant sea snails and downed flying saucers.
And once more I think I have learned that they actually make more sense in the context of these games than something that speaks to the ecology of creatures where it's not entirely positive how they actually use the shitter in the first place.
Just put a little bit of thought into the dungeon's origin, history and ecology and you're gold. This was all satisfactorily addressed to neophyte me with the Method to Your Madness article published in Dragon number 10 and then reprinted in Best of the Dragon volume 1.
IMG today I only run short dungeons, so the ecological factors are fairly straightforward. But as I have gotten older, I have come to reappreciate the magic funhouse/monster zoo/maze of the mad archmage setups ... putting one of those on the table after a steady diet of "realistic" digs turns out to be a lot of great fun.
So yeah, you can have it both ways.
Quote from: RPGPundit;802219Anyone actually want to try to defend the dungeon with some argument other than "fuck you, it's fun and I don't need to think about it"?
1. Species that simply prefer living underground (either because they fear the sun like the drow or because they love the dark like the dwarves).
2. Magical construction techniques that make huge, underground constructions more plausible.
3. Magical creatures that either have an instinctual need to create underground complexes or which create them as an unintentional byproduct. (Where did all these twisting tunnels come from? Well, they started as purple worm trails. Then the goblins moved in.)
4. Catastrophes on the surface world that prompt people to flee underground are also a great explanation for underground complexes. (See Earthdawn. Or just an Age of Dragons.) Mix-and-match with the techniques above to explain how the huge cataclysm refuges were built. Then simply remove the danger and/or (better yet) introduce some new danger that came up from below and drove all the vault dwellers back onto the surface.
It's also useful to establish a method for underground species to generate food. In my campaign world there's fey moss, which serves as the basis for fungal gardens. Huge, artificial suns left behind in underdark chasms by the vault builders or the under-dwarves also work.
I don't find it valuable to do full-scale urban planning or figure out exactly how many toilets the goblins need, but I do find that at least some degree verisimilitude makes for better games: If the goblins get their food from fungal gardens, then their food supply can be jeopardized by destroying those gardens. And that's either the basis for an interesting scenario hook or it's a strategic master-stroke from the players or it's some other surprise that I hadn't even thought of before the campaign started.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;8023341. Species that simply prefer living underground (either because they fear the sun like the drow or because they love the dark like the dwarves).
2. Magical construction techniques that make huge, underground constructions more plausible.
3. Magical creatures that either have an instinctual need to create underground complexes or which create them as an unintentional byproduct. (Where did all these twisting tunnels come from? Well, they started as purple worm trails. Then the goblins moved in.)
4. Catastrophes on the surface world that prompt people to flee underground are also a great explanation for underground complexes. (See Earthdawn. Or just an Age of Dragons.) Mix-and-match with the techniques above to explain how the huge cataclysm refuges were built. Then simply remove the danger and/or (better yet) introduce some new danger that came up from below and drove all the vault dwellers back onto the surface.
It's also useful to establish a method for underground species to generate food. In my campaign world there's fey moss, which serves as the basis for fungal gardens. Huge, artificial suns left behind in underdark chasms by the vault builders or the under-dwarves also work.
I don't find it valuable to do full-scale urban planning or figure out exactly how many toilets the goblins need, but I do find that at least some degree verisimilitude makes for better games: If the goblins get their food from fungal gardens, then their food supply can be jeopardized by destroying those gardens. And that's either the basis for an interesting scenario hook or it's a strategic master-stroke from the players or it's some other surprise that I hadn't even thought of before the campaign started.
On the matter of why build underground space is also a consideration. In the world im building right now the city of evil is located on an island so im probably going to give it a few underground layers and plently of tall buildings.
One of the best defenses of the fantasy dungeon is this.
We in the real world do not have dedicated races that live mostly underground and build their cities near exclusively underground.
Nore do we have people on a regular basis building underground fortresses with the specific intent to have areas to foil adventurers.
Nore do we have gods that can just point at a spot and go "I want some crazy. Here. RIGHT HERE!"
The closest we get in the real world are military installations which by the way can sprawl all the hell over the place. Sometimes deliberately.
Applying real world design to dungeons is the unrealistic part.
All that said. One thing I DO find unrealistic for a few dungeons is when you find one below ground in the middle of a swamp or other very wet locale.
Short of magic or extensive pump systems theres about no way to keep these places from flooding or at least being very wet.
One of the great things about Keep on the Borderland is that all its dungeon sections are above the very wet surface level. And the place is mostly natiral caves and what may have once been caves that have been worked on and extended.
By accident or design they got it right.
Funnily enough, Gutenberg just posted a book on the Catacombs of Rome, which is essentially a dungeon.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/47532/47532-h/47532-h.htm#fig_1
Quote(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/trancejeremy/fig_3_zps5ffd192d.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/trancejeremy/fig_14_zpsb94f064d.jpg)
weird.
If I just made up gonzo shit my players would be saying stuff like "why is this tunnel so long? It would have taken them an additional week to dig this far and as they have shown themselves to be intrinsically lazy and ill disciplined that seems out of character." Then spend an hour or two of game time looking for the secret reason for the extra 50 foot or so.
They really expect everything to have internal consistency and an in game logic. It's on the list with NPCs have consistent personalities and goals, "monsters" use tactics commensurate with their intelligence and training, and if you get into a fight with Nick Fury he will kick your motherfucking ass, not cos he is high powered but because he is prepped for anything and will consistently roll 20s in any fight (funny story).
Even funnier when you consider that I won't even draw a map it will be all be in my head.
Anyway they will enter their first D&D dungeon on Sunday. Crumbling temple (extrapolated from a temple in Luxor but buried by time), goblin warrens, with underground tunnels (lifted from valley of the kings but more complex/numerous). We will see how it goes.
Quote from: jibbajibba;802347"monsters" use tactics commensurate with their intelligence and training
This here is something that is incredibly important, monsters should only be tacticly stupid if they are meant to be tacticly stupid
Quote from: tuypo1;802351This here is something that is incredibly important, monsters should only be tacticly stupid if they are meant to be tacticly stupid
Yes of course, well unless there is a McDonald's 20 feet above their heads that they share with a bunch of Zombies, cos then all bets are off, "You want brains with that?"
I love these threads full of maps and good ideas. :)
Earthdawn rationalised dungeons as the Fallout-style vaults in which populations hid from the apocalypse. That made a degree of sense to me and allowed you to have long term communities or halls full of gibbering nightmares, depending on your mood. Good times!
I like having some sort of coherent structure and purpose behind my dungeons. My new campaign started with the team exploring a buried observatory, after "goblin" archaeologists had accidentally opened the dome and caused parts of the surface to fall in. So there was a structure to the building, the other entities in the structure had reasons for being there, and even a thematically appropriate puzzle (I don't normally do puzzles).
Nothing revolutionary, but that decision informed the design, made it easier for the players to make smart decisions (bastards!), and helped to ease the load on my poor tired descriptive muscles. :)
One of the things I liked in Warhammer Quest (which while not a RPG is though a super dungeoncrawler) is that all the dungeons were originally dwarven cities that have been lost over the ages. Warhammer background even mentions a few of these. So there actually is a valid reason for there to be the mammoth dungeons full of monsters. Because the monsters kicked out or more often killed the people who actually built the place.
Simmilar to how some people have discovered and repurposed decomissioned missile silos and bomb shelters. Or the caves of Nottingham which have been repurposed into taverns, bike workshops, apartments, etc.
Quote from: Omega;802370One of the things I liked in Warhammer Quest (which while not a RPG is though a super dungeoncrawler) is that all the dungeons were originally dwarven cities that have been lost over the ages. Warhammer background even mentions a few of these. So there actually is a valid reason for there to be the mammoth dungeons full of monsters. Because the monsters kicked out or more often killed the people who actually built the place.
Simmilar to how some people have discovered and repurposed decomissioned missile silos and bomb shelters. Or the caves of Nottingham which have been repurposed into taverns, bike workshops, apartments, etc.
and when you look at some of the things people do in dwarf fortress crazy layouts are not that far fetched
I don't buy the notion that plausibility and fun are incompatible when it comes to dungeons. No, you don't have to use real-world architectural and engineering considerations when designing a dungeon. But if you give some reason for it to be constructed the way it is, and give some thought to the engineering and ecology of the locale, it makes the dungeon feel more substantial, with a history and coherence.
Paul Jaquay's dungeons were cited up thread. They're great examples. Dark Tower and Caverns of Thracia are two of the funnest dungeons I've explored as a player. They're evocative, labyrinth, and elaborate, with all sorts of memorable features, hidden crannies, and clever connections. They also make sense physically. One is two towers and a village buried in a mountain-slide and then dug out from below by undead inhabitants. The other is a series of crypts and shrines featuring a huge natural cavern with a palace built in it. Fantastic. And they meet a baseline of plausibility too.
Quote from: Will;802249Oh hey, fun real world examples:
Kaymakli is interesting to consider, with an eye toward dungeons:
(http://www.goreme.com/kaymakli-underground-city-2.jpg)
http://www.goreme.com/kaymakli-underground-city.php
Also, mythical Xibalba is basically a 'dungeon dimension' from Mayan mythology!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xibalba
I've been to Kaymakli (and Derinkuyu). Those maps only show a small fraction of the cities (only a fraction is open to the public, and much are unexplored altogether). One of the cool features about them that you don't get from the maps is the stone disk doors, which were slid into place if the place was assaulted from the surface.
Quote from: RPGPundit;802219The layout of almost every dungeon in almost every D&D adventure module ever made makes no sense at all (with the exception of a very few historical-accuracy type adventures, and a few where they were semi-credible cave complexes rather than 'intelligent design').
That is, if you look at real "dungeons", real burial chambers, real tombs, even mines, catacombs or ancient sewers, NONE of them look like the often seemingly-random spattering of corridors, rooms, and multiple levels that you see in a D&D dungeon. They make no sense even from a construction perspective; and of course, most of the times the ecology of the dungeon makes no sense at all (sometimes this last note is worse than others, like dungeons that have giants or dragons that literally couldn't fit through the door out of the room they're found in, or ancient sealed dungeons unopened for centuries that somehow have contemporary equipment, groups of randomly-placed goblins, etc.).
So how do you handle all this?
Do you just not give a shit, and not address it at all?
Do you create some kind of flimsy justification for it ("a crazy wizard did it. Yes, all of them!")?
Do you actually make some kind of effort to at least try to have your dungeons be internally logical to the setting somehow?
Anyone actually want to try to defend the dungeon with some argument other than "fuck you, it's fun and I don't need to think about it"?
RPGPundit
In my most recent large dungeon, just ended a few weeks ago, it involved a mad lich wizard teleporting in whole sections of dungeons, and their occupants, from other places within a 500 mile radius of the dungeon. The lich would then "bind" the occupants to not leaving the dungeon in exchange for food, water, and weapons to defend themselves against other recently-arrived occupants of the dungeon.
There was an existing core small dungeon, that made sense, that was very old which the lich occupied. The other new teleported-in dungeons were a hodge-podge tacked onto the old dungeon however the lich could fit them. And they sometimes contained creatures that could have never fit "down" the dungeon to get to that room, because the whole thing was teleported in from some other place where they could have fit.
Anyway, that's how I explained it. My players thought it was cool, and liked how each new section of dungeon was totally different from the others - different stonework, different wood, different designs, sometimes sections which would end oddly in a blank wall or a collapsed section. They liked negotiating with some groups with or against other groups, and that each group was almost as new as the PCs were to the region. They'd like small touches, like how a bathroom would have not been teleported in for a section and so the occupants had converted another room to one, or things like that.
However, I suspect they would not have cared or asked for an explanation had one not existed.
Quote from: JeremyR;802345Funnily enough, Gutenberg just posted a book on the Catacombs of Rome, which is essentially a dungeon.
Thats a great link. Thanks! :)
Also Gutenberg is soooo cool.
Quote from: Will;802249Oh hey, fun real world examples:
Kaymakli is interesting to consider, with an eye toward dungeons:
(http://www.goreme.com/kaymakli-underground-city-2.jpg)
http://www.goreme.com/kaymakli-underground-city.php
Also, mythical Xibalba is basically a 'dungeon dimension' from Mayan mythology!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xibalba
Same location:
(http://oi46.tinypic.com/wlewza.jpg)
And this is Derinkuyu:
(http://oi45.tinypic.com/2ir6l46.jpg)
Most of my early fantasy rp was in MERP, whose modules typically had lairs and abandoned keeps over inexplicable labyrinths. Moria is about the most dungeon like you got. But dungeon crawls can be fun, so I try to make a reason for a few to exist in my worlds.
Quote from: TristramEvans;802270If an Umberhulk, Giant Crab, Hook Horror, Tribe of Gnolls, Gelatinous Slime, and Wight King all decided to live together in a place where they could gather treasure and wait patiently for groups of adventurers to come by every few years, the result would be
http://youtu.be/Af1h4ibpKJA
I instead used dungeons that make sense, as in utility minded first, and then run with all the loops and alcoves and lighting issues that'd normally be there.
The wacky dungeons were a trope all their own, which carries over in to video game weird big boss lairs. The sheer inconvenience of it all, especially the multipart, synchronized split-group, magical, color-coded traps/locks, makes me laugh. I just imagine a delivery guy jumping on floating platforms and dodging rays of incineration all for a bad tip.
Unless it is a well done Metroid/Vania, I don't even bother with them. Underground or abandoned cities and the like I will make time for, as seats for holders of power. Otherwise, I have no interest at all in running modern dungeon conceits.
One of the selling points to me for Empire of the Petal Throne was the tearing down cities and rebuilding on top that was included in the setting.
Another thing was that underground was a free-for-all zone.
Since groups spent a lot of effort over time building their facilities, they would defend them. Special locations separated by labyrinths and long tunnels made sense as did descending depths.
=
I build a design with the cool shit that is fun to play. I don't have enough time nor concern to tinker around with ensuring that my dungeon is architecturally or ecologically sound.
That doesn't mean that I don't pay a modicum of attention to those features - I'm not going to put an ancient red dragon in a 10x10 room - but anyone who would be unable to enjoy the tower of the elephant because they can't figure out where the kobold takes a dump is someone who's absence at my game table will go unmourned.
Dungeons are for a fun game to me; no need to 'make sense.'
Of course, the real universe has often enough been said not to make sense. Play on!
Quote from: RPGPundit;802219The layout of almost every dungeon in almost every D&D adventure module ever made makes no sense at all (with the exception of a very few historical-accuracy type adventures, and a few where they were semi-credible cave complexes rather than 'intelligent design').
That is, if you look at real "dungeons", real burial chambers, real tombs, even mines, catacombs or ancient sewers, NONE of them look like the often seemingly-random spattering of corridors, rooms, and multiple levels that you see in a D&D dungeon. They make no sense even from a construction perspective; and of course, most of the times the ecology of the dungeon makes no sense at all (sometimes this last note is worse than others, like dungeons that have giants or dragons that literally couldn't fit through the door out of the room they're found in, or ancient sealed dungeons unopened for centuries that somehow have contemporary equipment, groups of randomly-placed goblins, etc.).
So how do you handle all this?
Do you just not give a shit, and not address it at all?
Do you create some kind of flimsy justification for it ("a crazy wizard did it. Yes, all of them!")?
Do you actually make some kind of effort to at least try to have your dungeons be internally logical to the setting somehow?
Anyone actually want to try to defend the dungeon with some argument other than "fuck you, it's fun and I don't need to think about it"?
RPGPundit
In my Amherth campaign, most dungeons lie amidst the ruins of more advanced civilization. There are some notable exceptions, the most prominent being the floating islands of the Kingdom of Pax. The dragon riding knights live on the surface and wage war against the wizard alliance who dwell in deep dungeons, mainly for practical reasons: dungeons are a lot harder for dragons to attack.
Quote from: RPGPundit;802219The layout of almost every dungeon in almost every D&D adventure module ever made makes no sense at all...
So how do you handle all this?
...
Do you actually make some kind of effort to at least try to have your dungeons be internally logical to the setting somehow?
Anyone actually want to try to defend the dungeon with some argument other than "fuck you, it's fun and I don't need to think about it"?
RPGPundit
Yes. I like to have some internally-plausible reason there's a huge underground structure. One "wizard's monster garden" would be fine, just not all of them. The "old long abandoned Dwarven fortress" is also useful (especially in mountains). I like the "city that sank beneath the ground" stick as well. Also, Dark Elves or other races/societies that build underground purposefully can work well, especially if they've been overrun or abandoned.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;802334...
4. Catastrophes on the surface world that prompt people to flee underground are also a great explanation for underground complexes. (See Earthdawn. Or just an Age of Dragons.)
...
Quote from: Majus;802359...
Earthdawn rationalised dungeons as the Fallout-style vaults in which populations hid from the apocalypse. That made a degree of sense to me and allowed you to have long term communities or halls full of gibbering nightmares, depending on your mood. Good times!
...
Earthdawn had a delightful reason for them and it also injected a nice horror element into the game. I like this approach.
In the setting I'm writing, all the dungeons are simply long lost ruins of a many worlds spanning magical empire that met some unknown ruin.
I want Dark Portals to have some "plausibility" in regards to a large number of different species working together and to encourage exploration and discovery in far off lands seeking knowledge, magic and treasure in strange forgotten ruins. It will be my Earthdawn - Star Gate fantasy heart breaker. :-)
Quote from: Simlasa;802259In the old days I never ran dungeons and thought most of the published ones read as ridiculously random treasure hoards.
This is one of the things of value I took away from World of Warcraft... the 'dungeons' there are always living places that have an extended presence in the areas surrounding them and lack that random element of old D&D modules... instead there's always a strong story behind what the inhabitants are doing there. The architecture might not always be plausible but it's never just a sprawling maze of rooms without purpose.
They DO have a lot of monsters just standing around... waiting... but there's always the sense that they have a purpose there beyond being killed by PCs.
My main homebrew setting is low magic and pretty low on anything that looks like a traditional D&D 'dungeon'... but it does have places that resemble those WOW instances... fortresses and ruined monasteries and cavern systems... old mines where bandits hide their loot.
interesting...that is what I consider a traditional dungeon.
Quote from: LordVreeg;802711interesting...that is what I consider a traditional dungeon.
Yeah, I didn't express that well. What I'm thinking makes them different than the old dungeon modules I've read is the how and why of the inhabitants. They're more like villages/towns/cities... less like zoos with treasure lying around.
Back in the early 80's when I was first learning to play AD&D Dragon Magazine had some articles about the logic of dungeon and wilderness design. Those influenced me quite a bit in how I thought about such places, how they are laid out, inhabitants, etc. There really is no reason why an owlbear is 400 yards underground, or a gang of gnolls is living peacefully with some gelatinous cubes. I did begin to put consideration into what everyone eats, what they do, how they coexist. Such thoughts put large restrictions on design but makes them better overall.
I remember reading through some of those modules from the 70's and 80's and many were a mess that needed editing. I must admit, Gary Gygax was the worst designer of such stuff. Most of his modules really were random creatures in random rooms with random treasure. His "Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth" is a prime example of this. The Dungeon Geomorphs supplement probably did more harm than good for the hobby as it game really bad examples of designs.
Part of my "make it weirder and less rational" approach is to assume that the vast majority of monsters are not biological creatures, but some sorcerous mockery of life, taking " wizard did it" to its ultiimate conclusion. Spells like Monster Summoning create monsters out of nothing, and on occasion they linger after the spell expires; that's the origin of most of the monsters in the world. So, that dragon stuuck in a room with a doorway it can't fit through? Maybe it was summoned there. And since my monsters can eat and drink, but they don't have to... they just get horrifically hungry, which could explain why that dragon is so hostile.
I figure a lot of other irrational elements, particularly in megadungeons, could be set up in the same way as side effects of spells and magical experimentation. Perhaps sorcerers and wizards create dungeons not to harvest body parts, as ACKS explains it, but to exploit the effects of the deep underground on magic.
I like the Underdark concept more than miniature dungeons. Purple worms or beholders or umber hulks dig tunnels where there weren't any before, drow or dwarves mine or create magic treasure down there, succeeding generations of monsters migrate around and whatnot...I think it works ecologically as long as you have some magic fungus or whatever they can eat. Mind you, my dungeons are often more dispersed than a traditional adventure - can be miles of caves or multiple hours travel between encounters.
Dungeons are the concentrated essence of what fuels fantasy heroes. They are drugs that PCs can't stay away from. Best to keep them delirious and unearthly. A hero should breathe a sigh of relief along with his first inhalation of outside air afterward. Made it again, they should think, even as they are starting to plan their next fix.
I keep dungeons small and themed, so they make the most possible sense.
I do not see the game's underworld as a mere hole in the ground, any more than Annwn or the Sidhe is just that - or the caves of Ningauble or the Sea King's harem, or those of the Seven Geases, or the Fishing of the Demon Sea, or the Probable Adventure of the Three Literary Men; or the domains the Quest of Unknown Kadath, the Fortress Unvanquishable Save by Sacnoth, or the Tree of Swords and Jewels as mere suburbs subject to the civic laws of Materialists.
Arneson, Gygax, St Andre, Stafford, etc., were naturally not informed by works derived from nothing but the games they had yet to publish. What they had at hand was a heritage of myth and folklore, and modern fantasy by writers drawing from those same wellsprings.
What is the appeal of fantasy for a game, if not its boundless possibility? To reduce it to 'sensible' wizards and dragons standing in for cannons in a replay of the War of the Roses seems almost pointlessly thin gruel. Even thinner was the Deryni series, a dynastic romance with "psychic powers" that got medieval costuming but missed the medieval mind by a mile.
D&D and T&T were created not to simulate a particular fictional world, but to evoke the whole ocean of story involving dark labyrinths, fearsome monsters, cunning traps and puzzles, and wondrous treasures won at great peril. Faery and Dreamland, heavens and hells, do not "make sense" the way a Burger King in Poughkeepsie does - and those who love to fare Beyond the FieldsWe Know treasure that.
I find it hard to understand why anyone who accepts the guise of Beren and Luthien as werewolf and vampire to infiltrate Angband should suddenly expect Morgoth's fastness to be 'sensible'.
Quote from: Phillip;802951I do not see the game's underworld as a mere hole in the ground, any more than Annwn or the Sidhe is just that - or the caves of Ningauble or the Sea King's harem, or those of the Seven Geases, or the Fishing of the Demon Sea, or the Probable Adventure of the Three Literary Men; or the domains the Quest of Unknown Kadath, the Fortress Unvanquishable Save by Sacnoth, or the Tree of Swords and Jewels as mere suburbs subject to the civic laws of Materialists.
Arneson, Gygax, St Andre, Stafford, etc., were naturally not informed by works derived from nothing but the games they had yet to publish. What they had at hand was a heritage of myth and folklore, and modern fantasy by writers drawing from those same wellsprings.
What is the appeal of fantasy for a game, if not its boundless possibility? To reduce it to 'sensible' wizards and dragons standing in for cannons in a replay of the War of the Roses seems almost pointlessly thin gruel. Even thinner was the Deryni series, a dynastic romance with "psychic powers" that got medieval costuming but missed the medieval mind by a mile.
D&D and T&T were created not to simulate a particular fictional world, but to evoke the whole ocean of story involving dark labyrinths, fearsome monsters, cunning traps and puzzles, and wondrous treasures won at great peril. Faery and Dreamland, heavens and hells, do not "make sense" the way a Burger King in Poughkeepsie does - and those who love to fare Beyond the FieldsWe Know treasure that.
I find it hard to understand why anyone who accepts the guise of Beren and Luthien as werewolf and vampire to infiltrate Angband should suddenly expect Morgoth's fastness to be 'sensible'.
All very noble but it doesn't do that at all.
Some of the ideas are there and you could make your adventures into these things but the tools to do so are not in the box so to speak. The early published modules have none of that mystique and the games mechanics lend themselves far more to Fafhard and the Grey Mouser than they do to Gawaine and the Green Knight. The monster manual lacks any faery dust and even Diety and demigods was used more like a book of stuff to kill than to inspire any sort of entangled fantasy.
This is going to be default when a game is targetting young wargamers. Look at OG's posts for how the game was played, like a tank combat game or a skirmish. The game you describe requires emotional enagement with the setting and a willingness to do a lot more thesp than I think was present. I may be misreading it of course.
You are misreading. I am speaking of how I received D&D in 1976, when I was 10 years old. I partook then not at all of the thespian, my viewpoint being that of a fantasy version of myself venturing by torchlight into the wonderland of giant mushrooms, magic wells, greedy dwarfs, etc. - for which my imagination was primed by tales of Aladdin, Jack the Giant Killer, and so many others.
And I cited but two of Fafhrd and Mouser's many ventures beyond the sensible affairs of Lankhmar's black togas; that you should regard them as contrary is hard for me to fathom.
Again, it seems odd that you invoke OG. Has he not also suggested that the game is the thing, that stuff that's fun is not to be disdained and discarded on account of not meeting some ivory-tower criterion based on history - when the subject at hand is not a simulation of history (of which we have plenty) but a game of fantasy?
Quote from: Phillip;803014You are misreading. I am speaking of how I received D&D in 1976, when I was 10 years old. I partook then not at all of the thespian, my viewpoint being that of a fantasy version of myself venturing by torchlight into the wonderland of giant mushrooms, magic wells, greedy dwarfs, etc. - for which my imagination was primed by tales of Aladdin, Jack the Giant Killer, and so many others.
And I cited but two of Fafhrd and Mouser's many ventures beyond the sensible affairs of Lankhmar's black togas; that you should regard them as contrary is hard for me to fathom.
Again, it seems odd that you invoke OG. Has he not also suggested that the game is the thing, that stuff that's fun is not to be disdained and discarded on account of not meeting some ivory-tower criterion based on history - when the subject at hand is not a simulation of history (of which we have plenty) but a game of fantasy?
Fair points.
I think however that your experience differs from what I have seen of other early school play perhaps the age and your DM made the difference.
when I have run games for kids, right down to age 4 I fill the worlds with wonders and unfathomable secrets and sure they play themselves but at that age the barrier between the game, life and reality are blurry so that can happen. When I have played with young adults there is very little wonder and mostly its down to numbers and hitting stuff and takes on that much stronger gamer angle when the mechanics dominate the imagination.
The wargame angle of early games seems much more important. If characters die make a new character, don't get invested in your PCs they are just paper like the commandoes in your WW 2 skirmish game.
As for Fafhard and the Mouser you are correct I guess there is a split there between the Lankhmar stuff and the other. D&D is great at the Lankhmar stuff but I don't think does wonder very well.
The dungeon premise has nearly always been far more than a wargame, even in TSR's Dungeon Modules. Notable exceptions included the first (Steading of the Hill Giant Chief) and what was for many the first played (Keep on the Borderlands).
I regard the element of tricks, puzzles, mysteries and outright enigmas as essential to a proper dungeon. Even if one cares only for hacking and blasting, the endless variety possible when one need not ask 'how' - but "What if?" suffices - is surely one reason why fantasy swept Hannibal, Napoleon and Rommel from the center of the hobby-game world (as Gygax predicted in the foreword to D&D).
Quote from: Omega;802248Alot of mines if you looked at their floor plans do not follow a regular pattern. They follow the ore veins or the path of least resistance.
[/IMG]
Yes, but most D&D dungeons don't look like mines. I'm not saying there aren't some real-world examples of potential dungeons, though; on the contrary, I think that there's something worth exploring in terms of using real-world examples to base dungeons on.
if you want a dungeon that makes sense you could get the lady of pain to send the party to one
Earthdawn's dungeons (the Kaers) made perfect sense. Underground cities were metahumanity shielded itself while a horde of extraplanar creatures ravaged the surface. Sometimes fiends would breach the Kaer's barrier seal, and would then proceed to corrupt the entire place and its inhabitants.
The hordes are gone from the surface, and people have colonized it again, but many Kaers remain sealed. Whether there are survivors inside or not, it's something up to adventurers to find out.
Quote from: JongWK;804162Earthdawn's dungeons (the Kaers) made perfect sense. Underground cities were metahumanity shielded itself while a horde of extraplanar creatures ravaged the surface. Sometimes fiends would breach the Kaer's barrier seal, and would then proceed to corrupt the entire place and its inhabitants.
The hordes are gone from the surface, and people have colonized it again, but many Kaers remain sealed. Whether there are survivors inside or not, it's something up to adventurers to find out.
Yes, in some settings you can create justifications for dungeons to look the way they do in that setting.
All the dungeons in Albion, for example, will be based on having rationales for their presence.
Currently running 1st Ed AD&D. Dungeons don't figure into it at all. There are abandoned monasteries, temples, ruins of castles, caverns, etc., but no dungeons mainly because we're playing a pseudo-Arabian/Mediterranean setting in which they make no sense, as you say, especially as there are no demihumans or most other fantasy tropes (like these bizarre dungeons lying around everywhere for no reason). Nobody has missed dungeons at all.
Quote from: Matt;805925Currently running 1st Ed AD&D. Dungeons don't figure into it at all. There are abandoned monasteries, temples, ruins of castles, caverns, etc., but no dungeons mainly because we're playing a pseudo-Arabian/Mediterranean setting in which they make no sense, as you say, especially as there are no demihumans or most other fantasy tropes (like these bizarre dungeons lying around everywhere for no reason). Nobody has missed dungeons at all.
Hmm. Sounds like you described many 'dungeons' quite well.
Quote from: Old Geezer;802298Remember, when Phil Barker (Prof MAR Barker) razzed me about "what do all those monsters eat," I put a McDonald's on the sixth level of the dungeon.
"What do they eat? They eat "FUCK YOU," Phil, that's what they eat."
Choosy monsters eat at the dungeon's Rat on a Stick franchise on level 4. Ask for it by name!
-TGA
I've recently been reading about Shamanism, and something struck me. When dungeon delving, the characters are metaphorically (or 'actually' depending on the system and narrative etc) entering the underworld and meeting supernatural entities. They are banishing them (killing things), learning from them (taking their stuff, getting the magical information etc) or are being guided through an initiation of some kind (going up in levels).
You could quite happily draw comparisons between shamanic experiences, experiences with Fairies or other strange supernatural beings. But my point is that inadvertently the dungeon delve looks a bit like a prehistoric ritual experience played round a table with dice.
Does it make sense? Maybe not from a functional nuts and bolts perspective. But it makes sense from a cultural point of view where individuals are wanting to enter these sacred spaces and commune with "the other side" (whilst rolling dice and eating snacks). So on two levels: you have characters performing these acts by proxy for the players. And you have the players being guided through this experience by an elder or more attuned guide (the GM).
Time to write a poncy degree thesis on the subject!
A bit about caves and things. (http://garyrvarner.webs.com/cavesportals.htm)
Yah, I'd agree with that.
"How did the dungeon come to be like that?" is answered in the same way as all the other questions players have about the game world.
"Interesting question. How will your character discover the answer?"
While they ponder that, I roll for wandering monsters.
Seriously, it's alright for some things to be mysterious, to remain unknown. What you call, "that makes no sense!" I call a "sense of wonder."
Quote from: BarefootGaijin;806088I've recently been reading about Shamanism, and something struck me. When dungeon delving, the characters are metaphorically (or 'actually' depending on the system and narrative etc) entering the underworld and meeting supernatural entities.
Yes. Sometimes this is even done literally, like in Arrows of Indra's Patala Underworld.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;806098"How did the dungeon come to be like that?" is answered in the same way as all the other questions players have about the game world.
"Interesting question. How will your character discover the answer?"
While they ponder that, I roll for wandering monsters.
Seriously, it's alright for some things to be mysterious, to remain unknown. What you call, "that makes no sense!" I call a "sense of wonder."
It can certainly be.
I like both. In a good game, where either the GM or that particular setting historically does 'make sense', the credibility you earn buys the suspension of disbelief and the PCS look for the underlying logic they are sure they will find.
In many games, where this has not been earned, this breaks verisimilitude. So in my view, the ability to create this Sense of Wonder is earned.
Quote from: LordVreeg;806082Hmm. Sounds like you described many 'dungeons' quite well.
I would say they are what they are, and the D&D-ish underworld is what it is, and I don't go out of my way to make one like the other.
All this has made me think about how to use a dungeon as a shamanic journey.
A wha..?
Rather than start in a tavern, go to a ruin, delve ruin etc. Go find tribal healer-type, ingest relevant brew/dance/fast/and so on to enter an altered state. From the altered state the party will journey into another realm for whatever reason and to whatever outcome. There is lots of material out there on the iconography and cultural experiences that can be mined for inspiration.
I actually had an idea like that for a D20 Stone Age game I was debating.
Regular play would have minimal/subtle magic, but there would also be shamanic dances that would involve highly fantastical encounters. The dances would then have an impact on life... like fighting the spirits afflicting a sickly child.
Quote from: Old Geezer;802304Sure, but it's a YMMV thing.
I tried the 'heavy research' thing years ago, complete with money in pounds, shillings, and pence, not to mention groats, farthings, crowns, and guineas. Historical weights and prices for everything... I spent several years researching prices. Et cetera. Real city maps. The whole nine yards.
My players didn't give a shit. Except that they wanted to go back to "10 copper equals one silver, 10 silver equals one gold."
I save my historical research jones for my model railroading.
Also, lad, as a personal favor could I ask you to please use some capitalization and punctuation? Your posts are hard for these old eyes to read.
I guess it is about detailing things that matter. Detailing how many silver pieces there are per gold piece or how many pounds exactly a crossbow weighs does not matter much for the gaming experience (as long as the estimates used are realistic), but a dungeon where the encounters does not make sense, would be boring to me. I would for example find it exciting to - from the layout of the rooms discovered so far - to be able to deduce that the orcs' dormitory must be there and there, so they can be surprised like this - for example. A series of rooms with random monsters for hack and slash sounds boring to me, but if it works for your players, great. It's easy.