I can't add too much to what was already said here guys.  All I can say is that we as a group have done multiple sessions with this DM, and he is great.  He usually makes up his own material, or spices up a bit what he uses of other people's creation to fit our campaign and help it be more interesting.  We've played under different rulesets, we've played Barrowmaze and had a great time, with little to no DM modifications to it.  My only complaint I would have about BM was that there were too many undead for my taste, but still a great time.

Then we play this, two sessions worth, and are bored shitless.  It was lame, for all the reasons I described in my blogpost.  All of those elements were missing.  

We asked the DM as a group not to add his usual jazz or embellish the module.  We wanted to give it a run as written, to experience the author's flavor and vision.  So he didn't change anything.  I could tell he wanted to at some parts, sensing how lame the stuff was, but he stayed the course.  At the table we easily had over 100 yrs of gaming experience, so that wasn't the issue.  Most of us have played together in other campaigns, dungeons, and megadungeons, so group chemistry wasn't the problem.  

If it was one or two players having a bad night, that would be one thing.  But it was everyone with basically the same shared opinion.  Once someone burst the bubble and spoke out about it, everyone chimed in with similar feelings.  

One player, who had been a player in a G+ game of DM on the same level, level 1, run by James M., said that the style of play that JM brought to the module as a DM was the same as our DM...in other words it wasn't a DM thing, it played the same for the creator as for our DM.  

Therefore the only thing that's left is that the module sucked.  

Now, we only did 40% of the first level.  Could we have been unlucky and hit the 40% that sucked? Maybe.  Do we have different expectations in a module that what the module provides?  Seems so, which is why I laid out what I want out of a game in my blog post.  Could it be that we should have trudged through because it gets better at lower levels? Maybe.  But I look at it like a tv series.  It has to catch your attention early on in the season in order for you to come back and watch the rest of the season.  Multiple people kept expressing their opinion as "Why in the hell would my character keep on adventuring here, based on what we've seen and done so far?"

Bottom line, we gave it two sessions, it sucked, we're not going to play it again.

Quote from: Mistwell;590008Damn Justin, can I buy your megadungeon?  That was an excellent alteration you made there.

I totally agree.  If the rat room had that in it, it would have been great.  If more rooms were like that, I'd have loved the module.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;590012We asked the DM as a group not to add his usual jazz or embellish the module.  We wanted to give it a run as written, to experience the author's flavor and vision.  So he didn't change anything.  I could tell he wanted to at some parts, sensing how lame the stuff was, but he stayed the course.  

I have recently been running the D&D next Blingdenstone adventure under this restriction, and bloody hell it is no fun as the GM. Its also leading me to the conclusion that it is not a fair test, as I would never run anything as written anyway.

Quote from: jadrax;590020I have recently been running the D&D next Blingdenstone adventure under this restriction, and bloody hell it is no fun as the GM. Its also leading me to the conclusion that it is not a fair test, as I would never run anything as written anyway.

I think a takeaway is that the quality of the module is determined by how much you have to tweak it to make it fun.  The better the module, the less tweaking is needed.  That doesn't count stuff like tweaking it to the setting or the rule system of course.  Just the general tweaking, to make it more interesting and/or fun.  If there is a lot of tweaking needed, than either the module really really sucks, or is written in such a way that supports a gaming style that is not fun for the group, or some combination of the two.  In the case of dwimmermount, for me at least, i think its 70/30, the module sucks on its own merits, and is clearly written for a playstyle that i don't find fun.

Joe, what you define as "kick some ass, be awesome?" What kinds of encounters or situations, in your experience, allow your character to "be awesome?"

Quote from: Black Vulmea;590024Joe, what you define as "kick some ass, be awesome?" What kinds of encounters or situations, in your experience, allow your character to "be awesome?"

In a module, anything that gives certain tools for the players to allow them to overcome obstacles in an unexpected, creative way, or to overcome stuff when they really had no right to expect to do so based on the relative level of the combatants, stuff like that.

For example, we were playing with the same group in another adventure.  It was an old mine, there were mining carts that were disabled, there were mine tracks which ran thru the rooms ahead, some barrels of oil, there was rope, there was a room with people who knew some of the layout of the rest of the place, and we caught one and he was able to give us some info.  Using all that which was provided in the module, we fixed up a mine cart, set it on the tracks which ran thru the next sets of rooms, tied up the prisoner, stuck him in the mine cart, filled it with oil, and pushed it down the tracks so that there was a screaming fiery inferno plowing down the hall towards his companions.  Had the effect of demoralizing and causing a WTF?!?! reaction in his companions, allowed us to get surprise rounds with missile weapon people who were situated in a position to take advantage of the situation, and turned what would have been a suicidal frontal assault into a slaughter on our part.  It evened the odds.  The module provided us with the tools to be awesome, the rooms had stuff that allowed us to pull a McGyver with some creative thought.

Dwimmermount provided neither the need to do anything like that, nor the tools of opportunity even if there was a need (the rope, oil, cart, tracks, prisoner who knew the rooms ahead, etc.)  If the dungeon is all empty rooms with nothing of use or note or even potentially interesting in them that might be used in some unconventional way later, or standard "kick the door down, kill 3 orcs, lather, rinse, repeat"  then it's kind of hard to be awesome in that way.

Quote from: estar;589944I think this is just a case that the details James chose to focus on did not appeal to this group combined with not hitting any of the few situations that would have interested them.

For me, when I played Dwimmermount I felt that the place had a deep history behind it and that it was a place that was meant to be explored.

I think most players who enjoy dungeon crawls enjoy seeing details in the rooms and features of the dungeon that tells them more about the history, purpose and re-purpose of the place. I also can see how a sub-segment of these players might be interested in this exclusively, AND like a more explorative, less action oriented discovery of the milieu. I can see that.

I do, however, think that your defense of Dwimmermount in this particular instance feels particularly weak, because you make it basically sound like you can only do one of two things: either have action and opportunities to do stuff, or explore the history of the place. Or if you prefer, that James' exclusive focus on these historical details of the place is a sound decision when you are trying to create a module to play.

I think in both instances it's a weak argument, because I disagree that you'd have to do one or the other, or one at the detriment of the other: you can have both, as Justin's and Kent's examples have clearly demonstrated IMO, at varying of degrees which will not hamper the explorative aspect of the dungeon but to the contrary enhance it to allow the PCs to interact with this stuff and "make things happen".

Now is James' choice a valid choice in and of its own? If he was targeting the specific subsegment of players who enjoy a strict moody exploration and not very much the fighting, action, do-stuff part of the crawl, sure. I'm not sure that's what he meant to achieve, though, looking at the way he wanted to evoke the mega-dungeons of old and make his offering "legendary" in its own right. It's of course too early to judge the final form of the dungeon because well, it doesn't exist yet, but your argument defending this type of design is IMO extremely weak.

Now that said:

Quote from: Joethelawyer;590012We asked the DM as a group not to add his usual jazz or embellish the module.  We wanted to give it a run as written, to experience the author's flavor and vision.  So he didn't change anything.  I could tell he wanted to at some parts, sensing how lame the stuff was, but he stayed the course.

THIS is one of the major reasons their experience failed and the dungeon sucked. A mega-dungeon, by its very nature, cannot translate the way it was played and developed on a 1:1 basis, or rather, maybe it could do it better in various ways for various groups, but the written medium represents an obstacle to that translation in all cases.

A mega-dungeon cannot in my mind function if you don't let the DM make it his own and basically run the thing however he wants to to tailor the experience to the group of players, to inject his own personality into the thing and help him visualize what's going on in the complex and run it as a dynamic environment.

Asking a DM to "not add his usual jazz" is a SURE way to see the experience suck ass. It'd be like asking to run the Temple of Elemental Evil as written and not play it as the dynamic place it was meant to be: OF COURSE it's going to suck in those conditions! This is IMO completely missing the point of the mega-dungeon as a module or product: that it is an aid presenting an environment ripe for play, but it cannot function "as written" straight out of the page because it is meant to be dynamic and alive, and only a DM thinking on his feet, grasping the setting and making it his own is able to do this effectively.

This is something to be embraced by modules which should strive to be better tools and better means for DMs to appropriate the setting described for themselves (and maybe James could have presented the information and a set of tools to help this happen more effectively). This is not a "flaw" that should be excluded to make the modules scripts that should be run mindlessly by the DMs using them. That last part is -to me- completely antithetical to the type of play that is meant to be encouraged by the mega-dungeon setting.

So in my mind, this is one of the core issues here: the idea that playtesting the mega-dungeon "as written" will create a great experience is bogus. It's creating the conditions under which it will most likely feel stale and boring and repetitive and lame.

As much as I disagree with estar trying to present the choice between atmosphere and action as some sort of either/or proposition, that you couldn't do both and make both more interesting as a result (and if that proposition is true and estar didn't mean to imply the contrary, then there is obviously critical value in asking why James didn't do both with his module), I think that this demand on the part of the group hugely participated in the game sucking in the end.

And this?

Quote from: Joethelawyer;590012At the table we easily had over 100 yrs of gaming experience, so that wasn't the issue.

That's basically bullshit. YES, this was a huge part of the issue, because you specifically, explicitly asked your DM NOT to use his own gaming experience to run the thing. You specifically asked him to run something he wasn't comfortable with, since as you noted in your post you could see he was tempted to make the game more interesting but stuck to his agreement with you guys which, obviously, resulted in a bad game.

If you start running by shooting yourself in the foot with a shotgun, you can be one of the best runners in the world, you ain't going to finish the marathon.

And yet our DM ran it the same way as James M ran it as DM, as written, no other embellishments, according to the guy in our group who played in the G+ hangout group with James as DM.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;590055And yet our DM ran it the same way as James M ran it as DM, as written, no other embellishments, according to the guy in our group who played in the G+ hangout group with James as DM.

Ah that I didn't know. I started watching the video of a G+ game James ran somewhere (vimeo?) but phased out after maybe 20 minutes (I got bored, but at the same time I was just watching the game and not playing it so that's not a criticism of the game on my personal part). Do you have links to conversations, blog posts etc about this? Because then if it's the way it's meant to be run for James as well, then what I was saying wouldn't necessarily apply to the way he went about his game design.

I must say though, and I'm sorry to pound on you about this but you just gave me the hook so I grabbed it, it's imperative in my mind, IMO and IME, for a DM to make the mega-dungeon his own and run it extrapolating on the tools he's given with the module as written. If the DM doesn't do that, the game's going to suck. DMs running mega-dungeons need to grow a set of balls and run actual role playing games, not adventure path/convention scripted module bullshit. You see what I mean, how the logic sustening the mega-dungeon campaign is very different in that regard?

OSR D&D has always been about molding the adventure/campaign setting/rules around your own group's personal preference.  That's what separates old school play from new school "RAW!" play-style.  To explicitly and intentionally remove that does whatever OSR type game you're playing a huge disservice.

Hmmm.

I honestly don't know what to make of all this.

I can't figure out how much of it is Dwimmermount sucking and how much of it is Joe's expectations being out of line with what Dwimmermount intends to offer.

Why did Rappan Athuk work?  Third Edition Rules, First Edition Feel.  WTF am I talking about?

Gary's notes on Castle Greyhawk were famously terse.  Most of what was happening was up in his head.  That's what an "Old School Megadungeon" is.  Running an "Old School Megadungeon" RAW is practically an oxymoron.  What's supposed to happen is that the GM reads the whole thing, he knows why someone is chopping off the heads of god statues and switching them.  He knows what is up with the ghostly chess players and if there is a way to interact with them.  Then he figures out that with Joe and bunch at his table, they're not going to like this as written and he starts making Dwimmermount his own, for his players.  That's what good DM's do.  A very good, highly detailed module could be run RAW and succeed, but it's only going to be EPIC if the DM does his job.  A megadungeon the size of Dwimmermount can't be that highly detailed or it will be shipped to you on a palette.

Rappan Athuk is a 3rd Edition Megadungeon with Old School sensibilities.  There are not 66% empty rooms, and there is a lot of specific detail, however, the overall size is relatively small compared to something sprawling like Castle Greyhawk, Undermountain or Dwimmermount.

TL;DR - I think James is doing himself and his product a disservice by running "static" playtests, because that's not how a product like that is meant to be used, and using it that way will suck by definition.

Quote from: Benoist;590048Asking a DM to "not add his usual jazz" is a SURE way to see the experience suck ass.

I would wager that most if not all modules run word-for-word are going to suck. Isn't the whole point of the game kinda like:

10   GM presents situation
20   Players do something (unexpected)
30   GM feeds off players' actions and builds on/changes the situation
40   Goto 10  

Playing the module word-for-word cannot account for unexpected actions so the process breaks down and it starts to sound like a video game. If that's how the author is running his sessions then those have gotta be boring too.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;590069Hmmm.

I honestly don't know what to make of all this.

I can't figure out how much of it is Dwimmermount sucking and how much of it is Joe's expectations being out of line with what Dwimmermount intends to offer.

...and how much of it was the DM specifically not doing what he knows works well for that table, which ties in to the second.

Yeah but D'mount sucking and what D'mount has to offer is a fait accompli.  Rat poop, empty rooms that do nothing, etc.; while Justin makes a good case for how to make those exciting, and even considering my stump which has always been "Modules are a framework, it's up to the DM to flesh them out" at the end of the day all J.M. has done is (started to; it's not completed and still out the window as to whether or not it's ever going to be completed) hand-cranked what you can get off of a hundred different websites that do the whole "generate and populate a random dungeon", by using the back of the DMG as his source engine.