TheRPGSite

So Joethelawyer and friends explored Dwimmermount and Joe was less than impressed (http://wondrousimaginings.blogspot.ca/2012/10/played-dwimmermount-last-night-sucked.html).

So my question, Joe, is what were you expecting that Dwimmermount didn't deliver? What would've made it better? What is an example of a published dungeon that 'does it right,' in your experience?

Parallel blogpost from the DM:  http://www.tenkarstavern.com/2012/10/ambition-avarice-session-recap-closing.html

There was some discussion around this on G+ earlier today.  I hope Joe comes by and expands on it.

I don't see why Joe or his group are surprised by any of this. From his description, it fits exactly what James describes as his ideal of old school gaming.

Quote from: VectorSigma;589926Parallel blogpost from the DM:  http://www.tenkarstavern.com/2012/10/ambition-avarice-session-recap-closing.html

There was some discussion around this on G+ earlier today.  I hope Joe comes by and expands on it.

I'd be happy to expand upon it, playing in a G+ game right now run by Gustie Larue, a mega dungeon aboard a ship, which is a perfect example of an old school mega dungeon done perfectly right.  

http://dungeonofsigns.blogspot.com/

What would you have me expand upon?

I made a post about last nights game too. But my opinion probably doesn't matter much. http://www.thecrazygm.com/archives/96 (http://www.thecrazygm.com/archives/96)

I just meant for this audience.  I had visibility on the G+ discussion, so I think I understand what everybody was saying, but I wouldn't want to speak for the players.

My main problem was there was no motivation to be there. Other than the random encounters, there was nothing to do. There was very little exploration going. All the rooms were similar in description. Even the cool stuff that stood out, the time stop room, the ghost playing tactical games, didn't have anything to offer. The fact that the coins were exactly 1000GP and exactly 2000CP kinda made me flinch. (What were they pre done in penny rolls?)

I don't know, we had fun because we were in good company and had a good GM. But for the dungeon itself. Yawn.

From playing Dwimmermount and reading James' copy, the dungeon favors those who like to explore. It not exactly a place where you can kick ass and be "awesome". Although there is a demonic spider on the first level.

The creator thinks reviewing 33 year old Ares issues & the French cover of B2 are breathtakingly exciting. I'm not surprised his dungeon is humdrum.

I read this earlier today and was really interested by it from a mega-dungeon builder's standpoint.

My immediate question to the players would be: how did the game start, exactly? What was the base opening situation of the game you played?

I want to hear more about these so-called 'empty rooms'.

Quote from: Benoist;589941I read this earlier today and was really interested by it from a mega-dungeon builder's standpoint.

I 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.

Haven't seen it, haven't played it.  Not sure you can just dismiss the criticism though as "Dwimmermount was meant to be explored."  Exploration is an act of discovery.  If there's really not much to discover, then is it really exploration?

Now it could be a level down or three there's a "reveal" as to the purpose of the ghosts playing chess, or maybe the group didn't figure out how to engage them, but mysteries you're never going to solve because there is no explanation(the X-Files, Lost, Prometheus phenomenon) and ancient imagery with no effect or tie-ins other then "Holy shit this crap is old!" aren't really the stuff of great dungeons.

Then again, I'm wondering if the group was looking for B2, and didn't like that Dwimmermount wasn't it.

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.

That's insulting.

Quote from: estar;589944For 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 we can take for granted now that you will just mindlessly support Dwimmermount so unless you start providing specifics for its 'deep history' and why explorers would want to explore rat shitty empty rooms would you kindly ... shut the fuck up.

The even thousands and hundreds of coins found in D&D used to bother me; I used to subtract 500 or 50 coins from the totals and add a d1000 or d100 roll, but... nowadays I just assume it's done as a "significant figure" conceit, i.e. it's about 2000 gp.

As for specifics

A typical empty room looks like this

2. Guard Room
This chamber was once a guard room. Now, it's filled with dust and cobwebs. There are the shattered remnants of some wooden chairs and a weapons rack, but the room is otherwise empty.

Other "empty" rooms look like this

6. Trophy Room
This large room once contained trophies commemorating Thulian military victories. There were plaques, statues, and other similar ornaments, all long since looted and removed to other parts of the fortress. There are indentations in the walls, shelves, and brackets that all give evidence to their former presence. Also in the room are the bodies of two dwarves, both quite fresh though cold to the touch. They wear chain mail and carry axes, but the rest of their belongings (if any) are no longer present.

Technically an "empty" room as it is devoid of monsters and valuable treasure. But for people who like exploring it is evocative and gives the sense that Dwimmermount is a place with history.

Especially when you run into rooms like this

11. Statue of Turms-Mavors
In this area can be found the six-foot tall statue of a muscular man in armor, carrying a shield and wielding a wickedly barbed spear. Atop his shoulders sits the bearded head of Turms Termax, although body is clearly that of Mavors, god of war.

So a statue of a god  has his head hacked off and replaced with another god's head. mmmmm.

On Level 1 there are 68 rooms

22 of them "empty" although many of have detailed descriptions
8 rooms only have harmful traps (mundane and magical)
21 rooms have monsters with varying amounts of treasure. There is a tribe of kobolds with demonic spider as an ally. Along with a small group of orcs with a evil magic user as a leader.
6 rooms have only treasure in them.
11 rooms are magical or have puzzles that the party can mess around around with.

This is not Keep on the Borderlands where caves are jam packed with monsters. I know several gamers what would love to an adventure in a place like Dwimmermount and I know several others that would be bored to tears by it. Also none of the questions about why Dwimmermount is the way it is, are answered on the first level.

And if appear as a Dwimmermount booster so be it. It common knowledge that I done maps for James on several projects and I am doing the outdoor maps for Dwimmermount as well. But also I played with James as the referee in Dwimmermount and talked to the guy. He is running open games nearly every weekend in Google Plus, go sign up and play see what it is like.

Quote from: CRKrueger;589945Haven't seen it, haven't played it.  Not sure you can just dismiss the criticism though as "Dwimmermount was meant to be explored."  Exploration is an act of discovery.  If there's really not much to discover, then is it really exploration?

I posted a breakdown of Level one in a previous post. You can judge for yourself how empty it is.

I will add that when I ran Tegal Manor recently the party managed to go thread their way through a dozen empty rooms before running into a significant encounter. That this represented a session and a half of gaming. There were several points they could have gone left instead of right and run into some very nice treasure.

And this mirror my experience with bigger dungeons back in the day. Even if the group is interested in the background, it can still suck simply you happen to pick the wrong path to find something "awesome" to do. Or if you are the kind that systematically explores a place start out in a relatively empty section.

Quote from: CRKrueger;589945Then again, I'm wondering if the group was looking for B2, and didn't like that Dwimmermount wasn't it.

There are dozens of ways of detailing a dungeon and no one of them is going to appeal to everybody.

Dwimmermount is a cat!*

Level 1 MUs better beware!

*https://muleabides.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/dwimmermount-kickstarter-is-schrodingers-cat/

Quote from: Black Vulmea;589925So my question, Joe, is what were you expecting that Dwimmermount didn't deliver? What would've made it better? What is an example of a published dungeon that 'does it right,' in your experience?

I was not a member of that group, but the one thing that leaped out at me was the lack of awesome. I'm a big fan of negative space contrasting positive space in adventure design, but 90% of my negative space is still filled with interesting things.

For example, the "best gamer rant I've heard in a long time" (as Tenkar described it) is talking about room 46. In the original notes that room is keyed as:

Quote from: Dwimmermount Original Key46. 9 Giant Rats - 2000 cp, necklace 200 gp, comb 30 gp

In the current draft, that's been expanded to:

Quote from: DwimmermountThe wooden door to this room is partially gnawed through, as it is the nest for 9 giant rats. In addition to the rats, the room itself contains broken pieces of wood, straw, string, and other random detritus that these vermin have collected and brought here. Amidst this rubbish can be found 2000 cp, a jeweled pin (800 gp), a gold necklace (200 gp), and an expensive comb (30gp).

When I talked in the other thread about the fact that Maliszewski's method of expanding his minimalist key mostly consisted of using more words to describe a minimalist key, this is what I was talking about.

How could you take that same minimalist key and make it something interesting?

This room contains broken pieces of wood, straw, string, and other random detritus that 9 giant rats have collected and brought here. In the center of the room -- in a space cleared of rubbish -- are twenty skulls arranged in a circle. Each skull has been filled with exactly 100 copper pieces.

When anyone enters the room, a number of rats equal to the number of people entering the room will circle counter-clockwise around the circle of skulls, approach the entrants, rise up on the hind legs, and stretch out their paws as if waiting to receive something. Each of the rats has the holy symbol of a Thulian god branded onto its back.

If the rats are given a coin, they will place it in one of the skulls. (But there will still only be 100 coins in each skull.) If they are given any other valuables, they will scurry away and hide them in the piles of refuse. If anyone attempts to cross the room without giving them a coin or something else of value, the rats will swarm and attack.

Amidst this rubbish can be found 2000 cp, a jeweled pin (800 gp), a gold necklace (200 gp), and an expensive comb (30gp). The jeweled pin is actually a Thulian officer's pin that once belonged to one of the apparitions in room 59. If it is returned to its original owner, the ghost will reward the good citizen by offering to teach them the game of zatriko.

Estar says this place is really, really cool if you've played with Maliszewski DMing it. Sounds plausible. But that has not translated itself well into his written key. (Estar will probably ascribe this to the "impossibility" of realizing a megadungeon in print. In reality, it's just a failure to execute.)

Quote from: Joethelawyer;589929Was the environment itself creative and mysterious, leaving us a with a sense of awe and wonder?  Did it make us want to explore further?  Did it open up further layers of a mystery?

Or did we just push and pull at meaningless torch sconces that didn't move, hoping for a secret door and an end to the boredom

"meaningless torch sconces that didn't move"

That's pretty retarded.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;589929There was one room with ghosts around a table.  They gave no clues to greater mysteries,  they provided no combat opportunities, they were nothing but a waste of time.  We all just said "Eh, whatever," and moved along.

Ghost 1: What's that racket?

Ghost 2: Well there appears to be a bunch of retards swinging out of the wall sconces down the corridor.

'Where's the goddam secret door?' one of them is screaming.

Ghost 1: I can't do this anymore.

When did we last get a chance to haunt a professional dungeoneering outfit?

Ghost 2: Ssshhh! Pretend like we're not interested. Let the rats have 'em.

Pretend like we're playing chess, quick!

And, Ladies and Reptiles, this is the real issue with Dwimmermount, never mind the delays. Unfortunately, it shows in much of the released preview material; even if it was awesome at the table, it didn't translate well into writing. But anyway, the post is clear about the problems:

• too much empty space that serves no good function except an opportunity random encounters;
• boring, generic, time-wasting encounters;
• encounters which read well but don't provide interesting opportunities for interaction, or these possibilities are hidden so well as to never emerge (Rob Kuntz-style "hidden depth");
• repetition instead of an interesting theme;
• cabinet contents dungeon rooms ("5 orcs, 1000 cp").

Justin's post demonstrates well how to increase interactivity and provide a meaningful, intriguing context for these random tidbits (which is how I make most of my dungeons when I am not improvising them - expand and extrapolate from random rolls and the odd ideas in my head, then tie things together through the basic concept), but this either didn't happen in Dwimmermount the megadungeon, or didn't happen in Dwimmermount the manuscript.

There is probably another cure for lightly keyed dungeons like this, which is to keep the pace lightning-quick and come up with a lot of crap in play. I suspect this was the recipe behind EGG's infamously terse Castle Greyhawk - but in the precise recreation, something essential was lost.

Moreover,

Quote from: _kent_;589980ghosts

This right here.

Quote from: estar;589963As for specifics

A typical empty room looks like this

2. Guard Room
This chamber was once a guard room. Now, it's filled with dust and cobwebs. There are the shattered remnants of some wooden chairs and a weapons rack, but the room is otherwise empty.

Other "empty" rooms look like this

6. Trophy Room
This large room once contained trophies commemorating Thulian military victories. There were plaques, statues, and other similar ornaments, all long since looted and removed to other parts of the fortress. There are indentations in the walls, shelves, and brackets that all give evidence to their former presence. Also in the room are the bodies of two dwarves, both quite fresh though cold to the touch. They wear chain mail and carry axes, but the rest of their belongings (if any) are no longer present.

I hate the "this room used to look like this, it doesn't now" style of room descriptions. Surely a room description should start with the most important/notable features of the room at the moment the PCs enter it? I'm fine with noting that the "room full or dust, cobwebs and broken furniture" used to be a guard room - that's useful information for the GM in terms of what is there to be found in the broken pieces, but I wouldn't lead with that.

Far be it for me to defend Dwimmermount but it doesn't sound like the DM made any effort to spice up the material. Any DM worth their salt could have injected more interest even into the dry as dust descriptions that James churns out. The DM should have transcended the material just as they would have for any other plodding module.

But what does James' approach teach us about mega dungeons? Not much except there must be a better approach. Rooms with unguarded treasure in nice even amounts despite random encounters continually wandering through the place really irk me. I prefer a dungeon which is a living beast rather than a series of static encounters just waiting for an adventuring party to traipse along.

Jason Alexander has tried to improve the room descriptions by injected interest and logic (at least in the context of the room) but at a page of text per room that isn't exactly practical. The mega dungeon would end up the size of a phone book.

So terse is the way to go but what we want is an author who can paint a picture with just a few words. If we look at the room with the ghosts why not add one sentence. "If the party address the ghosts they react as if they have been visited by spirits. Nothing the party says can convince them of their ghostly status".

Immediately we have a source of conflict.

 "You are ghosts!"

"Nay YOU are the apparitions".

This is grist for the mill of the creative DM to craft an entire conversation with the ghosts, perhaps even rewarding clever party members with some useful snippets of information.

This is where James appears to fail. He does not inspire with his words.

Thank you for the ghost vignette _kent_ ; it made me laugh. :)

Well, the OSR has been going on for 4-5 years now. If you want minimal Castle Greyhawk keying, there are already a couple of completed examples that will keep you playing for many levels - Stonehell, Mad Archmage. The veneer has worn off the "wow, megadungeon,we can go anywhere for rooms and rooms and levels and levels." The game now has to be raised, be it through metaplot, strongly themed areas, or webs of intrigue. And people are expecting products that are not in need of livening up, but that show you how to liven up, without being overly detailed.

Quote from: estar;589963On Level 1 there are 68 rooms

22 of them "empty" although many of have detailed descriptions
8 rooms only have harmful traps (mundane and magical)
21 rooms have monsters with varying amounts of treasure. There is a tribe of kobolds with demonic spider as an ally. Along with a small group of orcs with a evil magic user as a leader.
6 rooms have only treasure in them.
11 rooms are magical or have puzzles that the party can mess around around with.

This doesn't sound abnormal for a 0e style megadungeon level. According to the guidelines in The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, one should hand place a few important areas on a level, then use a random system to determine the contents of the rest of the level.  

1) Roll a D6 for each room/chamber/area not occupied. On a roll of 1 or 2 (aka 33% of the rooms) will have a monster.

2) Roll a D6 again for each room/chamber/area. If a monster is present, there is treasure on a roll of 1-3 (50% of monster occupied rooms will have treasure). If the room does not have a monster, there is treasure on a roll of 1 (16% of rooms without monsters will have some type of treasure). The guidelines further suggest that treasure in otherwise unoccupied rooms should be hidden, trapped, etc.

This means that for a 100 room megadungeon level, there would be (on average) 4 or 5 rooms with GM designed specials, 31 or 32 other rooms with "random" monsters, 15 or 16 rooms with "random" treasure but no monsters, and 45-50 empty rooms. This seems about normal (or even over-stuffed) compared to literary examples like Xuchotl from Howard's "Read Nails" or Moria from LOTR. And Level 1 of Dwimmermount seems to have even more "active" rooms. I guess I'm not seeing the problem with the dungeon itself, but perhaps with the DM's presentation of it?

Quote from: RandallS;589999I guess I'm not seeing the problem with the dungeon itself, but perhaps with the DM's presentation of it?

My favorable impression was formed as a result of reading the background material on James' blog and then playing the dungeon. Along with reading all his reviews of older fantasy stories. My reaction would be more blah if I hadn't read that.

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/search/label/dwimmermount

To me it is obvious that much of the content of Dwimmermount derives from him reading those stories. The trick will be how much of that will be written into the final product and whether he conveys his enthusiasm for the material. If he doesn't then Dwimmermount will be just one of many "big damn dungeons". If he does then it will be an interesting product to read and use.

Right now all that been released is the "big damn" dungeon portion of the project with very little special to distinguish it from other similar projects. If he can consolidate and condense his blog posts to lay bare the background and enthusiasm he has for the place then he has a shot of making an interesting product.

Has anyone compared Dwimmermount to Barrowmaze. I just purchased Barrowmaze II and I am very pleased with it for what it is.

If I'm exploring an ancient ruined structure I suppose what I want (as an explorer), disregarding danger and treasure since those could exist absent the dungeon, is:

* to wonder what the structure once was
* to discover what the structure once was, and
* to be awed by the discovery of what the structure once was.

Does Dwimmermount do this? It seems like descriptions that flat out tell you what a room used to be for would undermine my exploratory interests. Is there something big to discover? Do all the puzzle pieces come together and make a light bulb come on where you drop your jaw and mutter, "I get it now. It's not a dungeon at all. It's...."?

Because that's what I want from exploring.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;589975I was not a member of that group, but the one thing that leaped out at me was the lack of awesome. I'm a big fan of negative space contrasting positive space in adventure design, but 90% of my negative space is still filled with interesting things.

For example, the "best gamer rant I've heard in a long time" (as Tenkar described it) is talking about room 46. In the original notes that room is keyed as:



In the current draft, that's been expanded to:



When I talked in the other thread about the fact that Maliszewski's method of expanding his minimalist key mostly consisted of using more words to describe a minimalist key, this is what I was talking about.

How could you take that same minimalist key and make it something interesting?

This room contains broken pieces of wood, straw, string, and other random detritus that 9 giant rats have collected and brought here. In the center of the room -- in a space cleared of rubbish -- are twenty skulls arranged in a circle. Each skull has been filled with exactly 100 copper pieces.

When anyone enters the room, a number of rats equal to the number of people entering the room will circle counter-clockwise around the circle of skulls, approach the entrants, rise up on the hind legs, and stretch out their paws as if waiting to receive something. Each of the rats has the holy symbol of a Thulian god branded onto its back.

If the rats are given a coin, they will place it in one of the skulls. (But there will still only be 100 coins in each skull.) If they are given any other valuables, they will scurry away and hide them in the piles of refuse. If anyone attempts to cross the room without giving them a coin or something else of value, the rats will swarm and attack.

Amidst this rubbish can be found 2000 cp, a jeweled pin (800 gp), a gold necklace (200 gp), and an expensive comb (30gp). The jeweled pin is actually a Thulian officer's pin that once belonged to one of the apparitions in room 59. If it is returned to its original owner, the ghost will reward the good citizen by offering to teach them the game of zatriko.

Estar says this place is really, really cool if you've played with Maliszewski DMing it. Sounds plausible. But that has not translated itself well into his written key. (Estar will probably ascribe this to the "impossibility" of realizing a megadungeon in print. In reality, it's just a failure to execute.)

Damn Justin, can I buy your megadungeon?  That was an excellent alteration you made there.

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.

Quote from: Benoist;590048As 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

I definitely could have written my post better. What I was trying to get at is that when you write something in a particular voice some people will like it and some won't regardless of the technical details.

Quote from: Benoist;590048II 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 sound decision when you are trying to create a module to play.

I agree that my argument is weak. Dwimmermount is not finished and its current form it is just another big dungeon. And given the current hype that going to be viewed as a failure regardless of it merits and flaws as a big dungeon. At this point it seems it has to be legendary.

The only reason I even tried to reply is because I think the characterization that Dwimmermount nothing bunch of empty rooms is inaccurate and unfair. Which is why in another post I went through Level 1 and posted some hard statistics about what in there.

I probably should not have speculated why Tenkar's group found it boring. The only things I can say in my defense is that I recently ran Tegal Manor which brought memories of some of the pitfalls of running a megadungeon even if is well written or well refereed. Which is that by dumb luck a party can manage to avoid every interesting thing in an area. Something I ran into for a few sessions in my Tegal Manor campaign.

Then there is the fact that I LIKE the background James made for Dwimmermount having read his blog posts. I do think it has a distinct feel that won't be to everybody taste as is largely based on his love of older fantasy.  

So to restate, I agree my argument is weak and in future I will probably limit myself to posts summarizing the contents so people can make their own judgments.

Quote from: Benoist;590048So 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.

I will add that this is exactly what I did with Tegal Manor. The original is boring as shit unless you are prepared to jazz it up. Personally for me Tegal Manor works great. I don't have to read an ocean of text to get a sense of what there, but in combination with the map there a enough detail that I can focus on running an enjoyable session for my players. And it save me work because even with the sparse details of the original it would take a lot of time for me to come up with something as sprawling.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;590069I 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.

I don't think it will be settled until they start releasing previews so people can judge for themselves.

My opinion on it is that pretty much everything a DM will use (dungeon, hex map, NPCs, etc.) will generally be better if they are his own creations because he is invested in them personally. That's if he has an ounce of sense and creativity.

It's why the original song is usually better than a cover version, and the original film is usually better than a Hollywood remake.  

My feeling is that you'll only get an authentic experience if James runs the dungeon. Or, in other words, there's no substitute for a DM running his own material.

Quote from: estar;590087I don't think it will be settled until they start releasing previews so people can judge for themselves.

Yeah i honestly don't know what to make of it either guys.  It honestly makes me wonder if publishing a mega-dungeon that captures the feel of the dude who designed it and ran it for his group is at all possible.  I agree that there needs to be tinkering done to make something fit your group well and maximize fun, but the thing should also stand on its own in some way and provide some amount of fun, right?  Also, what amount of tinkering makes the module not worth even buying in the first place, because you did so much to make it your own and fit your group and setting and players expectations?  Like I said, if this was one guy, me, in a bad mood, it would be one thing.  But it was the whole group of 6, dm and players.  But if the basic thing as written sucks so much, that so much is needed to make it fun, whats the sense in buying it in the first place?  

Then you go the other way with something like Castle Zagyg, which I just ran a bunch of groups through on G+ hangouts over the past 6 months.  The thing was so verbose and overly descriptive, that at times I told my players to go take a shit or smoke break or something while I read the 3 page room description.  Obviously too far on the other extreme, where I ran it as is, without much modification needed, yet was way too heavy on details.  The details that were needed to run it well were often buried under the other crap.  No DM could ever possibly memorize it all.  Not DM friendly at all.

It wouldn't have taken much effort to do the thing with the rats as depicted abovce, and tie in some of the mysteries to other parts of the dungeon.  If there was a ghostly chess piece missing and we found it in another room it could have opened up a new direction, or peeled back a layer of mystery by letting us interact with the ghosts.  Or if the statue was missing a spear or staff, and we found one on a dead orc somewhere, and remembered that fact, and placed it in the statue's hands again.  Little basic crap like that would have made it, if played as written, somewhat more fun that what is there now.  All the DM would have to do then would be to integrate it into his own campaign, or ruleset, or embellish a few areas, rather than tinker with the whole thing because it is so barebones as to be the product of a computer program.

Quote from: estar;590084I definitely could have written my post better. What I was trying to get at is that when you write something in a particular voice some people will like it and some won't regardless of the technical details.

I agree. That's unavoidable. Just on the format itself, we talked about this before, but it bears repeating: you will have the terse dungeon description with one line of features and stats and some DMs will run like hell with this and create a fantastic game. They will even say they *need* this terse aspect to be empowered to run the thing as their own. On the other hand, there's another crowd of DMs that will need more descriptive elements and hooks for their own imaginations to take off: if you give them terse descriptions they'll stall and run a boring game.

So right there, that's just ONE aspect of format that's a conundrum, and there are obviously many others. My own POV is that it's about the KIND of information you convey in writing, not the amount, and whether it basically helps the DM own the material for himself, or force him into a box running a prefabricated experience.

It's something you have to look at carefully, and you have to choose, when you build a mega-dungeon as a packaged module for others to run. There's no avoiding the hard questions in my mind.

Quote from: estar;590084The only reason I even tried to reply is because I think the characterization that Dwimmermount nothing bunch of empty rooms is inaccurate and unfair.

OK. I got that too from your post. At the same time, there is critical value in saying "yes, there are all kinds of hints and features that point to a history of the place, but wouldn't there be ways to do this AND allow the players to interact with their environment as much as they would like to and 'do stuff'?" That's a critically sound question, IMO.

Quote from: estar;590084I will add that this is exactly what I did with Tegal Manor. The original is boring as shit unless you are prepared to jazz it up. Personally for me Tegal Manor works great. I don't have to read an ocean of text to get a sense of what there, but in combination with the map there a enough detail that I can focus on running an enjoyable session for my players. And it save me work because even with the sparse details of the original it would take a lot of time for me to come up with something as sprawling.

I agree 100%. Tegel Manor is an excellent example of a FORMIDABLE module when put in the hands of a DM who does his own thing with it, and a terrible one when it's run mindlessly expecting the awesome to just spring out of the page for you.

Quote from: Benoist;590060Ah 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?

I get what you're saying man, and don't take anything personally.  I've never read anything JM wrote which said to run it RAW.  All I know is that our group wanted to experience it as the author had written it, without tinkering with it, so that if we beat it, it would be sort of an accomplishment.  We expected it to be deadly, and were prepared for that.  Looked forward to the challenge.  Plus, then we get to see the dungeon and play the dungeon as close to how the designer meant it to be played.  We could fully experience his style.  It wasn't meant to be a long campaign, just a few sessions to beat a level or two.

At one point the other night, as we were running thru it and the boredom and frustration mounted, I asked the guy "Wait, when you played this with JM, did he run it the same way?  Did it feel the same way?"  His answer was yes.  In fact, we made a point of asking the player where he explored, what direction he went in with his other group that played with JM, so we could purposefully go the other way and have a unique experience for all of us.  We covered, by the DM's estimate, 40% of the dungeon.  The other player who played in both games covered more than that, and his experience in both groups was the same.  I know its only the first level, and some may expect the first level to be somewhat boring, but Jesus, to be that boring that the players don't even want to go back, and indeed several of us said "Why would my guy possibly want to keep adventuring in here at this point?" speaks poorly of the module I think.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;590101Yeah i honestly don't know what to make of it either guys.  It honestly makes me wonder if publishing a mega-dungeon that captures the feel of the dude who designed it and ran it for his group is at all possible.

That is a great question and one I been wrestling with myself.

Currently my tentative conclusion is yes. And the reason why is bound with this related question.

If the two of us were in the same room could I teach you how to run my megadungeon? And vice versa? The answer is of course. Given the time, desire, and some skill at teaching a person can teach another how to run their mega dungeon.

If that the case then it can be written as a book.

And we have known instances of this occurring notably Rob Kuntz learning to run Greyhawk.

So hence my answer is yes but there is a lot of work to be done in figuring out how to exactly teach another to run another person's mega dungeon.

And later in your post you touched on the verbose text of Castle Zagyg. I mentioned earlier the terse prose of Tegal Manor. Currently there is a lot of uncertainty about the whole thing. It a mess.

It of personal interest to me not so much I want to write up a megadungeon but I do have a detailed campaign guide to the Majestic Wilderlands I want to do. I know that if I write it as a just as a travelogue it won't be an effective or useful product especially in light of the dozens of other settings that are out there.

The fundamental issue is how do you write about expansive locales, regions, or settings in a way that is useful, producible, and interesting enough for people to buy or use.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;589975How could you take that same minimalist key and make it something interesting?

This room contains broken pieces of wood, straw, string, and other random detritus that 9 giant rats have collected and brought here. In the center of the room -- in a space cleared of rubbish -- are twenty skulls arranged in a circle. Each skull has been filled with exactly 100 copper pieces.

When anyone enters the room, a number of rats equal to the number of people entering the room will circle counter-clockwise around the circle of skulls, approach the entrants, rise up on the hind legs, and stretch out their paws as if waiting to receive something. Each of the rats has the holy symbol of a Thulian god branded onto its back.

If the rats are given a coin, they will place it in one of the skulls. (But there will still only be 100 coins in each skull.) If they are given any other valuables, they will scurry away and hide them in the piles of refuse. If anyone attempts to cross the room without giving them a coin or something else of value, the rats will swarm and attack.

Amidst this rubbish can be found 2000 cp, a jeweled pin (800 gp), a gold necklace (200 gp), and an expensive comb (30gp). The jeweled pin is actually a Thulian officer's pin that once belonged to one of the apparitions in room 59. If it is returned to its original owner, the ghost will reward the good citizen by offering to teach them the game of zatriko.

I have to say, you made something very pedestrian, and just turned it up to 11 awesome, Justin!

Quote from: noisms;590098My feeling is that you'll only get an authentic experience if James runs the dungeon. Or, in other words, there's no substitute for a DM running his own material.

That is a fair point, but misleading. There are a lot of modules which communicate worthwhile ideas, useful GMing techniques, interesting situations which let the players create their own stories, or action which flows well and offers a lot of possibility for action and adventure. They cannot offer a substitute for good GMing; as someone on the K&K Alehouse once put it, a good module is for "creativity aid, not creativity replacement".

There are a lot of modules which work well in practice, and some of these are large dungeons. The Caverns of Thracia. Tomb of Abysthor. Rappan Athuk. Anomalous Subsurface Environment. These are all big dungeons I or friends of mine have run or played in, and found excellent; which, to me, means it is possible to do the idea justice. The experience may not be authentic, but this is the precise nature of RPGs - it is a very personal, very specific experience, which cannot be completely replicated. If Dwimmermount is found lacking, though, it is due to its own faults (whether in ideas or presentation), not a lack of authenticity.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;590109I get what you're saying man, and don't take anything personally.  I've never read anything JM wrote which said to run it RAW.  All I know is that our group wanted to experience it as the author had written it, without tinkering with it, so that if we beat it, it would be sort of an accomplishment.  We expected it to be deadly, and were prepared for that.  Looked forward to the challenge.  Plus, then we get to see the dungeon and play the dungeon as close to how the designer meant it to be played.  We could fully experience his style.  It wasn't meant to be a long campaign, just a few sessions to beat a level or two.

OK. What if the designer's intent is for your DM to grab the written material and run like hell with it, playing his own riff off the written page?

Quote from: Joethelawyer;590109At one point the other night, as we were running thru it and the boredom and frustration mounted, I asked the guy "Wait, when you played this with JM, did he run it the same way?  Did it feel the same way?"  His answer was yes.  In fact, we made a point of asking the player where he explored, what direction he went in with his other group that played with JM, so we could purposefully go the other way and have a unique experience for all of us.  We covered, by the DM's estimate, 40% of the dungeon.  The other player who played in both games covered more than that, and his experience in both groups was the same.  I know its only the first level, and some may expect the first level to be somewhat boring, but Jesus, to be that boring that the players don't even want to go back, and indeed several of us said "Why would my guy possibly want to keep adventuring in here at this point?" speaks poorly of the module I think.

I think so as well. I think it is a valid criticism, don't get me wrong.

Quote from: noisms;590098My feeling is that you'll only get an authentic experience if James runs the dungeon. Or, in other words, there's no substitute for a DM running his own material.

I have to disagree with that notion, having run published modules and adventures for a wide variety of games as well as my own material in quite a few occasions. I think the real key is this ability for the GM reading the material to own it and run it as his own.

From there, the point of a written module should be, as far as I'm concerned, to provide the means and tools for a variety of GMs out there to be able to do just that. When this design goal is achieved, you actually are providing a more "authentic" old school experience to a wide variety of groups and playstyles than you would ever have trying to replicate your own play style as a GM (let alone some dead guy's) onto the page trying to make people run games the way you are at your own game table.

PS: noticed Melan's post above. I think we're trying to express the same core idea in different ways here.

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.

I didn't expect it to be my style of game completely, but I did expect it to be fun on some level.  To have something interesting in it.  A couple of puzzles or clues or mysteries.  Weird stuff in rooms I can put to some unorthodox creative use later.  Not just weird unexplained shit for the sake of weird unexplained shit, sparingly interspersed with boring rooms and random encounters.  Don't just make the statue on level 1 have something to do with the spear on level 9.  Do some of that long term puzzle mixed with history and background stuff, but also do some that can be solved and discovered in the short term.  Spice it up a bit.

As written, it ought to provide some level of fun, no?  I know it will not be anywhere near as fun as when a DM makes it his own, but it ought to give something.  It gave so little, that to make it fun the dm would have to add so much, that I doubt it is worth even getting.

Quote from: Benoist;590115I have to disagree with that notion, having run published modules and adventures for a wide variety of games as well as my own material in quite a few occasions. I think the real key is this ability for the GM reading the material to own it and run it as his own.

From there, the point of a written module should be, as far as I'm concerned, to provide the means and tools for a variety of GMs out there to be able to do just that. When this design goal is achieved, you actually are providing a more authentic experience to a wide variety of groups and playstyles than you would ever have trying to replicate your own play style as a GM onto the page trying to make people run games the way you are at your own game table.

Do you think there is no difference between a good GM running his own dungeon and an equally good GM running a published module?

Quote from: Benoist;590108I agree 100%. Tegel Manor is an excellent example of a FORMIDABLE module when put in the hands of a DM who does his own thing with it, and a terrible one when it's run mindlessly expecting the awesome to just spring out of the page for you.

Tegel goes rather well with improvisation. On its own, though, it presents the basic problem that many of the encounters as written are essentially non-interactive. Although even then, you are left with multiple subsystems of generating adventure. Magic statues. A family tree's worth of random undead which serve as the random encounter chart. A family tree's worth of magical portraits, which correspond to the random encounter chart. A very well-keyed map, which lists a lot of stuff among its notations. That's very useful in combination.
______________________
* Not exactly, but almost.

Quote from: Benoist;590114OK. What if the designer's intent is for your DM to grab the written material and run like hell with it, playing his own riff off the written page?
.

If you have to add so much as a dm to make it fun though, what sense in buying the written page in the first place?  There ought to be a core of fun contained in it, which shows the creativity and captures the flavor the designer wanted to convey for anyone who played and dm'd the game, right?  In my experience over 2 sessions, there was none of that in there.

Quote from: noisms;590117Do you think there is no difference between a good GM running his own dungeon and an equally good GM running a published module?

I think there will be in effect no difference because the good GM will run the published module AS his own dungeon. Now the relevant question as far as module design is concerned, in my opinion, is HOW the module allows GMs to rise to that level and in effect, BECOME good GMs running the material as their own, which in turn will affect their inspiration and the way they come up with their own stuff, which starts a cycle, by example, that creates better GMing across the board, beyond the module itself.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;590120

Quote from: Benoist;590114OK. What if the designer's intent is for your DM to grab the written material and run like hell with it, playing his own riff off the written page?

If you have to add so much as a dm to make it fun though, what sense in buying the written page in the first place?

Who said anything about the DM having to "add SO MUCH" to be able to run like hell with the material and run it as his own? There are certainly better ways to design modules than just REQUIRE the DM to "ADD SO MUCH" to it on their own that the module in effect won't provide any help whatsoever in running the game as opposed to come up with everything on their own from scratch, aren't there?

I think there's a huge excluded-middle in the way you chose to phrase your question.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;590120There ought to be a core of fun contained in it, which shows the creativity and captures the flavor the designer wanted to convey for anyone who played and dm'd the game, right?  In my experience over 2 sessions, there was none of that in there.

I think you can certainly convey atmosphere, provide opportunities for fun adventuring, provide tools that help run the environment as a dynamic place instead of a stale picture and conceptualize, internalize, visualize it as such as you run the game itself, AND provide hooks for the GM to grab the ideas and substance behind the setting to run it as his own. It sounds like Dwimmermount doesn't do much of that, which certainly sounds like a missed opportunity, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: Benoist;590124It sounds like Dwimmermount doesn't do much of that, which certainly sounds like a missed opportunity, as far as I'm concerned.

hence my blog post, and this thread.

Just one final post on the matter, because I think I've said all I can on it to explain where I'm coming from---just so you guys don't think the DM was in the corner sucking a cock or something while all this was going on, he did a very good job with what he could.  He played the monsters intelligently---it wasn't just a "kick it down, swing at orcs, they fight to death, kill 'em, collect 2-6 sp from their purses."  He played the bad guys intelligently and had us on our toes at times.  Those moments though were much fewer and further between than we would have liked, due to him having to make the best of what was given to him, and the desire we had to play DM RAW.  

Like I said, we expected it to be tough, and part of the reason we wanted it RAW was so that we could say "Yeah, we beat DM level one and we only had X# of deaths."  The other part was to experience the flavor of the module as the creator intended it to be, without any other influences added by our DM to jazz it up or make it fit our playstyle or sense of fun.  We just had no idea it would be so sparse in that level of detail so as to be no fun whatsoever.  We enjoyed each others company and had fun on that level, but the module added nothing to it, and took away from the evening's enjoyment overall.

I really do think that's all I can say on the whole thing though.  I had no idea that my DM's blogpost, then mine following up on his, would create such a shitstorm.  I figured some discussion, but not at this level.  I never would have thought 6 people agreeing that something was boring and lame would lead to so many people dissecting our words and experiences so much, trying in many cases to turn the blame back on us.  It's almost as if someone can't say something sucked anymore, or that there are sacred cows that you can't touch.

Anyhow, over and out.  Gonna have a white russian or two, and watch something stupid on tv.

later...

I actually thought this was a pretty constructive thread all-in-all. It has certainly made me think a lot about how I write at least.

I'm kind of flabberghasted that this kind of discussion, as soon as it does not go overboard with raves and utter/complete support for the product, would be labeled a "shitstorm" in any way, shape or form. This is so far from the reality of this thread I have to wonder what kind of braindead groupthink would generate these types of reactions where you can't criticize anything without being shot down as a "hater".

That's bullshit. Fuck that noise.

Honestly, Joe, I thank you very much for your feedback, for not taking things personally when I criticized your approach to the module, and estar with whom all exchanges, no matter how contentious, are fruitful, as well as Justin and Kent for their examples, and everyone else who's thrown his own two coppers on this thread. We've had a good discussion so far. It's good food for thought for anyone who'll care, and speaking for myself, I certainly do.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;590061OSR 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.

I said as much over on G+

In the early days, wouldn't even think of running a dungeon without tweaking it first...

Quote from: Benoist;590178I'm kind of flabberghasted that this kind of discussion, as soon as it does not go overboard with raves and utter/complete support for the product, would be labeled a "shitstorm" in any way, shape or form. This is so far from the reality of this thread I have to wonder what kind of braindead groupthink would generate these types of reactions where you can't criticize anything without being shot down as a "hater".

That's bullshit. Fuck that noise.

Honestly, Joe, I thank you very much for your feedback, for not taking things personally when I criticized your approach to the module, and estar with whom all exchanges, no matter how contentious, are fruitful, as well as Justin and Kent for their examples, and everyone else who's thrown his own two coppers on this thread. We've had a good discussion so far. It's good food for thought for anyone who'll care, and speaking for myself, I certainly do.

Yeah there was a lot more shit thrown on G+ than here.  I try not to take things personally or argue too much.  Not worth it.  I basically state how I feel or think, explain it if it seems some people aren't understanding me, try and understand the other guy's point as best I can, and leave it at that these days.  I'm not trying to argue or prove a point, or convince anyone of anything.  99.9% of the time, there is no right or wrong in any of these issues, just personal preference, and when there is, it's not arguing about, because it's just a damn rpg.  I just state and explain a my position and leave it at that.  Any arguments over this stuff isn't worth the mental bandwidth.  Glad it turned into a good discussion.  :)

Joe, so we can have a baseline of a module you think is well written, can you name some module you did like?

On which post/discussion did the shit hit the fan on G+?

Links?

Quote from: Mistwell;590197Joe, so we can have a baseline of a module you think is well written, can you name some module you did like?

down that path lies only scorn and derision man.  not worth it.  basically anything that helps me achieve the stuff i said was cool in my blog post, whether as a player or dm.  which varies on a person by person basis.  :)

Quote from: Benoist;590200On which post/discussion did the shit hit the fan on G+?

Links?

not worth the drama man.  its died down. it wasn't major, just more than i thought it would be for 6 people saying the adventure was boring and lame.   lots of questions and stuff, people saying we did it wrong, same as here in the earlier posts.  its over tho.  i'm gonna go back to playing games and having fun.

even the idiots at ydis are getting into it. saying i pay to play dnd on g+, even tho its free, and that i pay satine phoenix to play dnd, even tho we live on other sides of the country.  and that i have asbergerger's, among other things.  kinda funny actually.

i'm done with it.  just wanna roll some dice and have fun.  :)

Quote from: Joethelawyer;590116I didn't expect it to be my style of game completely, but I did expect it to be fun on some level.  To have something interesting in it.  A couple of puzzles or clues or mysteries.  Weird stuff in rooms I can put to some unorthodox creative use later.  Not just weird unexplained shit for the sake of weird unexplained shit, sparingly interspersed with boring rooms and random encounters.  Don't just make the statue on level 1 have something to do with the spear on level 9.  Do some of that long term puzzle mixed with history and background stuff, but also do some that can be solved and discovered in the short term.  Spice it up a bit.

Okay, that's what I was trying to understand through this whole thread.

The general description of Dwimmermount reminded me of Trent Foster's Castle Xanadu, which I've been fortunate enough to adventure in a couple of times. It is constructed very much in the same vein as roots-dungeons, with the one-third empty rooms and so forth, but the parts of it we explored included stuff like psychedelic incense and a ewer which when filled with blood summoned deadly cloud tentacles - after a few drops of blood summoned a few wispy tentacles, we filled up the bowl with blood from hobgoblins we killed, and the tentacles proceeded to kill one of our clerics.

What seems to be missing - in spades - from Dwimmermount is interactivity. 'Deep background' isn't the same thing as having interesting shit to fuck around with.

It's funny that Melan brought up Tegel Manor, 'cause I've been flipping through it over the last couple of weeks as I plan my swashbuckling & sorcery AD&D campaign - that's right, it's on, bitches. Lots of weird shit happening, but most of it pointless, until you factor in the Rump family, and then the place gets epic. The thing is, in Tegel Manor, all the pieces are there, but it takes the referee pulling the pieces together.

Something else that seems to be missing from Dwimmermount, at least from the descriptions? Humor. In one dungeon I kept players entertained while exploring empty rooms with the graffiti left by a pair of rival goblin 'taggers' - and finding one of the taggers' heads on a stake stuck in a torch sconce let them know how the war of words played out.

Quote from: Melan;589982There is probably another cure for lightly keyed dungeons like this, which is to keep the pace lightning-quick and come up with a lot of crap in play. I suspect this was the recipe behind EGG's infamously terse Castle Greyhawk - but in the precise recreation, something essential was lost.

Yup. If I was actually keying that same room for my personal campaign it wouldn't be much more than the original key:

46. 9 giant rats (branded with holy sigils). 20 skulls with 100 cp in each. Jeweled Thulian officer's pin (800 gp), gold necklace (200 gp), and comb (30 gp).

Conversely, if I saw a key that just said "9 giant rats" I'd probably just run a generic "rats in filthy warren" encounter most of the time. OTOH, if I saw "9 rats with 2000 cp" I'd be pretty compelled to explain why these rats have a horde of copper pieces: Is it actually the ancient payroll for the Thulian guard hidden under a loose tile in the corner? Are they scurrying through a hole in the wall that leads to some room stacked high with copper coins? Is the room the receiving end of a teleport effect to another chamber that's malfunctioning and causing copper coins to appear here? Have the copper coins been glued to the ceiling using sovereign glue? (Maybe there's a treasure map on the ceiling that has been hidden behind the coins.)

Given "9 giant rats + 2000 cp" there's a lot of ways you can develop that improv seed.

The problem with Dwimmermount -- at least in the draft copy we've seen so far -- is that Maliszewski's development of the improv seed is mind-numbingly literal and boring the vast majority of the time: 9 rats + 2000 cp? Huh. I guess there's 2000 cp hidden in rat rubbish. Next room!

And the problem is that once you've developed an improv seed into something literal it stops being an improv seed: So the first thing you need to do is roll back the boring and rebuild from scratch.

But if you're doing that, what's the point of the product again? The maps are purely generic. And the improv seed you're rolling back to can be generated using random tables in literally seconds.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;590076Rat 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"

To develop this idea more explicitly: I think any GM worth playing with can take "9 giant rats" and make an interesting encounter out of it.

But if you're publishing an actual adventure for other people to use, then, IMO, you need to present more than just an improv seed. Improv seeds are cheap. If I'm paying you money, it's because I want to take your viewpoint and inject it into my campaign.

In the past I've used the analogy of theater: Every time I direct a new play, I certainly could develop an entirely new script. The reason I don't do that is specifically because I want the voice of Shakespeare or Miller or Stoppard or Chekhov to be part of my production. And that doesn't mean everyone involved in my production should simply sit back and let the playwright do all the work: Directors, designers, and actors all need to make their voice part of the collaboration.

Similarly, when I use a module designed by someone else, I'm doing it because I want their voice to be part of the game session. And the GM and players should certainly be making their own contributions to the process.

But a shitty, boring script doesn't stop being a shitty, boring script just because the directors, designers, and actors are all adding their voice to it. Similarly, a published adventure doesn't stop being a shitty, boring adventure just because the GM and players are all adding their voice to it.

(And I have seen great productions from crappy scripts and great game sessions from crappy adventures. It just doesn't change the quality of the underlying material.)

On the off-chance that it might offer a useful reference point for this discussion, here's a quick sample of what I think an interesting "empty room" key looks like. This particular set of rooms is an expansion of Dark Tidings, as adventure by Monte Cook: In the original module, there's just one room (10) with a hydra in it. I've expanded it into a small compound as shown below: A single hydra will be encountered somewhere in this complex, but that means that most of these rooms will be "empty" when encountered.

(http://www.thealexandrian.net/temp/dark-tidings-expansion-map.jpg)

Area 10 - Hall of the Hydra. Huge clawmarks around the door leading to area 9. The stone has been partially smashed in.

Area 10B - Hydra Transfer Pen. An immense metallic rig runs down the length of the chamber, immense lengths of chain which apparently once belonged to it lie in ruined heaps. One entire side has been physically yanked out of the stone, descending into a tumbled ruin on the western side of the chamber.

DM Background: Hydras were once chained to this rig in order to control them in moving them between the male pens (10I) and female pen (10C).

Area 10C - Hydra's Den. Large, mountainous pile of rock collapsed from the ceiling. A dais in one corner of the room functions as a create food and water spell (creating enough food for 1 adult hydra) automatically once per day as long as a living hydra is in the area.

Area 10D - Nest of Glass. A nest of multi-colored glass has been carefully arranged to nestle 4 large hydra eggs. (2 are dead from the torpor effects of the Sartalin Sphere. 1 will hatch as soon as it's removed from the torpor-effect. 1 will hatch within 2d4 weeks if removed from the torpor effect.)

Area 10E - Shattered Laboratory. Scorch marks, melted remnants of metallic equipment, huge claw-wrought gouges on the wall in the northwest corner.

Area 10F - Hatchling Laboratory. Just on the other side of the door leading to 10E are the skeletal remains of a hydra hatchling. An empty hydra eggshell rests in a ceramic basin on a worktable in the center of the room. The dismembered skeleton of a large orc lies in a corner.

ALCHEMICAL EQUIPMENT: Badly damaged injection devices surround the eggshell.

DM Background: The hatchling was trapped in this area and starved to death, mewling for its mother who clawed desperately at the other side of the wall.

Area 10G - Laboratory Hallway. Long, barren hall of stone.

ONE-WAY WINDOWS: Touching the walls shared with areas 10C or 10I cause them to become transparent from this side.

DM Background: This hall was used by the laboratory workers here to move to the various areas of the Hall of the Hydra.

Area 10H - Research Center.  A few stone tables and chairs of rotten wood. Used to be paper, but its all dust now. On a worktable along one wall are five mummified hydra hearts, two of which were apparently in a state of partial dissection.

DM Background: The researchers working in this room were in 10F (eaten by hatchling) and 10I (eaten by hydras who ripped open their observation cage) when the torpor effect hit.

AREA 10I - Hydra Graveyard. A cage of metal built into the corner of the room has been ripped apart as if by tremendous strength. Along the far end of the hall three hydra skeletons have been arranged as if in funereal ceremony.

BLUESTEEL DOOR: In the north wall here.

DM Background: The metabolisms of the hydras were slowed but not stopped by the Sartalin Sphere’s effects (this was one of the major areas of study in this area).

Quote from: Black Vulmea;590223What seems to be missing - in spades - from Dwimmermount is interactivity. 'Deep background' isn't the same thing as having interesting shit to fuck around with.

This is astute.

I think if you look at the level as a whole, it does have interesting stuff.

The room in question was simply an old storeroom now inhabited by rats. It's not like it was the focus of the entire first level...it's just a storeroom.

Do people today want dungeons where every room has cool stuff in it? That's what it sounds like...

And for that Hydra example - what if the players only went through 1/3 of the rooms and never found anything? That's essentially the case here (or so it sounds like).

If you let players explore on their own, they have a chance of missing stuff. But that doesn't mean you should lead them to every interesting room, nor does it mean that it's a bad module.

But it sounds like the party found nothing interesting at all.

Look at some adventures by Gabor Lux for examples of dungeon interactivity done right. "Temple of the Sea Demon" and anything from his Isles on an Emerald Sea series spring to mind. Players can miss rooms, find them, ignore things or play with them but there damn sure is a lot of intriguing dressing, tricks to play with & history that can be discovered in fun, dangerous or beneficial ways.

Dwimmermount so far seems like a fairly standard, mundane mega-dungeon- exactly as I would have concluded considering how it was generated and the blog style of the author. Nothing wrong with that, I am sure the dungeon will have it's shining moments on other levels, but it hardly matches the enormous hype created by the publicity announcements & wild success of the Kickstarter.

Quote from: Benoist;590115I have to disagree with that notion, having run published modules and adventures for a wide variety of games as well as my own material in quite a few occasions. I think the real key is this ability for the GM reading the material to own it and run it as his own.

From there, the point of a written module should be, as far as I'm concerned, to provide the means and tools for a variety of GMs out there to be able to do just that. When this design goal is achieved, you actually are providing a more "authentic" old school experience to a wide variety of groups and playstyles than you would ever have trying to replicate your own play style as a GM (let alone some dead guy's) onto the page trying to make people run games the way you are at your own game table.

PS: noticed Melan's post above. I think we're trying to express the same core idea in different ways here.

I agree. I run tons of published adventures on many games, and I have found them very very useful. Also, some people have played those adventures after having experienced them before, and sometimes they didn't even realize it.

Quote from: noisms;590117Do you think there is no difference between a good GM running his own dungeon and an equally good GM running a published module?

I don't think that should necessarily happen, no.

Quote from: Benoist;590121I think there will be in effect no difference because the good GM will run the published module AS his own dungeon. Now the relevant question as far as module design is concerned, in my opinion, is HOW the module allows GMs to rise to that level and in effect, BECOME good GMs running the material as their own, which in turn will affect their inspiration and the way they come up with their own stuff, which starts a cycle, by example, that creates better GMing across the board, beyond the module itself.

Yeah.

Quote from: Benoist;590178I'm kind of flabberghasted that this kind of discussion, as soon as it does not go overboard with raves and utter/complete support for the product, would be labeled a "shitstorm" in any way, shape or form. This is so far from the reality of this thread I have to wonder what kind of braindead groupthink would generate these types of reactions where you can't criticize anything without being shot down as a "hater".

That's bullshit. Fuck that noise.

Honestly, Joe, I thank you very much for your feedback, for not taking things personally when I criticized your approach to the module, and estar with whom all exchanges, no matter how contentious, are fruitful, as well as Justin and Kent for their examples, and everyone else who's thrown his own two coppers on this thread. We've had a good discussion so far. It's good food for thought for anyone who'll care, and speaking for myself, I certainly do.

Yup, great thread :)

Quote from: JeremyR;590245The room in question was simply an old storeroom now inhabited by rats. It's not like it was the focus of the entire first level...it's just a storeroom.

Then it probably should not have exactly 2000 cp in it. That is the kind of thing that demands an explanation and players are going to get very frustrated if there isn't one.

If a treasure says 2,000 Sp or whatever, I always roll 1d1000 twice and sum it, unless there is a specific reason that exactly 2,000 S.P. would be in the treasure (like... a barrel full of silver, a chest with a an accounting note) or some such thing.

Focusing on 2000cp seems like a ridiculous over-reaction, but it really does point to laziness and a lack of detail.  Why not just a random number?  Why only copper?  How did it get there?  If the answer was that rats like shiny stuff and gathered it, should have been...
2d1000 cp
1d20 sp
1d6 ep
1d2 gp (if the players specifically search the entire room)
...or whatever.

9 rats with 2000cp is the kind of stuff that got modules laughed at in the early days and rightfully so.  It's a cliche of random roll dungeon design with no rhyme or reason, ie.  N00b Mistake.  I think that's what is causing all the Sturm und Drang.

However, I sure as hell wouldn't want to have to create and publish a megadungeon worth something with the RPGsphere breathing down my neck and crawling up my ass with a microscope, but then again, I didn't get paid more then the yearly salary of the FFG 40k Line Developer for the product, either.

Quote from: CRKrueger;590332Focusing on 2000cp seems like a ridiculous over-reaction,

Welcome to RPGSite!  :pundit:

Quote from: CRKrueger;590332Focusing on 2000cp seems like a ridiculous over-reaction, but it really does point to laziness and a lack of detail.

I think that a key point is a huge aspect of dungeon exploration is that your characters are actually looking for things that seem odd, as they are often vital clues to what is going on. So any oddity you add automatically becomes a Chekhov's Gun in that the audience (i.e. the players) has been conditioned to expect it to lead to resolution.

So as a writer you possibly need to be thinking what expectations am I setting up in this room, and am I providing any pay off for them.

A similar situation came up in the Blingdenstone play-test I ran, when the PCs discovered that there was nothing interesting on the other side of a set of pretty complex secret doors. That quickly moved them from being immersed in the game to an out-of-character conversation de-constructing the scenario.

I disagree, 2000cp isn't laziness and lack of attention to detail - it's valuing game play over verisimilitude.

When you're totaling up the loot, it is a lot less bookkeeping to deal with 2000cp, than say 1932 cp, 4 sp, 10 ep, 1 gp, and 3 pp.  It's also easier to communicate to the players, and takes less space on the page.

I'm going by memory here, but I believe that most TSR modules do the same thing. Although I only really have modules up to the early 80's, and couldn't say a thing about how 2e and beyond dealt with loot.

Quote from: JeremyR;590245The room in question was simply an old storeroom now inhabited by rats. It's not like it was the focus of the entire first level...it's just a storeroom.

No single room is going to demonstrate the problem, because it can always be dismissed as "just one room".

QuoteAnd for that Hydra example - what if the players only went through 1/3 of the rooms and never found anything?

I don't understand the question. What do you mean by "never found anything"?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;590223The general description of Dwimmermount reminded me of Trent Foster's Castle Xanadu, which I've been fortunate enough to adventure in a couple of times. It is constructed very much in the same vein as roots-dungeons, with the one-third empty rooms and so forth, but the parts of it we explored included stuff like psychedelic incense and a ewer which when filled with blood summoned deadly cloud tentacles - after a few drops of blood summoned a few wispy tentacles, we filled up the bowl with blood from hobgoblins we killed, and the tentacles proceeded to kill one of our clerics.

You're a sweetheart. This testimonial is almost enough to make me want to dig out that notebook and work more of the Castle into playable shape for next summer's SoCal Minicon. Almost.

Quote from: T. Foster;590352This testimonial is almost enough to make me want to dig out that notebook and work more of the Castle into playable shape for next summer's SoCal Minicon.

Give in.  You know you want to.  :)

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;590361Give in.  You know you want to.  :)

Ditto. ;)

Quote from: noisms;590117Do you think there is no difference between a good GM running his own dungeon and an equally good GM running a published module?

I agree with the implication here that there is no comparison between creative DMs running their own material and DMs who were nurtured on modules and failed to grow out of that dependancy.

Quote from: Benoist;590121I think there will be in effect no difference because the good GM will run the published module AS his own dungeon.

We are at a point where we might define a third category of DM, a very large one at that, of great pretenders who claim to be creative but do little more than rearrange the furniture, move and resize rectangles into 'new' maps and restock random tables with brand new monsters from the monster manual (or the fiend folio!) to make a new dungeon.

For this category there is of course no difference between running their own permutation of the same old shit and the same old shit itself. Are they creative? No, they are not creative.

JMal, based on accounts so far, falls into this group. As does anyone who believes this type of DM is creative.

Quote from: PatW;590346I disagree, 2000cp isn't laziness and lack of attention to detail - it's valuing game play over verisimilitude.

Bollox. If numbers frighten you don't leave coins around at all. Or you could call piles of coins "treasure units" and put plastic buttons down on the board of whatever boardgame you play when you claim you are playing D&D.

PatW, I'll bet as a grown man you are still playing a version of D&D with training wheels still on it. BECMI?

Quote from: CRKrueger;590332Focusing on 2000cp seems like a ridiculous over-reaction, but it really does point to laziness and a lack of detail.  

That's the thing.  The treasure types should be a guideline to the value and portability of the treasure found, not to be interpreted literally.  "2000 cp" should indicate a fairly low-value accumulation of goods that will be a major pain in the ass to get out of the dungeon.  A few old pewter belt buckles, the belts to which they belonged long-since rotted away; an old and heavy ironwood chair that's badly beaten and scuffed but might get some silver if sold for scrap; etc.

I'm surprised that stuff like this is in Dwimmermount.  EGG had a fairly in-depth description of how to create a treasure hoard using the tables as a guide in the DMG.  It's one of the better sections of that book, really, and I'm surprised Mr. Old School didn't heed such guidelines.

Wow, getting ugly in here. I will say that I don't think it was the DMs fault. We did ask him to run it RAW.

JMal does not strike me as old school. He's more like a music academic from the 80s trying to recreate Woodstock.

Quote from: T. Foster;590352You're a sweetheart. This testimonial is almost enough to make me want to dig out that notebook and work more of the Castle into playable shape for next summer's SoCal Minicon. Almost.

Wait, there's a SoCal minicon?

Quote from: Mistwell;590388Wait, there's a SoCal minicon?

SoCal MiniCon 1 (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=29459)
SoCal MiniCon 2 (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=35247)
SoCal MiniCon 3 (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=44620)
SoCal MiniCon #4 (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=51026)
SoCal MiniCon 4 (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=49546)
A Fifth of SoCal MiniCon (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=53491)

Also here (http://cyclopeatron.blogspot.com/search/label/socal%20minicon).

Quote from: Joethelawyer;590165I had no idea that my DM's blogpost, then mine following up on his, would create such a shitstorm.  I figured some discussion, but not at this level.  I never would have thought 6 people agreeing that something was boring and lame would lead to so many people dissecting our words and experiences so much, trying in many cases to turn the blame back on us.  It's almost as if someone can't say something sucked anymore, or that there are sacred cows that you can't touch.

Oh, please.

I started this thread because I wanted to make sure I was understanding the whole context of what you wrote, not to call you on the carpet over it. You may believe, "Be awesome!" perfectly communicates your experience and expectations, but all I see is a tired, over-used - including by me - hackneyed phrase tossed off by gamers that really says nothing to anyone, since we all have (sometimes radically) different ideas of what it means to be 'awesome!'

The irony of branding yourself a "Shit-Stirrer" then getting defensive and evasive - really? you can't name a couple of other published dungeon crawls you liked 'cause why, exactly? - at the response to a strongly negative review is palpable.

I genuinely appreciate you answering my questions, as it helps me understand a bit more about your reaction, but as far as this persecution complex stuff? Geebus, get over yourself.

Quote from: _kent_;590375Bollox. If numbers frighten you don't leave coins around at all. Or you could call piles of coins "treasure units" and put plastic buttons down on the board of whatever boardgame you play when you claim you are playing D&D.

I think Mike Mearls already did that, didn't he?

Quote from: T. Foster;590352You're a sweetheart. This testimonial is almost enough to make me want to dig out that notebook and work more of the Castle into playable shape for next summer's SoCal Minicon. Almost.

:)

Truth be told, I'd much rather go back to the pub and play there again.

In any case, Jacques l'Ecuyer is ready to strap on a dead man's armor and plumb the depths of Castle Xanadu anytime, Trent, though I'd really like to deal with those bandits on the surface first . . .

Quote from: Joethelawyer;590165I really do think that's all I can say on the whole thing though.  I had no idea that my DM's blogpost, then mine following up on his, would create such a shitstorm.  I figured some discussion, but not at this level.

I thought your blogpost was perfectly clear and this thread was inevitable as soon as anyone posted a recap of his experience with DMount. The fact that you are asked to account for some of your observations and that you were willing to do so is a sign that the discussion is healthy though the OP does appear in fact to harbour prissy suspicions.

It would be interesting to hear a positive report resulting from DMount play from someone who is equally willing to explain his thinking, although being branded as an admirer of DMount at this point could be a scar he is unwilling to bear unless he was a liar of the calibre of Zak Shibboleth with some motive like 'We sell our shit to morons, we band of brothers'.

And, excepting Philotomy, maybe it would be a good thing if the knights & knaves hivemind, if you can call six monkeys a hive, would slink back to their tiny tiny forum where they sniff and eat each others faeces.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;590076Yeah 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.

Any decent DM should be able to turn that kind of chickenshit into chicken Kiev.

Quote from: thecrazygm;590380Wow, getting ugly in here. I will say that I don't think it was the DMs fault. We did ask him to run it RAW.

That was your mistake. Most old-school modules were sparse on details for most of the areas covered. I mean, did you ask the DM to run any of the G or D series without fleshing them out? Sounds like you were asking for a shitty time, got one, and are now blaming Mr Grognardia.

Quote from: _kent_;590374I agree with the implication here that there is no comparison between creative DMs running their own material and DMs who were nurtured on modules and failed to grow out of that dependancy.

I don't know, maybe it's good to try someone else's material if for no other reason than to try something new and surprise players who have become too familiar with a particular DM's style.

QuoteAnd, excepting Philotomy, maybe it would be a good thing if the knights & knaves hivemind, if you can call six monkeys a hive, would slink back to their tiny tiny forum where they sniff and eat each others faeces.

Now now...

You're being grossly unfair to the Teabaggers of D&D. There are at least nine or ten members doing the K&K Circlejerk -1st Edition Circlejerk, of course.

Quote from: Elfdart;590451Now now...

You're being grossly unfair to the Teabaggers of D&D. There are at least nine or ten members doing the K&K Circlejerk -1st Edition Circlejerk, of course.

That's true...and only six of them are sockpuppet accounts belonging to Kent and Elfdart.

Quote from: _kent_;590441And, excepting Philotomy, maybe it would be a good thing if the knights & knaves hivemind, if you can call six monkeys a hive, would slink back to their tiny tiny forum where they sniff and eat each others faeces.

Oh brother!

It sounds like the kind of dungeon that makes a lot of gamers hate really big dungeons.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;590489It sounds like the kind of dungeon that makes a lot of gamers hate really big dungeons.

Yeah, it really does.

Quote from: Elfdart;590451I don't know, maybe it's good to try someone else's material if for no other reason than to try something new and surprise players who have become too familiar with a particular DM's style.

That may be so. I was responding to the notion that players (who had never heard of the modules) could detect no difference between those games when a DM ran his own material and ran a published dungeon.

Quote from: Elfdart;590451Now now ... You're being grossly unfair to the Teabaggers of D&D. There are at least nine or ten members doing the K&K Circlejerk -1st Edition Circlejerk, of course.

When I want an easy win to let everyone know who's boss I make fun of Zak Shibboleth and the inbred monkey tribe of the K&KA (excepting Philotomy and actually grodog too). It's like taking a hot shower, relaxing and invigorating at the same time, like sipping coffee while having a massage.

Quote from: EOTB;590461That's true...and only six of them are sockpuppet accounts belonging to Kent and Elfdart.

Again (http://somekingskent.blogspot.com/2012/04/fuck-yeah-im-coming-back.html).

Quote from: RPGPundit;590489It sounds like the kind of dungeon that makes a lot of gamers hate really big dungeons.

RPGPundit

I don't hate megadungeons but I don't really get the appeal. I've played in one and built one as a DM and the interest just wasn't there.

Quote from: Elfdart;590656I don't hate megadungeons but I don't really get the appeal. I've played in one and built one as a DM and the interest just wasn't there.

They aren't really my favorite environment either. But I think that if one is really well-written, and isn't just a series of disconnected rooms that serve no purpose, then at least its going to be more generally playable.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Joethelawyer;590021I think a takeaway is that the quality of the module is determined by how much you have to tweak it to make it fun.

I agree with this. It takes me two seconds to decide a room has 9 rats and 2000 cp in it. That's not of great value to me. It's the additional stuff, the real zest and creativity, that makes a product worth parting with good cash for.

Otherwise, I'll just make a map (or steal a suitable one) and do the work myself.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;590400SoCal MiniCon 1 (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=29459)
SoCal MiniCon 2 (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=35247)
SoCal MiniCon 3 (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=44620)
SoCal MiniCon #4 (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=51026)
SoCal MiniCon 4 (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=49546)
A Fifth of SoCal MiniCon (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=53491)

Also here (http://cyclopeatron.blogspot.com/search/label/socal%20minicon).

I emailed the guy in the last link, who seemed to be in charge in prior years.  He's moved to NYC, and says it's kinda unclear who is in charge for next year, but that there should be a post that works it all out eventually over at dragonsfoot.

megadungeons are an art form and, unfortunately, some megdungeon creators are more cecilia gimenez than elias garcia martinez.

Quote from: ICFTI;590915megadungeons are an art form and, unfortunately, some megdungeon creators are more cecilia gimenez than elias garcia martinez.

I am really tempted to sig this.

Quote from: ICFTI;590915megadungeons are an art form and, unfortunately, some megdungeon creators are more cecilia gimenez than elias garcia martinez.

And THAT, ladies and gentleman, is how you use a pop culture reference to good effect.

Wow, a few sick days and you miss an incredible thread. Benoist's examples of a megadungeon really inspired me to try my own hand at one and reading this thread was really food for thought.

I think I've made a few comments about this situation on various blogs (in a nice combination of a fever/medicinal haze) and I know I was at least fairly rude to Tenkar and maybe Joethelawyer, but after reading what has been said I still feel that the fault lies not in the stars with the way this game was run.

I didn't notice any references to module G1 Steading of the Hill Giant Chief iin this thread. It is perhaps my all time favorite module but it suffers from a bad translation from tournament scenario to published module.

I have seen and heard from far too many inexperienced DM's that just didn't know what to do with this module. Gygax has stripped down the encounters by placing the bulk of the active opponents all in a single locale, the great hall, while also making them extremely vulnerable to area effect attacks. Fair enough, but there is only minimal guidance in the module as to what might happen next, and none as to what the steading would be like at any other times. I have heard many times that DM's would simply run the module by always having the giants and guests crowded into the great hall no matter what time of day or night, or how many times the steading had been attacked or explored.

The module should have been re-written so that the giants were normally scattered about the hall doing their business with some idea of what their normal business would have been. The assembly in the great hall, the tournament scenario, should have been an option. I know that many DMs see G1 as a static adventure, but I think it screams out to be active and vibrant, a living place with continuous activity, making the players feel that time was not on their side and that they needed to act, and act quickly.

I have no idea about Dwimmermount. The descriptions I've heard do not appeal to me, but from what Tenkar and Joethelawyer have said it does not sound like it has been run well. The DM makes or breaks an adventure. The DM is a filter. Bad adventure, then the DM sets it aside. The DM runs the world, sets the tone, creates the atmosphere, gauges the players interest, and more, but if the DM does not like the adventure then how are they supposed to do all these things, and get the players to like the adventure as well?

I don't know if it is said anymore but as a DM you buy a module, you read through it, you change what you don't like about it or what you think will not work for you and your players. If you don't like it you set it aside for a reread, steal the elements you like for future adventures, return it to the store, tear it in half and throw it at the wall... but you don't inflict it on your players. There are only 1,000+ other adventures to try out there, many of them free, and if the DM doesn't like the adventure in hand, and cannot salvage it for their use, then they turn to another published adventure or their own imagination.

With a DM that did not like the adventure as written it seems unlikely that a good time would be had for this group. It is very hard to tell whether this is a bad module or simply a bad situation. My personal feeling, which I think I developed from the style of module design in the past, is that any published module needs to be read by the DM first, judged worthy for play or set aside, and altered to the DMs taste and style. I never thought of module design to be set for RAW and do not believe RAW play is a fair test of an adventure.

Quote from: noisms;590117Do you think there is no difference between a good GM running his own dungeon and an equally good GM running a published module?

Quote from: Benoist;590121I think there will be in effect no difference because the good GM will run the published module AS his own dungeon.

We are at a point where we might define a third category of DM, a very large one at that, of great pretenders who claim to be creative but do little more than rearrange the furniture, move and resize rectangles into 'new' maps and restock random tables with brand new monsters from the monster manual (or the fiend folio!) to make a new dungeon.

For this category there is of course no difference between running their own permutation of the same old shit and the same old shit itself. Are they creative? No, they are not creative.

Quote from: _kent_;590960We are at a point where we might define a third category of DM, a very large one at that, of great pretenders who claim to be creative but do little more than rearrange the furniture, move and resize rectangles into 'new' maps and restock random tables with brand new monsters from the monster manual (or the fiend folio!) to make a new dungeon.

For this category there is of course no difference between running their own permutation of the same old shit and the same old shit itself. Are they creative? No, they are not creative.

I don't care if they are 'creative'. Are they fun? Are they and their players having fun? Bottomline for a game. Is it fun?

Sometimes I like a game that just lets me go around and blow the heads off zombies. I don't even need a reason.

Quote from: JasonZavoda;590959The module should have been re-written so that the giants were normally scattered about the hall doing their business with some idea of what their normal business would have been. The assembly in the great hall, the tournament scenario, should have been an option. I know that many DMs see G1 as a static adventure, but I think it screams out to be active and vibrant, a living place with continuous activity, making the players feel that time was not on their side and that they needed to act, and act quickly.

I disagree that the giants should be scattered about specifically because the scenario is interesting when run as an active compound. Because while the majority of the giants were in the great hall, the majority of the treasure wasn't.

If you run the scenario as a static environment, then its current design is incredibly boring: There's a ridiculously tough encounter in area 11 and the rest of the compound is filled with penny ante opposition. It's completely lopsided and poorly paced.

It's when the scenario is run as an active environment that this setup becomes interesting: Do you alert the giants? Can you successfully ambush them with area-effect spells? Can you barricade them in an burn the whole place down around them? Can you wait for them to take bathroom breaks and pick them off one by one? Can you take out the support staff ninja-style and then fill the compound with booby traps that you can lure the giants through?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;590968I disagree that the giants should be scattered about specifically because the scenario is interesting when run as an active compound. Because while the majority of the giants were in the great hall, the majority of the treasure wasn't.

If you run the scenario as a static environment, then its current design is incredibly boring: There's a ridiculously tough encounter in area 11 and the rest of the compound is filled with penny ante opposition. It's completely lopsided and poorly paced.

It's when the scenario is run as an active environment that this setup becomes interesting: Do you alert the giants? Can you successfully ambush them with area-effect spells? Can you barricade them in an burn the whole place down around them? Can you wait for them to take bathroom breaks and pick them off one by one? Can you take out the support staff ninja-style and then fill the compound with booby traps that you can lure the giants through?

My fault, that should be 'scattered about the steading' though I think the rest of what I was saying is exactly what you are saying here.

Scattered about the steading they are going to be very difficult to take down with area effect spells.

Quote from: _kent_;590960We are at a point where we might define a third category of DM, a very large one at that, of great pretenders who claim to be creative but do little more than rearrange the furniture, move and resize rectangles into 'new' maps and restock random tables with brand new monsters from the monster manual (or the fiend folio!) to make a new dungeon.

For this category there is of course no difference between running their own permutation of the same old shit and the same old shit itself. Are they creative? No, they are not creative.

I see what you mean. You are talking about the GMs who run modules in a pseudo-creative fashion, then just run their own thing by switching around the look of the elements but don't basically come up with anything of their own. These guys do exist, there's no doubt about it.

What I'm talking about is the guys that are creative individuals, run whatever comes into their grasp as their own, injecting their own creativity into it, and do that naturally as it comes to design their own for their enjoyment.

As to whether one category's bigger than the other at any one time, I'm not sure. I honestly have no guess to give. But what I am sure of is that these categories are fluid, in the sense that GMs can move from being one type to the other, and back and forth over time, and that the game structures, the games themselves, the modules etc can either help them being creative, or on the contrary trap them into a prefabricated experience, both of which will likely shape their expectations for latter products as well.

The core question to me is how a module can go about helping and encouraging the GM to run things using his own creative juices and in effect, get a clue that he, as anyone, can be that great GM he always wanted to be. I'm not sure there's a perfect, ultimate way to go about this, because the module format comes with its own inherent flaw of being written by someone else, but the content can help certainly, instead of you know, cutting off your creative balls to change you from a fired up creator to a braindead consumer.

Quote from: Benoist;590992I see what you mean. You are talking about the GMs who run modules in a pseudo-creative fashion, then just run their own thing by switching around the look of the elements but don't basically come up with anything of their own. These guys do exist, there's no doubt about it.

To add a general point is that there is no single creative stat an individual possesses. A person may be highly original when it comes to creating and roleplaying NPCs but very derivative when creating locales like a dungeon. In short creativity comes in different flavors and measures.

Kent is way off base in his definition of who is creative and who is not. Being able to successfully adjudicate and manage a roleplaying session is a highly creative process in of itself. Even only using material made by others.

Quote from: estar;590996To add a general point is that there is no single creative stat an individual possesses. A person may be highly original when it comes to creating and roleplaying NPCs but very derivative when creating locales like a dungeon. In short creativity comes in different flavors and measures.

Kent is way off base in his definition of who is creative and who is not. Being able to successfully adjudicate and manage a roleplaying session is a highly creative process in of itself. Even only using material made by others.

I think collectively, everyone is applying their own definitions to what creativity is, or what being creative means.

So...they're being creative, in the definition of creativity? :D

The Giants module was one of my favorite modules I ever played.  And yes, our DM ran it quite dynamically.  

As players we managed to figure out that sometimes many giants were gathered in the great hall.  So we waited for one of those times, and our mage and thief got up on the roof of the hall, the thief quietly carved a hole in the ceiling, and then the mage started to fire down area attack spells at the giants in the hall.  The rest of the party ambushed any giants fleeing out the main doors.

The giants reacted by throwing big things at the hole in the ceiling, and then doing a giant-pyramid to get to it.  Meanwhile, they rapidly figured out the ambush, closed and held their main doors locked, and started to bust through two walls (on either side of the room) to open up new exits.  They're very strong, so this was doable.  

Suddenly our clever ambush turned into our party being split and under assault.  We eventually ended up fleeing, with crap being toss at us from afar for a while.  

And on our return, the giants had an entirely different setup and tactics prepared, with barricades, reinforcements from some of the outer rooms, a better alarm system, the works.

We did eventually win out against them, but damn was that a fun module. I love it when strategy can play such a strong role in the outcome, as opposed to purely PC abilities.  It really felt like a problem to solve for us as players, as opposed to just combat.

I think there's a huge excluded middle here.  

Do some newbie GMs get the modules, run them 100% as is, even stopping characters from doing something that isn't accounted for in the module?  Yeah, some do.  And then they realize how much that sucks and they stop.

Are there GMs who have never read a single module, and have through deep self-evaluation and Jungian psycho-surgery prevented their mind from absorbing things from movies, books, comics, real life, etc and everything springs from their mind a wholly new creation? Umm, well maybe the never read a module part. :D

Everyone else is in between.

Quote from: Novastar;591152So...they're being creative, in the definition of creativity? :D

But some are being more creative with the definition of creative than others. :)

I never ran the "Giants" modules; but I plan to run a very modified version of it rather shortly.  I'll let people know how it goes.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Justin Alexander;589975I was not a member of that group, but the one thing that leaped out at me was the lack of awesome. I'm a big fan of negative space contrasting positive space in adventure design, but 90% of my negative space is still filled with interesting things.

For example, the "best gamer rant I've heard in a long time" (as Tenkar described it) is talking about room 46. In the original notes that room is keyed as:



In the current draft, that's been expanded to:



When I talked in the other thread about the fact that Maliszewski's method of expanding his minimalist key mostly consisted of using more words to describe a minimalist key, this is what I was talking about.

How could you take that same minimalist key and make it something interesting?

This room contains broken pieces of wood, straw, string, and other random detritus that 9 giant rats have collected and brought here. In the center of the room -- in a space cleared of rubbish -- are twenty skulls arranged in a circle. Each skull has been filled with exactly 100 copper pieces.

When anyone enters the room, a number of rats equal to the number of people entering the room will circle counter-clockwise around the circle of skulls, approach the entrants, rise up on the hind legs, and stretch out their paws as if waiting to receive something. Each of the rats has the holy symbol of a Thulian god branded onto its back.

If the rats are given a coin, they will place it in one of the skulls. (But there will still only be 100 coins in each skull.) If they are given any other valuables, they will scurry away and hide them in the piles of refuse. If anyone attempts to cross the room without giving them a coin or something else of value, the rats will swarm and attack.

Amidst this rubbish can be found 2000 cp, a jeweled pin (800 gp), a gold necklace (200 gp), and an expensive comb (30gp). The jeweled pin is actually a Thulian officer's pin that once belonged to one of the apparitions in room 59. If it is returned to its original owner, the ghost will reward the good citizen by offering to teach them the game of zatriko.

Estar says this place is really, really cool if you've played with Maliszewski DMing it. Sounds plausible. But that has not translated itself well into his written key. (Estar will probably ascribe this to the "impossibility" of realizing a megadungeon in print. In reality, it's just a failure to execute.)

Now, see, this would have been interesting.

There is something going on.  There are choices that could come up, not necessarily obvious, such as giving the rats something.  There are consequences to the actions (such as getting attacked, or not).  There are consequences that reach outside the room.

All of which still amount to 'nine rats, 2000cp, and a couple miscellaneous items' mechanically.  This option engages the players.

Now, it's arguable that Erik could have done this... but in a dungeon prepared by someone else, I would expect that sort of thing to be considered already.  That's the purpose behind running someone else's work.  If we'd just wanted random monster selection plus treasure, we've got that in the DMG.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;590028In 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.

That was an awesome session, things just came together.

I think Erik was mildly stunned, but he rolled with it well.

My session report (http://www.kjd-imc.org/2012/07/14/ack-or-die-session-8-not-exactly-planned/) describes how my character, James Ironwall, saw things.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;590028Dwimmermount 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.

Agreed.  We had lots of moldy, broken-down crap we could maybe set fires with, but nothing really usable in a meaningful way otherwise.

Quote from: kjdavies;595225We had lots of moldy, broken-down crap we could maybe set fires with, but nothing really usable in a meaningful way otherwise.

A number of us have touched on this already - that emptiness can still be interesting and engaging - but at the risk of being dogpiled by the F(riends)o(f)J(ames), I wonder if Maliszewski simply doesn't get this, or if he's just really bad at it.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;595229A number of us have touched on this already - that emptiness can still be interesting and engaging - but at the risk of being dogpiled by the F(riends)o(f)J(ames), I wonder if Maliszewski simply doesn't get this, or if he's just really bad at it.

I don't think I've particularly interacted with him.

I'm coming in late.  I was one of the players in the sessions that prompted this thread.

I had the impression, while playing, of roaming an abandoned museum of broken stuff.  Somebody cared about these things at some point, but there was nothing present to really engage us.

The ghosts?  After we tried to interact with them and there was nothing we could do, I suggested we leave.  "Let's go.  Looks like someone just left the TV on."

Anachronistic, perhaps, but the ghosts were no more interesting to us than the paintings on the wall.  It's possible there was something there and we just didn't get the right combination of actions to trigger it, but that itself is kind of tedious.

There was no particular cause to go anywhere.  The most exciting thing we found as far as gaining some kind of direction was, as I recall, a locked iron door (and as it happens, trapped).  Something different we could interact with, finally!

I started running a megadungeon on Wednesday.  The section explored by the PCs so far is mostly empty because it's the shattered shell of a tower that blew up a little bit a couple generations ago and it's been picked over.  In the three major areas the PCs explored they had a single encounter with a single creature -- and they seemed much more entertained than we were during the Dwimmermount adventure.

The big difference?  They had things to do and mess with. They had something of a goal -- when they found the clock tower and discovered that it spanned up and down from where they were, they wanted to see what was at the bottom, but declined 'jungle gyming' their way down.  That led to some more exploration, blowing through areas that were of no interest (sleeping quarters, abandoned for 40-50 years, with locals picking the place over, are unlikely to have anything of interest) but getting some excited when they found stairs that led to a cellar.

As always, agency is critical.  In Dwimmermount we didn't feel like we really had any.  Even for a random exploration trip, there has to be something to grab the attention of the players.

Quote from: kjdavies;595234I don't think I've particularly interacted with him.

I'm coming in late.  I was one of the players in the sessions that prompted this thread.

I had the impression, while playing, of roaming an abandoned museum of broken stuff.  Somebody cared about these things at some point, but there was nothing present to really engage us.

The ghosts?  After we tried to interact with them and there was nothing we could do, I suggested we leave.  "Let's go.  Looks like someone just left the TV on."

Anachronistic, perhaps, but the ghosts were no more interesting to us than the paintings on the wall.  It's possible there was something there and we just didn't get the right combination of actions to trigger it, but that itself is kind of tedious.

There was no particular cause to go anywhere.  The most exciting thing we found as far as gaining some kind of direction was, as I recall, a locked iron door (and as it happens, trapped).  Something different we could interact with, finally!

I started running a megadungeon on Wednesday.  The section explored by the PCs so far is mostly empty because it's the shattered shell of a tower that blew up a little bit a couple generations ago and it's been picked over.  In the three major areas the PCs explored they had a single encounter with a single creature -- and they seemed much more entertained than we were during the Dwimmermount adventure.

The big difference?  They had things to do and mess with. They had something of a goal -- when they found the clock tower and discovered that it spanned up and down from where they were, they wanted to see what was at the bottom, but declined 'jungle gyming' their way down.  That led to some more exploration, blowing through areas that were of no interest (sleeping quarters, abandoned for 40-50 years, with locals picking the place over, are unlikely to have anything of interest) but getting some excited when they found stairs that led to a cellar.

As always, agency is critical.  In Dwimmermount we didn't feel like we really had any.  Even for a random exploration trip, there has to be something to grab the attention of the players.

Yup, Keith was with us in that game.  This whole debacle, and the debate that has ensued, has been a heck of an interesting learning experience as far as dungeon design goes.  His line that someone left the TV on was perfectly timed to relieve the frustration, best moment in that section of the dungeon.

Resurrecting this for my own playtest report. I had not seen this thread before (or had forgotten it) and found through a google for "D&D Empty Rooms"



Session Report. My Remix is Suck.

Instead of usual weekly game The Pretty Girl, Pokeboy and Little Girl all agreed to play in my remixed level 1 of Dwimmermount. They hated it. After talking about it after I decided that they would have hated the original more ... they agreed. They could have been playing nice but I don't think so.

I was proud of my rewrite ... " a work of genius!" In reality I believe all I did was turn "expansive minimalist room descriptions" in to "terse room descriptions."

The Pretty Girl likes 3e and is confused by basic. The kids hate "1e" as they call it. No one likes to map.
They made a loop from 1 to 16-20, 10, 6, 3, 1, 2, 61, 62, 63.

They liked the Mol-Min, mostly because I do a good campy "Surface Dwellers! Destroy them!" Little girl specifically stated after that orcs are boring. And that at 13 years-old. They couldn't figure out what the statues of the old gods in room 1 wanted them to do. The bodies in 16 were boring. Pokeboy liked flipping switches in 17/the training room, but that was it. 18 was boring, 20 was lame, even though there were sleeping monsters that they decided to not attack. They seemed to enjoy the library in 19, mostly because of the detail of the book, map, and scroll. They heard voices in 14 but didn't go in. 10 was boring. 6 was boring. "Oh boy, more bodies." They slept all the Mol-Min in 3 and beheaded them all. 2 was boring. Little girl hugged the pillar in 61 (because I did it in a Tower of Gygax game at GenCon that she played with me) but she was a human so nothing happened, although they took rubbings of the pillar. The Pretty Girl really liked room 62 because they found the secret door under the dais. The ended up in room 63 where they slept half the Mol-Min and the other three killed them.

The Pretty Girl says that the problem is that there are too many empty rooms. She counts hallways and doors as empty rooms. She wants every room to have something interesting in it ... something to interact with, I think. She loved Tower of Gygax (and lived for 6 hours) because of the interactivity of EVERY room, I think. She specifically commented that the place seemed to have no history.

They liked the Mol-Min. I think they would have liked the Lab Rats. The bogloids are too plain as written, I think.

We talked about the treasure after. They loved ALL of the magic items and they loved the jeweled pin of the elf chick I put in to the rat room. They all agreed they would have kept it for their character to wear. From this I believe that I need to work a little harder on the mundane treasure, but am on the right track, and that the magic treasure is excellent. (Although I am unhappy with the tuba.) The descriptions given to the book, map, and scroll in the library were all well liked.

The rooms need more/better things in them and basing them off of the original doesn't work in the manner in which I did them. The monster rooms need more variety/dressing in them (like the bogloids building the defensive wall, I think?) The empty rooms MUST have things to interact with. The pretty girl is right: empty hallways and normal counts count as 'empty rooms.' They are boring. The real rooms have to break up that monotony.

I read Justin Alexanders example of his take on the rat room. It's not clear I can come up with that degree of interactivity either on the fly or in designing. I don't think I yet UNDERSTAND interactivity to the degree I UNDERSTAND magic items. This causes the rooms to suck. I'll go a little light on myself: I was trying to key of the map key that was already there. You know, the one I called boring 17 or so times in my review. The pillar in 61 or the statue in 11. The pillar has nothing going on, nor does the statue.  As a player you have to TRY HARD to get anything out of either encounter.

How does this sound: You shouldn't have to TRY HARD to have an adventure; you should be able to trip over it. You have to TRY HARD to succeed in the room ... or maybe just try? What is interactivity? What is discovering adventure?

Level 1 has to hit. It has to hit hard and has to hit quickly. The players have to WANT to go in to room after room. A megadungeon needs a hook for level 1. Not gold. Not power. Something else to motivate exploration ... but I'm not sure what that is.

Of course, I'm also now questioning my ability to run my Monday night game for the adult gang. Nothing like some self-loathing to make life fun for a DM.

Remix: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4wpCwKDa4dCbXFOTEktSWNRRkE/edit

The Dream Patrol Report:
========================
Assertion: "Empty rooms build tension" is wrong. Those are bad DM's. Halls and normal doors count as empty rooms, so real rooms should always be fun. You should NOT have to work to find the adventure. You should NOT have to be bored in order to find the adventure. Be bored does NOT make the fun parts more fun.

Assertion: Every single room has to have an interesting description. There are no empty rooms. Abandoned armories have things in them. Caves are full of moss, strange rock shapes, dripping water, tracks in the ground. I think I'm going to reject this assertion. I believe these descriptions are actually a side-affect to the next point.

Assertion: In a homemade adventure I don't know what is going to happen. I am discovering things as the players are and am genuinely excited to do so. This comes across. I run an awesome homemade adventures with almost no prep. I don't do a good job running a module.  In a module I have the answer in front of me. The ghostly chess players can't be interacted with. I am bored because there is nothing to work with. I already know the outcome of the room when the players go in to it. Same with an empty room.

What is it that enables this in a dungeon? In a town it is people?

Monsters are people. How often should monsters attack? The tables say "almost every time" They are wrong. How wrong? Can you talk to the orcs/Mol-Min on level 1? To the boglings/kobolds? Can you talk to these sorts of intelligent monsters all the time? Almost all the time? Is "attacking" the most boring thing that can happen with a monster encounter? Should the players ever be fighting intelligent monsters? Scope: in a dungeon like this?

This is the original key to room in Dwimmermunt, and Jason Alexanders reworking from several months ago, from a thread on TheRpgSite:

Originally Posted by Dwimmermount
The wooden door to this room is partially gnawed through, as it is the nest for 9 giant rats. In addition to the rats, the room itself contains broken pieces of wood, straw, string, and other random detritus that these vermin have collected and brought here. Amidst this rubbish can be found 2000 cp, a jeweled pin (800 gp), a gold necklace (200 gp), and an expensive comb (30gp).

Jasons take:
This room contains broken pieces of wood, straw, string, and other random detritus that 9 giant rats have collected and brought here. In the center of the room -- in a space cleared of rubbish -- are twenty skulls arranged in a circle. Each skull has been filled with exactly 100 copper pieces.

When anyone enters the room, a number of rats equal to the number of people entering the room will circle counter-clockwise around the circle of skulls, approach the entrants, rise up on the hind legs, and stretch out their paws as if waiting to receive something. Each of the rats has the holy symbol of a Thulian god branded onto its back.

If the rats are given a coin, they will place it in one of the skulls. (But there will still only be 100 coins in each skull.) If they are given any other valuables, they will scurry away and hide them in the piles of refuse. If anyone attempts to cross the room without giving them a coin or something else of value, the rats will swarm and attack.

WHY are these different? Why is the interactivity in Jasons 'good' and the interactivity of searching two dead dwarf bodies (as they appear so often in otherwise empty rooms) "bad"? What's the diff? Action vs. passivity? Bizarre shit going on? Some combination of the two?

The Pretty Girl wants something to think about when it's not her turn. To keep herself engaged. (history? puzzle rooms?) Pokeboy and Little Girl are in power fantasy mode and want to be cool.

The Pretty Girls claims to like to map. She also claims to hate mapping. Assertion: there is no "putting your time in" in order to have fun. If mapping is not fun then there should not be mapping. The DM should draw it or provide one, or something like that. Torturing the players is not cool. What does this do to 'the unknown?' Provide some sort of map but keep The Unknown somehow?

Quote from: bryce0lynch;624697The Dream Patrol Report:
========================
Assertion: "Empty rooms build tension" is wrong. Those are bad DM's. Halls and normal doors count as empty rooms, so real rooms should always be fun. You should NOT have to work to find the adventure. You should NOT have to be bored in order to find the adventure. Be bored does NOT make the fun parts more fun.

Disagree.  What if my players made that observation independently when they played through my own megadungeon years back?  Are they bad players?  Brain damaged?

In fact Amy, a very story-oriented player, commented on the "slow burn tension" of this kind of game in a follow-up e-mail; she hadn't played a straight dungeon game in years, and loved it.  No one felt that they had to "work for fun,"  no one felt bored mapping out sparse areas and such.

I don't think every room, corridor and door needs to be "interesting" (whatever that means).  It gets a little stupid if every encounter is rewritten in the manner of The Alexandrian's rewrite of the infamous 2000cp rat room, imo.

Don't get me wrong.  Lyche's dungeon had dozens of weird features (what the Moldvay book calls "specials") and gussied up encounters.  But it wasn't non-stop; the players would run across 1-3 of these during a long session.

Another random thought occurs.

One thing that kept my players interested in exploring more and more of the dungeon from level one had to do with some descriptive elements.  My room notes were very terse, with one line of brief description, one with monsters (if any), one with treasure and location (if any).

In order to keep my descriptions consistent, I included indications of how the walls were decorated (they were plastered and painted); different sections of each level were painted with different colors and patterns.  It wasn't really an important detail, to me, more a reflection of the builder's aesthetic sense, but it intrigued my players, who were trying to figure out the scheme and its significance.

Does this count as "interactivity"?  Not really, to my mind, but it was something.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;624697The Dream Patrol Report:
========================
Assertion: "Empty rooms build tension" is wrong. Those are bad DM's. Halls and normal doors count as empty rooms, so real rooms should always be fun.

Remember your audience here - you're DM'ing kids. What they enjoy is different than what adults enjoy. I can't DM the same with my daughter versus my normal group.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;624697Assertion: "Empty rooms build tension" is wrong. Those are bad DM's. Halls and normal doors count as empty rooms, so real rooms should always be fun. You should NOT have to work to find the adventure. You should NOT have to be bored in order to find the adventure. Be bored does NOT make the fun parts more fun.

I disagree in part. What I feel is important that the mega-dungeon has a logic that can be used as a basis for choice of where to explore. Just throwing player in a maze is a boring for most. But give them a clue about the deeper content than they will have the motivations to explore regardless of the number of empty rooms and corridors.

Again the problem isn't the empty room, the problem is that the players might as well throw darts on a grid for all the meaning their choices have.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;624697Assertion: Every single room has to have an interesting description. There are no empty rooms. Abandoned armories have things in them. Caves are full of moss, strange rock shapes, dripping water, tracks in the ground. I think I'm going to reject this assertion. I believe these descriptions are actually a side-affect to the next point.

A published megadungeon has a tension between word count and detail. Having the same level of detail as a tournament style module will make for a huge and unwieldy product. I am not saying this to defend Dwimmermount, I don't think any of the published megadungeons have found the right balance.

If one is going to publish a megadungeon within a reasonable word count then you are going to have rooms and areas with little more than a descriptive name and maybe a sentence of description. The expectation is that the detail will be supplied for the places that truly needs it and the referee is expected to ab-lib the rest.

While Tegal Manor is perhaps too terse with mostly one line description of room. I had no trouble making the adventure interesting because of the additional detail supplied on the map.

Click on the image for a larger view.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mFjy4EWzmtg/TFn1kTvCRDI/AAAAAAAAA-0/5Pz_GMjwrl0/s320/tegal_manor.jpg) (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mFjy4EWzmtg/TFn1kTvCRDI/AAAAAAAAA-0/5Pz_GMjwrl0/s1600/tegal_manor.jpg)

I think in the end, I feel the correct approach is not just describe the areas of the megadungeon but to teach the reader how the author ran the megadungeon. And to supply the same tools and aides the author used. Anything one person can do can be taught.

It is simply impossible to publish a product with every room having the level of detail of Rob Kuntz's Living Room (a detailed description of a single room from Castle Greyhawk).

Quote from: bryce0lynch;624697Assertion: In a homemade adventure I don't know what is going to happen. I am discovering things as the players are and am genuinely excited to do so. This comes across. I run an awesome homemade adventures with almost no prep. I don't do a good job running a module.  In a module I have the answer in front of me. The ghostly chess players can't be interacted with. I am bored because there is nothing to work with. I already know the outcome of the room when the players go in to it. Same with an empty room.

I find that I have a dozen or two dozen good ideas for an adventure. Once it expands beyond that scope then the well starts going dry. Everybody has a limit. Beyond which they have to start relying on aides to generate ideas and details. That is value of published adventure.

But published adventure differ on how well they save the referee time and effort. Some referee find time totally useless, while other couldn't run a campaign without them. In short there is a bunch of factors that determine whether a published adventure is useful or not.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;624697What is it that enables this in a dungeon? In a town it is people?

A megadungeon is more setting than locale. I think part of the answer for a published megadungeon product is to treat much of it like a setting. Label a warren of two dozen rooms as the kobold lair. Provide important NPCs, give descriptive names, detail the half dozen important places, and expect the referee to ab-lib the rest based on the logic of the setting. Finally write a bit on how you, the author, would ab-lib it.

The introduction to the level is where the author would describe the relationship of the kobolds to the rest of the megadungeon.

Quote from: estar;624734A megadungeon is more setting than locale. I think part of the answer for a published megadungeon product is to treat much of it like a setting. Label a warren of two dozen rooms as the kobold lair. Provide important NPCs, give descriptive names, detail the half dozen important places, and expect the referee to ab-lib the rest based on the logic of the setting. Finally write a bit on how you, the author, would ab-lib it.

I prefer tournament style. I don't want to ad-lib something I paid money for.

Crazily enough, I prep my megadungeon by writing tournament-style, because it relieves me of some of the ad-libbing. Plus, ad-libbing interesting traps and "specials" is a pain because they don't riff off player activities as much as an interaction with monsters/NPC's would.

This doesn't mean that the dungeon isn't reactive - stuff does move around in response to the players, and things move into "cleared out" areas. But it gives a well-described initial state.

As far as practically running a tournament-style megadungeon, you just need to know the intros to the various levels so you have a vague idea of what's going on below, and then the level the players are exploring, and a few rooms down on the levels below in case the fellas get curious and poke their noses down.  You don't have to know the workings of the entire thing at any given time.

Anyhow, that's how I do it.

Quote from: PatW;624735I prefer tournament style. I don't want to ad-lib something I paid money for.

There is nothing wrong with your preference and if in the long run if your viewpoint represents the majority of the market then the consequence then will be a limited number of expensive products. Pretty much the situation we have now. None of the mega-dungeon product I heard of were particularly profitable and most published as a labor of love even by the big names like Necromancer and Goodman Games.

Why not just describe empty rooms in passing?  "Okay, the next chamber is just filled dust and debris...there are doors here and here, where are you going now?"

That way the game doesn't get stalled out with the players meticulously looking for a hidden Cool Thing that doesn't exist, yet they know there is a room there that they can backtrack to to set up camp in if they want.

Quote from: misterguignol;624740Why not just describe empty rooms in passing?  "Okay, the next chamber is just filled dust and debris...there are doors here and here, where are you going now?"

Personally I do this, they just get a sentence or two. But there's a big difference between that and one-page dungeon format, and only about 1 in 6 rooms is truly empty that way - there's often a trap, loot, secret door, or other interesting feature.

Room description needs to be enough to impart authorial intent (especially flavor), but without useless frustrated-novelist levels of detail.

Quote from: misterguignol;624740Why not just describe empty rooms in passing?  "Okay, the next chamber is just filled dust and debris...there are doors here and here, where are you going now?"

That way the game doesn't get stalled out with the players meticulously looking for a hidden Cool Thing that doesn't exist, yet they know there is a room there that they can backtrack to to set up camp in if they want.

That's exactly what I do, and what I advocated earlier in this thread. The problem isn't so much (at least in my experience) having too many empty/uninteresting rooms/areas as too many rooms/areas that the players think are going to be interesting and turn out not to be - wasted effort attempting to interact with something that's non-interactive.

Can't speak to megadungeons specifically, but two elements seem to help with empty rooms: time pressure, and goals.

If time is a factor (wandering monsters, time pressure from a deadline, etc.) then players will have to move quickly through empty rooms and won't have time to be bored. If this means something surprises them, that's fun.

Empty rooms with secret doors could be a problem, though. Especially if the door is key to moving forward or strategically leap-frogging a section. Players can choose to slow down (time tradeoff), and GMs can streamline the process by rolling for searches. There can also be a puzzle element--architectural or other clues to where a secret door should be.

Goals: it's a matter of whether the PCs head into dungeon with an attitude of "entertain me, m*****f*****s" or if they're trying to do something specific. This should also focus their attention and let them skip over the empty spaces.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;624766Can't speak to megadungeons specifically, but two elements seem to help with empty rooms: time pressure, and goals.

If time is a factor (wandering monsters, time pressure from a deadline, etc.) then players will have to move quickly through empty rooms and won't have time to be bored. If this means something surprises them, that's fun.

Empty rooms with secret doors could be a problem, though. Especially if the door is key to moving forward or strategically leap-frogging a section. Players can choose to slow down (time tradeoff), and GMs can streamline the process by rolling for searches. There can also be a puzzle element--architectural or other clues to where a secret door should be.

Goals: it's a matter of whether the PCs head into dungeon with an attitude of "entertain me, m*****f*****s" or if they're trying to do something specific. This should also focus their attention and let them skip over the empty spaces.

Great observations.

The time factor is a big one, yeah.  If you actually track how long a torch or lantern stays lit, those empty rooms suddenly become something more than a bore.

I have a set of movement house rules for movement and mapping that also played into this.  At the standard movement rate, I'd give players dimensions and distances as on the map, as well as compass directions.  They could double the rate and I'd give the dimensions and distances in terms of, say, how far their torchlight reached.  At triple rate, dimensions and distances became very vague; "long" corridor, "really big room", "virtually a closet," etc.  At running speed (4x+), I'd give no distance indicators; "you run forward and the corridor branches left and right," etc.

So many assumptions go into making assertions about what makes the game work for a group.  Threads like this remind me of that.

I had some time to think about your comments while being swamped at work yesterday. I'm going to be all over the place in this post. Sorry.

Empty Rooms
I think I'm talking about some seriously empty/boring rooms when I say Empty Room. The empty rooms in Dwimmermount that have no purpose beyond simply being empty. A meaningless room, maybe? Just some dust and rubble/debris. The Pretty Girl doesn't like feeling that her has been wasted. Even some clues or dungeon history gives her something to think about when 'its not her turn.' She also believe that empty corridors and most doors qualify as empty rooms ... boring and meaninglessness compounded. Now what's the role of the TRULY empty room?

Rest & recovery of resources? Wouldn't it be cool if the players had to worry about a safe place to crash? "Crap! We're all down to 1hp each and no spells and the only place we've found safe to rest is back 3 hours, unless we want to rest i that room with the glowing red column!" But that can't happen in Dwimmermount.

Can you really skip over an empty room? Kind of "GM Fiat" the empty room away in description as several of you have suggested? What about the whole time/resource management thing? You auto-advance the turn tracker or don't advance it at all? That doesn't sound too kosher?

I think that the EXTREME empty room syndrome shown by Dwimmermount really pushed me hard and is making me examine

*) the role of TRULY empty rooms. (above)
*) what interactivity is (the TSR vs OSR thread has some good stuff there, and relates to Dwimmermount since DM seems to be the opposite of interactivity)
*) the role of "talking to the monsters" in the dungeon. How much does one rely on the Monster Reaction tables? I believe the monsters are going to mostly be hostile, on average. That shift a bit if the leader has a CHR mod and a lot if its a great CHR mod. Are you proving that CHR isn't a dump stat by using that table? Or should you be able to talk to most monsters by default? Maybe do something else, like have the "friendly" orcs have an OBVIOUS bag of loot in order to spread some discord. ($$=easy XP!) Wouldn't this appeal more since you adding a social element, giving the players more room to hang themselves, and still not rule out combat at a later date when they are caught with hands in the loot bag?

I solved te mapping problem, I think. It doesn't quite deal with the "did we draw the map correctly?" issue, but solves a lot else. Rather than me draw a map on graph or paper of a battle map, I went ahead and turned to an old technique.

The DM draws a map on posterboard before play and covers it with newsprint. The players use an x-acto knife to cut away the newsprint as they march along. There's a mini on the map to show where they are but the map isn't really to scale. I usually leave off secret passages, etc.

This style moves things along quickly; they keep cutting till they come to something. It avoids all of the mapping questions. It does remove the 'uncertainty' from the players mapping; maybe there's some way to modify this technique to get that back?

I saw this style of mapping when I was nine years old the very first time I ever saw the game D&D. It was at The Game Preserve when it was on the hill in Broad Ripple.  I was with my older sister; I think she was there to buy some pot.

Oh, and most of those rooms are empty. Reptile men came out of that pool of water. in the lower right and they found a body to loot in that cavern in the middle. :)

https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/100747085754234335719/albums/5841794244646012417/5841794247524367010?authkey=CKi6kcCxvLa0SA

Not much time ATM but the purpose...well, one purpose of truly empty rooms is to connect parts of the dungeon together. Especially if it's a corridor with multiple doorways off of it. You've also got space in general--which can be used in the course of combats which start elsewhere, or which figures in logistical/strategic concerns (we are now x feet farther from the staircase), and overall geometry (if the levels are staggered then you need a passage away from the "center" of one level to get down to the next, etc.). Now these can all be occupied or "interesting" in theory but that may make things too crowded.

Ultimately I can't speak to DM since I haven't seen it and I don't even like the name...but empty spaces have never really been a problem for me. I mean, I visualize going through a structure, just as I see myself doing so in a FPS such as Marathon (edit: Halo to you whippersnappers), and as player I take much of the responsibility for not getting bogged down in empty spaces...by just walking through them with more or less caution.

RE: Empty Rooms

For me personally, empty rooms in large dungeon complexes serve one primary function; spacing.

Looking at some of the more compact and densely populated dungeon maps its next to impossible for any shit to break out without the whole dungeon being alerted almost immediately.

Even if that doesn't happen, the PCs have no unoccupied space to retreat to, so you have to either fight the dungeon inhabitants as one large force, or pretend that the gnolls in apartment 6C don't give a rats ass about crime in the neighborhood.

The very best thing about empty rooms are the uses the players find for them. Empty areas give players a chance to use them for rest, set up ambushes, build defensive positions, and whatever else they can think of.

That being said, even empty rooms can have interesting features to avoid being a long series of plain square chambers with piles of debris. Broken furniture and fixtures, a crevasse in the wall or floor, odd construction features that could be used by inventive parties. Basic decent dungeon dressing.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;625493The DM draws a map on posterboard before play and covers it with newsprint. The players use an x-acto knife to cut away the newsprint as they march along. There's a mini on the map to show where they are but the map isn't really to scale. (...)

https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/100747085754234335719/albums/5841794244646012417/5841794247524367010?authkey=CKi6kcCxvLa0SA

Whoa!
Why didn't the mage turn right, towards the SALE, when he had the chance?

Quote from: bryce0lynch;625493I had some time to think about your comments while being swamped at work yesterday. I'm going to be all over the place in this post. Sorry.

Empty Rooms
I think I'm talking about some seriously empty/boring rooms when I say Empty Room. The empty rooms in Dwimmermount that have no purpose beyond simply being empty. A meaningless room, maybe? Just some dust and rubble/debris. The Pretty Girl doesn't like feeling that her has been wasted. Even some clues or dungeon history gives her something to think about when 'its not her turn.' She also believe that empty corridors and most doors qualify as empty rooms ... boring and meaninglessness compounded. Now what's the role of the TRULY empty room?

I don't know Dwimmermount off the top of my head like I do Tegal Manor. For Tegal I did the following. There was one player in the group that liked to poke around rooms and stuff. The sessions when he was present, I ran this at a game store so attendence was erratic, I ad-libbed the contents from the sparse notes I made when I placed Tegal Manor. While it was essentially in-game litter and garbage I was able to make it interesting by tying it back to the owners of the place the Rumps.

Doing this gave the place more life and history than the text of the module would otherwise indicate.

Because my experience running my dungeon which, at least on its upper levels, has both many more rooms and a vastly higher percentage of empty/unkeyed rooms than what folks are complaining about here - my first level has ~250 rooms (I don't know the exact number, it may well be higher) of which at least 75% are empty/unkeyed - is so different than what is being described here as far as player boredom, I wonder if maybe having so many empty rooms creates a different dynamic compared to the 1/3 or so of empty rooms in smaller levels (i.e. 60 rooms total, 20 of them empty) that seem to be drawing all the complaints. Perhaps at that level the empty rooms just seem like a waste of time, but when it's vastly greater - so you know that you pretty much always have to go through 3 or 4 empty rooms for every occupied one, and that in any given session you're going to pass through probably 20 or 30 of them - expectations change, and it becomes understood that the players need to make a pro-active effort to find the non-empty rooms, that that is a big part of the challenge of the game (and it's not random - there is a logic to which rooms are occupied/keyed if the players are paying attention), then it's less likely to draw complaints. My dungeon isn't set up to throw interesting stuff at the players as they sit there passively (though I do throw wandering monsters at them at a pretty high rate - which is (or at least should be) incentive to keep moving and not dawdle in hallways or open chambers), I expect them to explore and search for the interesting stuff. And, I guess, once the players understand and have accepted that, their attitude changes. (Or it could be that it's just the different set of people I'm playing with, and if I were playing with the folks who find 1/3 empty rooms boring they'd find my 75% empty rooms really really fucking boring...)

Also, re: mapping. My maps are deliberately complex and mazy, and probably pretty hard for players to accurately map. Which is fine with me - I don't care if they draw a map, certainly don't require it, and am not going to go out of my way to make it easier for them (if anything the opposite - I sort of want the players to get lost in my dungeon). If the players are drawing a map it's because they want one and think it will be helpful to them to find their way back to the surface, to more easily identify areas that they've already explored, to mark potential places to hole-up in, etc. All of that is their business, not mine. If the players want to make a map they're going to need the proper supplies, they're going to make slower progress (and draw more wandering monster checks), and if something happens to the map in-game it also happens to the RL map. I'd just as soon they made a line-map, or a list of turns, or made chalk-marks on the walls or strung a ball of twine (though the 1E PH shows what can happen with the latter :)) than tried to recreate my map on their own sheet of graph paper. And, with the way my levels are designed, there's absolutely no way I could use that posterboard method.

Quote from: T. Foster;625895My dungeon isn't set up to throw interesting stuff at the players as they sit there passively (though I do throw wandering monsters at them at a pretty high rate - which is (or at least should be) incentive to keep moving and not dawdle in hallways or open chambers), I expect them to explore and search for the interesting stuff.

But that's working to get fun, dontcha know? :rolleyes:

Seriously, thanks for this post.  My experiences running my group thru my old megadungeon were very similar (mine featured 60-90 rooms/level, anywhere from 25-40% of the rooms being largely empty).  I was starting to think that maybe my approach was badwrong or something with everyone calling for sentient spoons and rats who learned to cast spells in every room.

I hardly ever have a single empty room. I tend to do much smaller locations, though.

Quote from: Gib;625930I hardly ever have a single empty room. I tend to do much smaller locations, though.

Likewise, if I'm creating a small outpost or something.  But a space meant for exploration is different.

Quote from: Gib;625930I hardly ever have a single empty room. I tend to do much smaller locations, though.

Same here.  I feel like I'm taking the lazy way out if I put an empty room.

Quote from: KenHR;625924My experiences running my group thru my old megadungeon were very similar (mine featured 60-90 rooms/level, anywhere from 25-40% of the rooms being largely empty).  I was starting to think that maybe my approach was badwrong or something with everyone calling for sentient spoons and rats who learned to cast spells in every room.

I'm very interested under what time records you ran/run your games.

Ken, Foster: What do you do for time (which I think really means "Wandering Monster Checks")? Searching one 10' square takes 1 turn which calls for 1 wandering check? All the walls in a 30x30 room means 11 turns (split between the party, maybe, not counting floors/ceilings.)  Or did you do something else?

Quote from: bryce0lynch;625940Ken, Foster: What do you do for time (which I think really means "Wandering Monster Checks")? Searching one 10' square takes 1 turn which calls for 1 wandering check? All the walls in a 30x30 room means 11 turns (split between the party, maybe, not counting floors/ceilings.)  Or did you do something else?

Firstly, most of my rooms are smaller than 30x30, and have exits, so we're mostly looking at more like 4-7 10' squares than 11. With multiple people searching that's pretty easily reduced to 1-2 turns. But mostly, it's not expected that every room, or even most rooms, will be searched in this way. Time should only be taken to search for secret doors where the players have some reasonable expectation (based on a gap in their map, or having been pursuing/tracking someone who went into this room and disappeared, or they were told there was one, or some other reason) that there actually is one. And when they do decide to spend that time, they should, if possible, spike the doors closed or take other precautions to prevent wandering monsters from coming in. Most of the rooms in my dungeon have doors, so that's usually possible. Open chambers are more difficult, because they can't usually be blocked off in this way (plus they're usually larger), so if the players are going to spend the time and take the risk to search an entire chamber for secret doors, they'd better have a pretty good reason for thinking they're going to find one. (Also, there are ways to find secret doors other than blindly searching for them - seeing a monster coming or going through one, or finding a map that shows one, or being shown one by a prisoner or friendly monster are all easier, safer, and more reliable (see also: wand of secret door and trap detection)).

Quote from: bryce0lynch;625940I'm very interested under what time records you ran/run your games.

Ken, Foster: What do you do for time (which I think really means "Wandering Monster Checks")? Searching one 10' square takes 1 turn which calls for 1 wandering check? All the walls in a 30x30 room means 11 turns (split between the party, maybe, not counting floors/ceilings.)  Or did you do something else?

Time also means "how long 'til we need to light another torch?"  A lot of the tension in the dungeon game comes from the use of limited resources (hit points, light sources, food, etc.).  Wandering monsters are just one element that can sap resources if the party tries to face down every single one.

Search time is pretty much by the book (I ran Lyche's Dungeon using B/X).  Part of the players' skill involves knowing when to search, not wasting time in every room looking for secret doors or loot unless they have a good reason to suspect something is there.

For example, the party learned early on not to search for secret doors until they had a good-sized area mapped out.  If they noted a big empty area, they'd suspect the presence of secret rooms, and try to narrow down where to search based on contextual clues.  For example, if an empty space was surrounded by a kitchen on one side and a private bedchamber on the other, it was more likely that a secret door would be in the bedchamber.  Same for stashed loot.

Like Trent said already, you can mitigate certain risk factors by spiking doors shut.  My players also started bringing in as many hirelings as they could and put them to work searching (and carrying more torches!  They never seemed to cast continual light for some reason).

I also had rooms calculated to waste time (a room full of empty chests-of-drawers or crates of rotted clothing, frex)....

And bruce, I apologize for a bit of my snark.  I honestly missed the fact that the folks you were running the game for were younger.  I can understand some of their frustration...maybe likening empty rooms and corridors to the empty rooms and corridors of an FPS level the way Eliot described above might help?

Quote from: T. Foster;625956But mostly, it's not expected that every room, or even most rooms, will be searched in this way. Time should only be taken to search for secret doors where the players have some reasonable expectation (based on a gap in their map, or having been pursuing/tracking someone who went into this room and disappeared, or they were told there was one, or some other reason) that there actually is one.

That pretty how it went down when I ran Tegal Manor. At first the players were systematically exploring every room but after a while they started only searching if they felt there was something to be found based on the map or a clue.

It started after they found the rat tunnels along with hitting some of the teleporters and got separated.

Quote from: KenHR;625976I honestly missed the fact that the folks you were running the game for were younger.  I can understand some of their frustration...maybe likening empty rooms and corridors to the empty rooms and corridors of an FPS level the way Eliot described above might help?

When I ran Tegal Manor it was at my FLGS and there were a bunch of younger players involved. One thing helped was the fact I used miniatures and dungeon tile setup similar to Dwarven Forge. So while they ran into empty rooms it looked more exciting than it did on paper, especially when they can see the progress by the sections already built.

I don't know if there any general technique to be learned from that experience. Mixed in there was all the other stuff I learned over thirty years of refereeing so sometimes it hard to figure out what works the best for a given campaign.

One thing I learned to master was a round robin technique where each players get a chance to state what their character was doing. I learned how to work it so even when the groups gets separated everybody remains reasonably occupied.

Back in the day I despised the caller system and learned how to do without it. Ironically the handful of times where I had 10+ gamers at a single session at the game store I had fall back on the caller system for somethings to keep the game flowing. First time since the early 80s where I refereed that many players at once.