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.