Aha!

Now that's what we call an interesting thread... very good stuff here... I shall ponder the distilled wisdom carefully...

The reason I asked to begin with is that I'm re-reading the Wilderlands. I'm looking at the Sea of Five Winds map, and the mainland is just crying out for a dungeon to plug in there. Too many tiny halfling villages, too little happening. So I'm eyeing Caverns of Thracia, which I never played.

I think when it comes to dungeons all theory is gray. Reading one is like reading a plot summary for a novel. You have to run/play the thing to see what it feels like. And at this point I just don't remember what it felt like, if we simply didn't give the genre enough of a chance back then, or if we fell afoul of the room-by-room design.

It's a dark, scary cave, full of monsters.  It really doesn't have to go deeper than that to see the instinctual appeal.

Quote from: jrientsI totally agree with this analysis.  Nowadays we get bogged down trying to explain the why's and how's of an adventure.  In my experience player buy-in is very easy when the DM turns off the targeting computer.  Most players want to believe in your half-assed adventure.  That's why they're at the table in the first place.

Yeah, I was recently going through some of the old Grimtooth booklets, with a "modern" dungeon in mind. And I just couldn't get myself to include those traps, as I thought to myself "Why would anyone build anything like that".
Which obviously totally misses the point. Or, to put it another way, it wasn't the fault that I didn't put in those traps, the big mistake was choosing a "realistic" dungeon in the first place. I didn't need a good ecosystem, so I could've made it a playground for an evil overlord anyway. (I find it hard to reconcile those two. Either the population of the dungeon is largely "mechanical", i.e. animated, controlled etc or I have weird traps and strange magical occurrences. Both at the same time somehow rub me the wrong way)

The main reason I'm reluctant to use dungeons too much, even in a suitable campaign is the amount of work to do while playing. I never, never "got" player mapping and drawing along is just me scribbling and erasing lines while the players wait. That kinda breaks the moods. Tiles and other stuff is both too expensive and forces me into stupid square dungeons. Try "Search of the Unknown" with those...

Quote from: SosthenesI never, never "got" player mapping and drawing along is just me scribbling and erasing lines while the players wait.

http://www.penpaperpixel.org/tutorials/tabletopprojection/

Sadly, I'm neither that rich nor that organized.

Player mapping is probably under-rated these days, just as it was taken for granted back in the day. Can I explain why? I'm not sure, except that, again, it ingrains a sense of the physical environment which you don't get as strongly if the GM holds your hand. (Then again maybe I'm just being a grumpy old man. That web page is keen, Pierce.)

Quote from: Abyssal MawA dungeon is a playground for adventure. There are things to do, places to discover, and you can win or lose depending on luck, skill, and choice.

It's Las Vegas, with monsters. What's not to like?

Quote from: jrientsI totally agree with this analysis.  Nowadays we get bogged down trying to explain the why's and how's of an adventure.  In my experience player buy-in is very easy when the DM turns off the targeting computer.  Most players want to believe in your half-assed adventure.  That's why they're at the table in the first place.

Yep. I think too much of modern dungeon design focuses on rationale, ecology and the like, largely to the detriment of play.

Some of the most formative advice I received on dungeon building was in the old UK RPG Dragon Warriors. Evocatively referred to as "Underworlds," they were murky, eldritch places where the normal laws of the world would sometimes twist askew. Implicit to the idea was that upon entering these sunken ruins you effectively left the safe, reliable reality of the overground and grazed the surface of something much darker and more primal. Nothing too overt, just a slight warping of the senses tinged with foreboding. The Goblin tribe within didn't necessarily have a well stocked larder or ventilation shafts, instead they seemed to exist in a kind half-living limbo where they played out a continual dance of brutality and predation. These weren't your bog standard ugly mammalian bipeds either, rather the spawn of something ancient and cunning that waited in the dark places of the world.  

It's the sort of stuff that's stayed with me for years. Nowadays I still see the Dungeon (cap 'D' intended) as the kind of quasi-mystical place that harkens back to legend and myth. I like including at least some plausibilty-- gonzo anti-gravity zones and dragons stuffed into 10'x10' rooms have never really worked for me --but the sentiment remains. Of course, there are plenty of small-d "dungeons" in my game worlds, but the places I like confronting my players with have slowly accreted their pall over centuries, warping into something much more unsettling, a place that may pose as much danger to the soul as life and limb. An abandoned wizard's tower isn't just a string of high level spells and automata strung together, it's the former seat of power for a being of unknowable pereceptions and eldritch might. It doesn't have to make sense. In fact it's a lot more fun when it doesn't.

At least that's how I run with it. I've never been that keen on the idea of the dungeon as a military installation, it's too mundane a use for something that can be so much more. Going underground shouldn't just be an environmental shift that requires a different tactical plan, I want it to feel like you're delving into something that you really shouldn't.

Statues whose eyes seem to follow you. Far off screams. The sound of something huge dragging itself ever closer. Trying to retrace your steps only to find that the path has changed. I love that shit.

Quote from: DrewStatues whose eyes seem to follow you. Far off screams. The sound of something huge dragging itself ever closer. Trying to retrace your steps only to find that the path has changed. I love that shit.

Yup, that's what makes dungeons cool. When you bring the environment to life, it really makes the game sing. I love doing stuff like describing how, as the party opens a sealed, door into a tomb, they can hear the echo of stone lids being pushed up and off distant sarcophagi, stuff like that. It really heightens the tension.

I agree with Elliot that mapping is underrated, especially if you ditch graph paper and draw one in character. It's like a document of the game, and it really helps tie stuff together for the characters.

Quote from: mearlsYup, that's what makes dungeons cool. When you bring the environment to life, it really makes the game sing. I love doing stuff like describing how, as the party opens a sealed, door into a tomb, they can hear the echo of stone lids being pushed up and off distant sarcophagi, stuff like that. It really heightens the tension.

It's the kind of stuff that I feel was given more latitude in the older D&D modules. B1: In Search of the Unknown had a number of locations that didn't make a great deal of sense. Why would a wizard build a room littered with magical pools of uncertain providence? Why indeed. *Grins Evilly*

Quote from: mearlsI agree with Elliot that mapping is underrated, especially if you ditch graph paper and draw one in character. It's like a document of the game, and it really helps tie stuff together for the characters.

Yeah, but if the players do it, this changes the descripting from "a zig-zagging corridor" to exact measurements. Maybe not right now, but once the level is cleared and secret doors are suspected...

Quote from: Pierce InverarityBut many people like 'em. Why?

IMO because it suits all kinds of players. The reactive players have something to react to - the path before them and the active players have enough freedom - scouting, just doing stuff , which makes the enviroment rather less limiting then it first seems.

Also I do think that a GM who knows his players taste can create dungeons for the thespy types. There's enough rp potential there than most folks realize.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SosthenesYeah, but if the players do it, this changes the descripting from "a zig-zagging corridor" to exact measurements. Maybe not right now, but once the level is cleared and secret doors are suspected...

That could be good or bad, depending on how you handle it. For instance, I don't allow exact mapping in my dungeons. There's no way the PCs can do more than estimate distances. For instance, try mapping out your office or your home. You're more likely to worry about spacial relations ("the kitchen is next to the lounge") than exact distances ("the kitchen is 6 meters long and 4 meters wide").

WRT thespy stuff, it's all in the *content* of the dungeon, rather than the structure. If there are people to talk to, the PCs can talk to them. Too often, I've seen players and DMs react to the concept of the dungeon rather than what's actually in front of them during the game.

In a way, you see the stereotype writing itself.

Mike -

Your multi-area encounter shows that you 'get it', but I do think that some of the older dungeons actually show more of what you're regarding as the 'newer wisdom' then you give them credit for. In particular, Jaquays' and Gygax's best work (Dark Tower, Caverns of Thracia, some of the G/D series) is, I'm almost certain, designed for the kind of integrated play environment/broader scale tactical challenge you're talking about. It's a somewhat forgotten art in the gaming discussion-sphere but I think it's being rediscovered right now, by amateurs and pros alike - some of whom never 'lost' it in play in the first place, granted.

Melan has an article on circular routes in dungeons (can't find the link, but I know he posted it at enworld once upon a time) that addresses some issues that are relevant here.

So anyway, I agree with you about the theory based on what you've posted so far, and I agree with you that bad dungeons are teh suck, but some of the old dungeons are actually really well designed by the standards I think you're trying to articulate, if you fill in the explanatory text we'd expect nowadays for yourself. I don't think this was accidental either.

I'd have to agree with that, Cal.

Look, I get what people are saying about the appeal of the dungeon. But how many can you do? I would feel justified in breaking out one or two a decade, and always with an ironic smirk.

No, but that's just it, droog--if you run it tongue in cheek, it's bound to be HORRIBLE. You have to find a way to take it seriously. And what Drew said, for example, is such a way--it's like the more Cthulhuesque parts of Conan. The Things Beneath The City Of Slaves (TM). You know, turning incongruity into horror.

BTW, Dragon Warriors will be republished by James Wallis, right?

Quote from: Calithena... I do think that some of the older dungeons actually show more of what you're regarding as the 'newer wisdom' then you give them credit for. In particular, Jaquays' and Gygax's best work (Dark Tower, Caverns of Thracia, some of the G/D series) is, I'm almost certain, designed for the kind of integrated play environment/broader scale tactical challenge you're talking about...

Yeah, that certainly was my own experience with some of those old modules.  E.g. the whole 'Descent into the Depths' series (D1-3) by Gygax presented a massive, integrated dungeon (which addressed questions regarding resources, relations between different forces and communities, etc.).

Great thread, so far.  :cool: