Quote from: RPGPundit;1004697My point was that DFD was a negadungeon in the sense I was defining it.

I appreciate that.

However, your definition depends on a nega-dungeon (as you're defending it) being the opposite of "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons." (emphasis yours)

However, I do not know what "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons are what fucks them over in DFD" are. This is a list of qualities that you know from your gaming... but it may or may not be universal. I really don't know. Which is why I have been asking for you to make it clearer.

Would you be willing to list "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons"?

Whatever those assumptions are, it seems JimLotFP agrees with RPG Pundit that this is what he's doing, based on his previous reply.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1004748Whatever those assumptions are, it seems JimLotFP agrees with RPG Pundit that this is what he's doing, based on his previous reply.

I'm not James Raggi. I would still love to know what the Pundit is talking about.

Further, I just went back and re-read Raggi's post. When he writes "The concept of a 'standard D&D dungeon shouldn't exist in the first place," and "The concept that there are things players are 'supposed' to do in a dungeon is awful," is he saying that he's working against the assumptions Pundit is basing his argument on? Or that the assumptions actually don't exist in any meaningful sense and the notion that they do should be squashed.

Of course, I still have no idea what the Pundit's assumptions are and so I can't weigh on on those questions yet. And, again, Raggi can speak for himself and I certainly don't speak for him. I simply want to know what the Pundit is talking about.

It's been a week since I've first asked, and today is the third time I've asked. It seems a simple matter.

Can the Pundit lay out with specifics what he means when he writes: "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons"?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1004748Whatever those assumptions are, it seems JimLotFP agrees with RPG Pundit that this is what he's doing, based on his previous reply.

I don't see that agreement. I read Raggi as not wanting to play to the assumptions the Pundit... assumes... if they even exist. The Pundit thinks Raggi admitted something, but that's just the Pundit way.
I also doubt Raggi sees his stuff as "cheap, deceptive, weasely."

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1004750I'm not James Raggi. I would still love to know what the Pundit is talking about.

Further, I just went back and re-read Raggi's post. When he writes "The concept of a 'standard D&D dungeon shouldn't exist in the first place," and "The concept that there are things players are 'supposed' to do in a dungeon is awful," is he saying that he's working against the assumptions Pundit is basing his argument on? Or that the assumptions actually don't exist in any meaningful sense and the notion that they do should be squashed.

Of course, I still have no idea what the Pundit's assumptions are and so I can't weigh on on those questions yet. And, again, Raggi can speak for himself and I certainly don't speak for him. I simply want to know what the Pundit is talking about.

It's been a week since I've first asked, and today is the third time I've asked. It seems a simple matter.

Can the Pundit lay out with specifics what he means when he writes: "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons"?

I'm not Raggi, either, but his post reads to me as "there should be no "standard" for D&D dungeons, nor a "standard" for what players are supposed to do once inside", FWIW:).

And I'd also like Pundit to list what are those "things players are supposed to do in a dungeon", just so we could be on the same page;).

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1004729I appreciate that.

However, your definition depends on a nega-dungeon (as you're defending it) being the opposite of "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons." (emphasis yours)

However, I do not know what "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons are what fucks them over in DFD" are. This is a list of qualities that you know from your gaming... but it may or may not be universal. I really don't know. Which is why I have been asking for you to make it clearer.

Would you be willing to list "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons"?

Well, for starters, fight a living plant creature to get further along in the dungeon.


In terms of other negadungeons, stuff like examining objects carefully, expecting monsters that look a certain way to act a certain way, take treasure, or bother going into the dungeon in the first place expecting there may be rewards therein.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1005084Well, for starters, fight a living plant creature to get further along in the dungeon.

Why fight, if the Referee is using the Reaction table?

QuoteIn terms of other negadungeons, stuff like examining objects carefully,

Like demon statues:D?

Quoteexpecting monsters that look a certain way to act a certain way,

So an ogre can't be a wizard, and DCC's advice to reskin monsters and not allow players to know what they can do, is somehow wrong?

Quotetake treasure,

Unless you think it's cursed.

Quoteor bother going into the dungeon in the first place expecting there may be rewards therein.

Picking the specific dungeon to explore is part of the game, AFAICT. In a living campaign, there might be nothing there, because someone else took it already;).

Quote from: RPGPundit;1005084Well, for starters, fight a living plant creature to get further along in the dungeon.


In terms of other negadungeons, stuff like examining objects carefully, expecting monsters that look a certain way to act a certain way, take treasure, or bother going into the dungeon in the first place expecting there may be rewards therein.

First, thanks for the reply.

Sadly, for you quickly reply, I really don't see where you're going with this.

My players examined lots of objects when going through LotFP modules. They only two times they had trouble (one disastrously so) was when they did not examine objects carefully an impulsively grabbed for them. So... I really don't see how what you're saying contradicts how Players approach a LotFP dungeon.

As for treasure... again... are we disagreeing? I don't know. Apart from Dungeon of the Unknown (a weirdly stingy dungeon when it comes to loot, which I haven't used yet) my Players' PCs have hauled out plenty of treasure and have leveled. I honestly don't know what's going on here.

Finally, about the creatures: Hey! We disagree! Clearly and bluntly!

You want your Players to "expect monsters that look a certain way to act a certain way" -- in other words (I think!?!) familiar and consistent.

So, to be clear: What (I think) you want is not what I want.

You know how when people were first playing D&D and they come across a Rust Monster and they didn't know what it was or how dangerous it was or what trouble it could cause them or how they should defeat it? That's what I want. You know how a Beholder or Gelatinous Cube or whateverthefuck other monsters people encountered for the first time and had to puzzle out because it was fucking awesome to have some freakish monstrosity because if you can survive and solve the problem and defeat or sidestep or in anyway overcome the challenge you had a blast? That's what I want to give to my players.

That means not digging into a bland, stale as 30-year-old bread playbook of the bog-standard D&D bestiary, but offering up the same kinds of novel challenges that put the players the spot when the game was fresh. Because (full disclosure) I like games that are fresh.

So, did I conjure up a basilisk-like creature that if it meets your gaze causes your nightmares to come to life in your head, growing in size until your skull explodes from the inside out unless you kill the beast in time as the nightmares are distracting you each round of combat unless you are soothed in some way (Charm Person and the rest of the options) or knocked unconscious... yes... yes I did. And other creatures I made up. And others they encountered from the game.

Now, not all the time do we have to go full weird. When playing Scenic Dunnsmouth the group went to confront a witch who might know something about a spider cult. A lot of stuff got triggered and they found themselves in a fight between an axe-wielding madman, a witch, and a giant spider with mind control powers. Because of the situation though (the mysteries still to be resolved and and the conflicts between the NPCs) even these more mundane opponents did not behave at all like the party expected. And, again, the novelty and surprise allowed a blast to be had by all.

I'm not sure if your definition of fun in an RPG is very, very narrow -- or I'm simply misunderstanding you. But I suspect either way my fun isn't yours.

One thing I am fairly certain of, however... your statements about the LotFP products don't line up with my experience. And that's fine! But it's as if you and I have encountered completely different texts within the covers of the same books.*

____
* Perhaps vital point! I ran the second edition of Death Frost Doom. Perhaps they are weirdly different in how much silver they offer the PCs. I don't know! But the other products? Not even a question. Solid treasure all around.

As I recall there is no treasure per se in Monolith except for the Monolith itself.

Quote from: Voros;1005494As I recall there is no treasure per se in Monolith except for the Monolith itself.

I'll happily take your word on that. I've only skimmed it. And for some reason I can't track down the PDF right now.

Nonetheless, it hasn't been a module we've discussed so far in this thread. My point is that so far the claims made by some people about modules thus far named, and LotFP products overall, do not match my experience in running many of the products.

Quote from: Voros;1005494As I recall there is no treasure per se in Monolith except for the Monolith itself.

There's also a bio-weapon plus Carter Holmes.

Ah yes. Carter Holmes is a nice touch. I love Jason B. Thompson's walkthrough comic of the adventure. I think it gives a clear pitcture of how play could work to a potential GM.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1005239I'm not sure if your definition of fun in an RPG is very, very narrow -- or I'm simply misunderstanding you. But I suspect either way my fun isn't yours.

One thing I am fairly certain of, however... your statements about the LotFP products don't line up with my experience. And that's fine! But it's as if you and I have encountered completely different texts within the covers of the same books.*

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking as well - especially coupled with the last combat thread;).

Quote from: AsenRG;1005145Why fight, if the Referee is using the Reaction table?

The reaction table doesn't enter into it in DFD.

QuoteLike demon statues:D?

If you're referring to the green devil face in Tomb of Horrors, that's a huge part of the problem. Tomb of Horrors was specifically created as a pc-killing dungeon for tournament play. It was never meant to be the gold-standard archetype for D&D adventures, and it never was that in the actual real old-school period.
The problem was a bunch of assholes who weren't actually there, some of whom spent decades shitting on D&D as white-wolf fans (or even writers), decided there was fame and money to be gained from hitching their wagon to the old-school movement, and created a Nostalgic Fantasy filled with an utterly FALSE narrative that the one true original old-school way that Everyone Played it Back In the Good Old Days was "fantasy fucking vietnam". The negadungeon evolved from that conceptual bullshit.

What was it like then? If fantasy vietnam was fake news then I fell for it.