Quote from: jhkim on January 08, 2024, 02:33:15 PM

Quote from: Persimmon on January 08, 2024, 08:46:01 AM
What's funny about this thread is all these people trying to convince me that I'm doing it wrong and somehow missing out on this great experience I have no interest in.  We always wanted to be ass kicking heroes, not diplomats or negotiators.  Hammering out the details of a peace treaty is by no means interesting to me in an RPG.  A short audience with the king to determine the problem that needs fixing?  That's fine.  But combat has generally been the centerpiece of our games.  That doesn't mean there's never any interaction with NPCs.  But it's usually the interludes, not the focus.

You can absolutely enjoy whatever you enjoy, in adventures or pizza.

On the other hand, you've mischaracterized what other people enjoy, with posts like this:

Quote from: Persimmon on January 07, 2024, 10:05:24 AM
  Adventure Hook:  "Let's negotiate over water rights for our fields."  Yawn.  I seriously can't imagine any group I've ever played with getting excited about stuff like this.  That's just not our style.

No one here is saying they like negotiating over water rights -- particularly in the context of megadungeons. But some people do like tactics and strategy to their combat that includes things like shifting alliances and risk of betrayal. Also, intelligence gathering and scouting.

For example - it's not a megadungeon, but my favorite introductory adventure for D&D is "The Sunless Citadel" that I've run several times. It has a rivalry/war going on between the kobolds and the goblins. I've had two runs where the PCs clash but then ally with the kobolds, leading to a big fight scene where the PCs and the kobolds overrun the goblin position, divide the spoils, and the PCs then have access to the lower levels. I'm not saying you have to like that, but it's not water rights, and the focus is still on combat.

Yeah, we'd just kill the kobolds first, then the goblins.  Then claim our water rights.

Quote from: jhkim on January 04, 2024, 04:21:17 PM
Basically, I'm curious about what makes a good megadungeon module, for whatever one's view is.

In the blog post* I shared earlier, I outline the criteria I like in a mega-dungeon:

- Best Environments to Explore and Map
- Most-Fun Encounters
- Most-Fun Puzzles, Enigmas, and Centerpiece Encounters
- Coolest Maps
- Best Presentation in Print
- Pulls It All Together

* at https://grodog.blogspot.com/2020/06/grodog-favorite-mega-dungeons.html and inspired by an old thread here at https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/best-published-megadungeon/

Quote from: Baron on January 04, 2024, 04:36:36 PM
I always get thrown off by the "mega-" designation.

I guess I would count Gary's Greyhawk as a mega. Dave's Blackmoor. Barker's Underworld below Jakalla. But only those who played with Gary, Dave or Barker ever saw those.

More of these historical dungeons are being published each year, although it is sometimes a very piecemeal process (in particular with Castle Greyhawk). Of the original Greyhawk levels, I've seen between 20-30 or so, with most of those coming from Rob Kuntz's El Raja Key Archive of manuscript scans, alongside the published levels by Gary and Rob.

And on the Barker side, the Tekumel Foundation is making headway on publishing the Jakallan Underworld levels, too; and Arneson's maps were well-documented in The First Fantasy Campaign too.

Quote from: Baron on January 04, 2024, 04:36:36 PM
If we look at what was published during Gygaxian-era D&D, there was nothing I would consider as even close to mega. Dungeons, and settings. A series of discrete adventure locations. But that's all.

I think that's totally fair. TSR never published an actual mega-dungeon during Gary's tenure, with T1-4 being the closest thing until the Ruins of Undermountain and WGR1 Greyhawk Ruins were done during the 2e era. (Caverns of Thracia and Dark Tower are better examples of mega-dungeons than T1-4 was, and predated it, of course!).

Allan.