Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;876759Also would you say in such a format, the dungeon should just be a megadungeon that's wide open and let's you explore, or should it be Angry GM style where everything is balanced by CR and it's more like a small adventure in its own right?

This is kind of neither here nor there, so this shouldn't be taken as a "should", it's just some things I try to do. I try to run in a way that self-regulates power levels. In other words, I don't like artificial constraints like, "This adventure is not appropriate for characters over level 5" or anything like CRs.

Rather, I try to be conscientious about including certain things. Like the possibility of loss. If the rewards in the adventure don't exceed what PCs might lose, going on a lower-than-appopriate level adventure can potentially set them back. Players who are always punching up will advance a lot quicker than those who try to bypass thinking with superior stats and gear.

QuoteThe third way is DCC style where it doesn't use many rooms; every room has a purpose and is its own encounter, and instead of aimless wandering around you have like a 7 room dungeon and that's it. But those 7 rooms are all filled with the meat of the play.

Eh...

I think the key to a good dungeon crawl--and I don't care how great those 7 rooms are, it takes more to keep players wanting to come back to the same dungeon--is that the exploration itself has to be fun and interesting. Players should be just dying to know what's down the stairs. Not just 7 more rooms, this time with even tougher encounters.

Quote from: cranebump;876595What gets me about some of these posts is that the existence of person B, who enjoys style B, seems to be an affront to Person A/Style A, who, in all likelihood while never, ever sit down at a table to game with Person B to begin with.

One of my first blogposts -- Gaming Geek Fallacy #4: My Game Is Great, Your Game Sucks -- covers the syndrome.

But really, it's simple.  You've had to have noticed that this kind of behavior's just plain prevalent in our culture.  For you to like a kind of music I don't, to follow a sport I don't, to vote for a political party I don't, to enjoy a kind of food I don't, to wear a style of clothing I don't ... all that is not only a referendum on my good taste, but you've just singled yourself out as Not One Of Us.  

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;876744Wouldn't it get boring just clearing out dungeon rooms for no real greater purpose?

I am amused that you ask that question while your signature proclaims "Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose."  

But there can be a greater purpose.  The main point, IMO, is that the greater purpose is chosen by the players rather than externally imposed and that they can change directions if they choose to do so.

For example, the last ACKS campaign I ran was focused on the PCs colonizing a recently-discovered island.  They started out with a smallish town of around 100 families with a basic palisade and a few towers to defend it, then they were left to their own devices to work out how to defend and develop the town.  There was a megadungeon where they could go to collect loot which could then be used to equip the militia or buy supplies and hire workers from back in civilization.  There was wilderness to explore in order to locate resources, threats, and potential allies.  And all of this could be addressed in bite-sized, single-session chunks at the players' whims, while the players remained highly focused on developing the town.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;876759Also would you say in such a format, the dungeon should just be a megadungeon that's wide open and let's you explore, or should it be Angry GM style where everything is balanced by CR and it's more like a small adventure in its own right?

I strongly favor the wide-open approach, allowing the players to decide for themselves how to balance risk vs. reward.

I don't think I've ever heard of this style of campaign being run in a "CR balanced" style, probably because you can't really balance by CR in advance if you don't know how many PCs (or which PCs) will be participating in a given session.  If you're comfortable adjusting that on the fly, I suppose it could be done, but that's not a style I enjoy, so I wouldn't ever try it myself.

Quote from: Lunamancer;876860I think the key to a good dungeon crawl--and I don't care how great those 7 rooms are, it takes more to keep players wanting to come back to the same dungeon--is that the exploration itself has to be fun and interesting. Players should be just dying to know what's down the stairs. Not just 7 more rooms, this time with even tougher encounters.

Excellent point!  Regardless of whether it's mission-driven or player-directed, the key to interesting dungeon crawls is to have interesting dungeons, filled with unique features, mysteries to discover (ideally taking several delves to find the answer), etc.

I don't give people what they think they need. I give them either what I think they need, or what I think the game needs, depending:).

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;876614Strange how important this is, and yet never addressed in any GM advice I know of.

It is quite clear in at least Sorcerer and LotW, though I think it's only stated explicitly in Sorcerer;).

There is a 'greater purpose' to dungeon crawling.

To craahsh my enemiesse
To see dem driffen befoah me
To heah de lamentations of dere wimmen.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;876939There is a 'greater purpose' to dungeon crawling.

To craahsh my enemiesse
To see dem driffen befoah me
To heah de lamentations of dere wimmen.

Lot of wimmen in your dungeons are there?

Given Arnie is nearly 70 if his enemies are of a similar age they may need to be driven before him because using their walkers to walk before him would be way too slow.

Quote from: Bren;876952Lot of wimmen in your dungeons are there?

Given Arnie is nearly 70 if his enemies are of a similar age they may need to be driven before him because using their walkers to walk before him would be way too slow.

Silver. Horde.
And I think the women come after you go out of the dungeon.

Quote from: AsenRG;876955Silver. Horde.

Is the Silver Horde some RPG group of dungeon-dwelling women? :confused:

Googling "Silver Horde" gives me a lot of stuff about fishing, possibly salmon fishing in 1930s Alaska.

Genghis Cohen.

Ah. Disc World.

Quote from: Ravenswing;876873One of my first blogposts -- Gaming Geek Fallacy #4: My Game Is Great, Your Game Sucks -- covers the syndrome.

But really, it's simple.  You've had to have noticed that this kind of behavior's just plain prevalent in our culture.  For you to like a kind of music I don't, to follow a sport I don't, to vote for a political party I don't, to enjoy a kind of food I don't, to wear a style of clothing I don't ... all that is not only a referendum on my good taste, but you've just singled yourself out as Not One Of Us.  

I wish people would also be flexible. Like OK great, your preferred style isn't the one being played. But can't you just give it a chance or enjoy it for what it is anyway? I feel like only playing games where it's "my way or the highway" splinters groups too easily.

So in that sense knowing what you especially like is good, but often I see that mindset coupled with "if it's not exactly like X then I'm just going to sit out." Which seems counterproductive to me.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;876988I wish people would also be flexible. Like OK great, your preferred style isn't the one being played. But can't you just give it a chance or enjoy it for what it is anyway? I feel like only playing games where it's "my way or the highway" splinters groups too easily.

Yeah, I've observed a couple factors contribute to this problem. One is confusing feature with benefit. If one guy says "I prefer a linear core mechanic" and the other says, "I prefer a non-linear core mechanic" you obviously can't do both simultaneously. What you can do is call bullshit. The mechanic is irrelevant. What they "prefer" are the perceived benefits they derive from those mechanics. If you can find another way to deliver those benefits, you've got a game. But if people are going to be unreasonable and cling to the features, you'll just have to drop them.

The other is a side-effect to "discussing expectations." You'll go in with some expectations anyway, but if you haven't discussed them and don't know where other people are coming from, you're far more aware of the fact that things may not go how you expect. In fact, they probably won't. It forces you to be more open-minded in approach.

Another problem with discussing expectations is it feeds the beast. Anyone can go off and play a solo campaign and do everything exactly the way they want it. People join groups because the benefits of being part of a group outweigh cost of giving up the things you like that aren't compatible with the rest of the group. When you discuss expectations, it draws a circle around what everyone's gotta give. Rather than just jumping into the game where you would experience the benefits of having a group.

QuoteSo in that sense knowing what you especially like is good, but often I see that mindset coupled with "if it's not exactly like X then I'm just going to sit out." Which seems counterproductive to me.

Of course if such a player had a special knack to bring unbelievable amounts of fun to the game, I'd be willing to accommodate someone like that. Of course usually such a person won't. The fact that they don't see the group as valuable enough to give an inch makes it unlikely they'll be attuned in such a way that they can provide immense levels of fun for the group.

Game masters, however, who do go above and beyond in trying to make sure everyone is having fun, to the degree they are successful, they've earned the right to run the game exactly as they want to run it.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;876988I wish people would also be flexible. Like OK great, your preferred style isn't the one being played. But can't you just give it a chance or enjoy it for what it is anyway? I feel like only playing games where it's "my way or the highway" splinters groups too easily.

So in that sense knowing what you especially like is good, but often I see that mindset coupled with "if it's not exactly like X then I'm just going to sit out." Which seems counterproductive to me.

Heh, I'll be lazy and recycle my reply to a response to the blogpost I linked:

QuoteI have sympathy for your take, but a lot of people are in their comfort zones. I know GURPS. I've written for it, I've played it, I've GMed it, and I've been doing that since before the system was published. I'm generally going to want to play in GURPS campaigns, and I'm never GMing anything else. If you start up a new campaign in (say) The Whispering Vault, you're asking me to learn a 134-page rulebook, and I'm inclined to want to know -- before I go to that trouble -- that I'm going to like the campaign, that I'm going to like the rule system, and that you're going to do it for a good while. For a one-shot? I probably won't.

But this attitude is no different than with any other preference. I'm a hockey and soccer fan; I'm not a racing or a basketball fan. I like certain kinds of ice cream, and don't like others. I like most any kind of seafood that started out having fins, and don't like seafood that started out living in shells. I'm not saying that basketball isn't worth playing, or that lobster isn't worth eating ... I'm saying I already know what I like, and I'm comfortable with sticking to that.  A lot of people are.

Beyond that, I've seen a number of times being "flexible" turn out to mean "wanting to play the games I'm hot to try out," and a number of the proponents being far less interested in games outside their comfort zones.

In any event -- and I suspect a lot of other grognards have the same mindset -- a lot of comfort zoners have had a lot of games or styles thrown at them, and have suffered through too many learning-curve runs in mediocre systems using milieus that do nothing for them.[/COLOR]

I've always had more people wanting to play my games than I've had space, so I can be as fussy as I like when I run a game.  And if the referee isn't having fun, the game WILL suck.

And playing, well, I'll try a lot of things once.  But it had better be more fun than reading a book or building a model boxcar, because if it isn't I'll do those things instead.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;876759Well, I would expect it's just "go get gold and magic items" but if it's 5e the magic items are going to be slim

You can run 5e ok with a 1e frequency of magic items, just keep the item 'pluses' under control (maybe halve & round up), especially AC boosters, and use mostly single-shot and charged consumable items. Potions make a great treasure in 5e.

Having dungeons be the sole source of magic items is very old school and provides a strong motivation for dungeon crawling.