In the end, maybe what's bugging me is, in my look-through of the site, I felt there was a bit of a "we are the experts here", with no acknowledgment of all the work that's been done here and elsewhere around reviving an oldskool/traditional/roots/whatever-you-want-to-call-it outlook on the game.
I mean, maybe Monte is completely clueless about the oldskool Renaissance, but I find that hard to believe...
This was one of the objections that I raised when I reviewed the free portion of the site on the day it was released. I've been told by many of Monte's fans that his "old school" bona fides are there, so it's hard for me to judge his motivations beyond the obvious commercial - which would mean he'd want to advertise himself as a credible knowledgable expert.
In the brief sample I saw, I didn't see anything that I couldn't get from the many free dungeons and downloads. I consider Sham's & Amityville Mike's dungeons to be the current crop that I would measure Monte's content - the old schoolers get my nod.
calithena Moderator Official "Fight On!" Scribe member is offline
Will Withstand Adversity
Joined: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,699 Karma: 91
Re: The Ten Assumptions of Dungeon Design « Reply #18 on Mar 17, 2009, 10:32am »
I was interested in discussing the tenets. The project, well, that's Monte's business, not mine. Kesher's point that some of this is already 'known', and Mythmere's suggested rewrite, are both well taken.
Joined: Jul 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 2,503 Karma: 57
Re: The Ten Assumptions of Dungeon Design « Reply #19 on Mar 17, 2009, 11:36am »
I actually don't have a problem with Number 9. It works for me (they have to eat something, after all...).
What I have a problem with is Number 6. Not the description; that's pure old school. But the way he's setting things up so that he can do a portion of it at a time (as his subscription model dictates).
This is why Volume III suggests the referee create "at least" 3 levels before beginning -- that way you know what goes where.
I really don't even have a problem with the way Monte describes this, it's just that I've seen similar things. Some of us (and I do include myself in this) intend to read these things as descriptive but tend to read them as proscriptive. What I mean is, even though Monte specifically states:
This doesn't mean things are linear (because linear dungeons are bad dungeons).
I still know that somebody is going to take that design limitation out of context and use it to create a linear dungeon. And then claim that the great Monte Cook said so (even though he expressly didn't.) Why? Who knows? Some people just do that.
The good ones don't. But part of the proliferation of rules out there came about because not all referees are good ones.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that these principles, in the hands of a good referee, work wonders. But first you need a good referee.
Joined: May 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 115 Karma: 50
Re: The Ten Assumptions of Dungeon Design « Reply #20 on Mar 17, 2009, 1:49pm »
You always need a good referee. e can take even worst dungeon/set of rules work wonders. A bad one can take the best and make it stink. A good referee can make even the best one bad.A referees should always be careful to weed out the trash anyway. After all it the players did not have a good time, then, they will not be back. And no referee wants to referee trash.
Principles, etc., a great but the referee always needs to be prepared to change what needs changing when it needs it.A good one knows that.
Re: The Ten Assumptions of Dungeon Design « Reply #21 on Mar 27, 2009, 12:58pm »
Regarding Dungeonaday, I've looked at the previews and it looks excellent, but $10 a month - that's $120 a year! What else coulod you get for $120? If it was, say, $15 for 3 months, I might be tempted.
Anyway, when I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was going to be about questioning inbuilt assumptions.
For example, there is an assumption that each floor of the dungeon corresponds to one level. What happens if you drop that assumption? You could have levels that are several floors deep - giving you more scope for "depth" elements such as balconies, cliffs, slopes, staircases, split-level rooms, chutes, elevators, wells, pits etc. More difficult levels could be placed beside, rather than below, easier ones. Players would no longer know in advance how to find or avoid the dangerous areas of the dungeon - the only way to find out would be by exploration. Perhaps you can not only get from level one to level two without going down stairs, but from level one straight to level three!
Another example: dungeons tend to have doors. What would happen if you took all the doors out? Adventurers and monsters will be able to hear sounds and echoes from everywhere nearby! Monsters without hands to open doors are now able to roam the dungeon. Perhaps some other way to separate rooms might be useful, in order to keep the monsters apart from one another. Chambers could be connected by short corridors (say, 10 to 30 feet long). Or you could just put in more corridors and less chambers than in a normal dungeon, giving it a more mazelike feel.
Re: The Ten Assumptions of Dungeon Design « Reply #22 on Mar 27, 2009, 6:37pm »
Another thing I thought of. It is an assumption of D&D that particular monsters can be found in the dungeon - the standard monsters found in the basic rulebooks. Suppose when designing a dungeon you were to follow a rule that no more than one in three encounters should be with monsters from "Monsters and Treasure". It wouldn't be difficult - there must be thousands of new D&D monsters in magazines, modules and rulebooks and on the internet, not to mention the monsters in other games and in fantasy stories, and there are tables for random monster generation. The iconic monsters would still be there, but since most encounters would be with lesser known creatures the dungeon would be a more exotic and scary place. One could do the same thing with magic items.
Joined: Jan 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 329 Location: Lexington, KY Karma: 9
Re: The Ten Assumptions of Dungeon Design « Reply #23 on Mar 27, 2009, 8:17pm »
I took the first line of each point for reference
1. Things get more dangerous as you go deeper. OK 2. Treasure and other rewards are based on challenges overcome, not PC level.OK 3. There's a happy medium that embraces both realism and fun.OK Though I struggle with this one a lot and hardly ever feel I've found that medium 4. The dungeon is dynamic and huge--there's no clearing out the dungeon. OK 5. The player characters are not the first adventurers to explore this place, and they won't be the last. OK 6. Although there are many entrances, and many ways to get from level to level, this dungeon is being presented so that the PCs are unlikely to get ahead of the design.FLAG! It's not unlikely - it's impossible for them to get ahead of the design in this case. Any paper megadungeon, though, is going to have to be able to deal with this extingincy 7. The rules exist to facilitate the dungeon, not the other way around. OK 8. Magic gets stronger the deeper you go. OK 9. Food is fairly abundant in the dungeon. OK-ish Isn't that what ations are for? 10. Every level or sublevel has its own unique character. eh... I don't agree with this as a blanket statement - I don't think it necessarily applies to 'every level or sublevel'. Perhaps I'm being too pedantic...but particularly sublevels. More often than not I want (at least) some levels to be 'thematically-connected' or somesuch (perhaps this is a different issue)
Overall I agree that these are important megadungeon design assumptions. My only immediate ammendment would be 11. There are empty rooms.
Re: The Ten Assumptions of Dungeon Design « Reply #24 on Apr 2, 2009, 8:59am »
Per Cal's request, leaving aside the context of the project and commenting on the assumptions.
1. Things get more dangerous as you go deeper.
Yes, but. . . there should be an array of challenges on each level, some easier, some more difficult than the "norm" for that depth. Occasionally, it's perfectly fine to throw in an underhand pitch or something wildly tougher. But, generally, yes.
2. Treasure and other rewards are based on challenges overcome, not PC level.
Maybe, with the caveat that "challenges overcome" does a lot of work here. Reward is most specifically tied to dungeon level, but that is at least aimed at both monster/trap/trick difficulty *and* general PC level (because of our PC level c.= dungeon level theme). I prefer expressing this point as an abstract risk/reward ratio, although I guess both explanations have the same general idea at heart.
3. There's a happy medium that embraces both realism and fun.
Ok. Although, really, this is a point aimed at folks who don't a lot of megadungeoneering. I don't spend much time worrying about ecology, but I do use common sense (and will use ecology if it fits the encounter--e.g., a group of underground giants have a magic garden not because they have to eat, but because I thought of all kinds of neat things to do with a giant magic garden :-D ). I wouldn't have noted this point in current company, but in the context of his introduction, I don't have any issues with it.
4. The dungeon is dynamic and huge--there's no clearing out the dungeon.
Yes.
5. The player characters are not the first adventurers to explore this place, and they won't be the last.
Yes.
6. Although there are many entrances, and many ways to get from level to level, this dungeon is being presented so that the PCs are unlikely to get ahead of the design.
No. If your PCs get ahead of the design, good for them! The DM wings it. It just means you're both exploring the megadungeon for the first time, which is not only acceptable, it's awesome! If my players are presented with a glimpse of an area they can't reach--which is common, be it a high ledge or an unbreakable window into a room full of treasure that shows a door on the far wall--it's because I want to tantalize them and encourage them to work at finding a way in, not because I haven't finished a section yet.
Moreover, I'm of the opinion that the megadungeon should allow you to say yes to gaming at a moment's notice, any time. It's the easiest way to throw together an instant pick-up game. It's got maps, it's got keys, and it's open-ended. For this reason alone, no areas should be off-limits; you may find a hidden nugget of fantastic-ness in a few die rolls, some creative ad-libbing, and good play by your group. At no point in time should a megadungeon DM's response to a request for play be anything like, "no, because X isn't finished"; just so, that response should never be, "the door is locked [because I haven't finished that wing]."
7. The rules exist to facilitate the dungeon, not the other way around.
Yes. 8. Magic gets stronger the deeper you go.
I'm not entirely sure I know what this means, but I'm reasonably sure this is a no for me because I sense that it's aimed at "explaining" the dungeon. If we mean, "monsters and other challenges get tougher and generally have more magical abilities lower down," then yes, but if we mean, "level 1 should be a basement with ordinary castle stores and level 10 the lair of the evil devil who built the place," then I can't go with it. My level one is plenty weird and magical (it's just relatively easier), and my level 15 has rooms with nothing in them but a bundle of torches and a 50' rope in a chest. 9. Food is fairly abundant in the dungeon.
Yes and no. If he's using this to handwave away management of resources (e.g., rations), then no thank you. I am, however, a fan of using valuable dungeoneering equipment as treasure--sometimes finding a 10' pole and a cask of fresh water can be a godsend. So, in that sense--i.e., "you can sometimes replenish resources from unexpected quarters"--I would agree. In another vein, if he means "don't worry about how monsters eat, they do just fine," I agree in practicality, if not on the specific theory.
10. Every level or sublevel has its own unique character.
Yes. Please, please, yes! This shouldn't tie the hands of the DM or anything, but I love the feel of the themed levels and sub-levels, and I think it helps set the tone for PCs distinguishing regions and areas to explore/move through/try to conquer/try to avoid (every bit as much as "pinch points" and other mapping techniques to make the dungeon practically explorable).
Some alternates I would propose:
A. Myth's pointing out that the place should challenge the players over the characters. Throwing in real world answers to riddles, that sort of thing.
B. The dungeon itself is the first, most frequent, most relentless adversary the party will face, so they'd better take steps to hold their own in that struggle (to wit, it's the map, stupid!). Elsewhere, ages ago, I tried to express this as:
I think a key design principle behind good dungeon design. . . is that the dungeon itself should be at least as much an obstacle--and, crucially, entertainment--as any monsters or traps. Shifting walls, one-way secret doors, hidden regions of the dungeon, intricate layouts, all of these features and more are designed to keep the place itself challenging, above and beyond the encounters. This is whence came Gary's caution in the adventuring section of the PHB that if PCs are cut off, their goal should immediately become finding a way back out, regardless of what they had been seeking previously. When tackling an adventure, the dungeon must be addressed first, monsters second. Otherwise, your PC will die deep in the ground, loaded with treasure and unable to get back out. Non-linear dungeons emphasize the dungeon itself as an opponent, rather than just being an interstate highway with exits at monster rooms. Dungeon design should ideally be the adventuring values of the place expressed formally.
C. Some humor and non-seriousness should be a crucial feature of the place. The dungeon shouldn't encourage you to pretend that you *aren't* playing a game. It's not surgery, it's playing D&D! (I am well aware that many of this esteemed company will not agree with this point. I yam what I yam.)
Yes and no. If he's using this to handwave away management of resources (e.g., rations), then no thank you. I am, however, a fan of using valuable dungeoneering equipment as treasure--sometimes finding a 10' pole and a cask of fresh water can be a godsend. So, in that sense--i.e., "you can sometimes replenish resources from unexpected quarters"--I would agree. In another vein, if he means "don't worry about how monsters eat, they do just fine," I agree in practicality, if not on the specific theory.
The biggest problem with this assumption is its name -- reading the actual text on Monte's site, he's not talking about PC resource-management (whether you have to carry iron rations and water, how long you can stay in the dungeon before having to return to the surface) but rather that there's an assumed ecosystem within the dungeons -- that when there aren't PCs around to eat, the big monsters eat smaller monsters, and smaller monsters eat assorted fungi that grow in the dungeon -- without worrying too much about the details. That seems fairly non-controversial (and consistent with what Gygax & Talanian did in Castle Zagyg -- describing some fungal growths in the dungeon that providence adequate sustenance for the low end of the dungeon-monster food chain). What would've been more interesting would be if he'd been making an allusion to Margaret St. Clair's The Shadow People -- there's food in the dungeon, alright, but you'll be sorry if you eat it!
Most of this was right on point, except #9, which was trivial compared to the others. I'd suggest replacing #9 with the most important point about megadungeon design, which he missed: a megadungeon is interesting because it challenges the skill of the players, not the numbers on their character sheets. It presents mental challenges other than just which feats to use in combat. I could come up with a couple of others that I think trump his particular 10 ... but in general it's a good summary.
I don't have a problem with him jumping on the bandwagon ... once you're on the bandwagon, you're on the bandwagon.
I'm in agreement with everything Mythmere says here. Number 9 was my sticking point too, but I think any disagreements should be downplayed given the much larger event at hand.
Mr. Monte Cook is solidly writing for what can only be called old school games. Those first 2 assumptions are elements of games that really weren't considered even just five years ago. I'm happy and proud Mr. Cook is choosing to design his dungeons in this manner. He's a great guy and I still remember playing through his Banewarrens adventure just a handful of years ago.
I think whatever folks don't like about the project should really pale in comparison to its laudable design and designer. Perhaps we can state objections in the form critical advice? I'd love to see more of what he will do.
Perhaps we can state objections in the form critical advice?
Hmm. I don't think anything in the thread has been particularly untoward or negative. A number of people in this conversation have been interested in this topic for quite some time, and Cal asked for us to weigh in on the assumptions. I would expect the same sort of feedback (indeed, I've read the same sort of feedback!) regarding my own comments on dungeons.
Mr. Monte Cook is solidly writing for what can only be called old school games. Those first 2 assumptions are elements of games that really weren't considered even just five years ago. I'm happy and proud Mr. Cook is choosing to design his dungeons in this manner. He's a great guy and I still remember playing through his Banewarrens adventure just a handful of years ago.
I'm always happy to see the dungeon getting more play. But honestly? I think I'd feel a lot more positive about the project if that assumption page didn't have "Copyright 2009--Monte Cook" at the bottom.
Yes and no. If he's using this to handwave away management of resources (e.g., rations), then no thank you. I am, however, a fan of using valuable dungeoneering equipment as treasure--sometimes finding a 10' pole and a cask of fresh water can be a godsend. So, in that sense--i.e., "you can sometimes replenish resources from unexpected quarters"--I would agree. In another vein, if he means "don't worry about how monsters eat, they do just fine," I agree in practicality, if not on the specific theory.
The biggest problem with this assumption is its name -- reading the actual text on Monte's site, he's not talking about PC resource-management (whether you have to carry iron rations and water, how long you can stay in the dungeon before having to return to the surface) but rather that there's an assumed ecosystem within the dungeons -- that when there aren't PCs around to eat, the big monsters eat smaller monsters, and smaller monsters eat assorted fungi that grow in the dungeon -- without worrying too much about the details.
On looking through it again, I suspect your read is correct.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/6965/avatarpy6.jpg "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
Logged![[avatar]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4qI6i7wKX1c/SdZoRveimpI/AAAAAAAAADI/N5Grto0YRg4/S220/Mage.JPG "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d164/Calithena/FightOn1Cover.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.waynesbooks.com/images/graphics/blackmoorsuppii.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://titan.provider24.biz/download/Image/game/units/dragon.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://enrill.net/images/avatars/Nuxalk-totem-head-100P.png "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://images.proboards.com/avatars/dog.gif "[avatar]")