|
|
Post by inkmeister on Dec 10, 2012 17:47:36 GMT -6
I've been playing some smaller dungeons lately, but I've been working on a couple levels of what is to be a megadungeon. Of course, the drawing of the maps is the easiest thing for me; I'm very satisfied with that aspect. But keying is difficult, and I feel somewhat conflicted in my approach.
Part of my interest in the megadungeon is, as it is I think for a lot of folks, going back to the root of the hobby.
Benoist has done some astounding work outlining his approach to the megadungeon. I'm awed by it! And others - philotomy, grodog, melan, etc, have done fascinating writing on the subject.
At the same time, there was a photo posted here, and discussed at K&K some time ago, of a level of Gary's castle Greyhawk. The actual layout of the level seemed fairly complex; almost no empty space - it was all corridors and rooms and doors and so on. But even more noteworthy to me was the fact that his key apparently contained only 18 notes, each taking up a single line on regular note book paper. I think about that, and I think about some of the instructions in the Underworld and Wilderness Adventures book, and it makes me think - what kind of background did Gary have in mind for much of that work?
I'm pretty much a newbie to this whole art; when I was a teen and DM'd (2e, story/railroad era), I tried to have a well fleshed out story and reason for everything I placed in my game. If there were multiple types of monsters in my (tiny) dungeon, I wanted to know why they were all there and how they co-existed and so on. In some ways I find that approach somewhat stifling today, since none of this stuff is particularly plausible anyway.
Today, there seem to be a lot of different opinions on the megadungeon. Though some people want to emphasize some sort of remotely reasonable ecology, and others seem to pay no attention to that at all, there does seem to be an emphasis on things like various "monster factions", relationships between various entities and groups within the dungeons, and so on. This strikes me as a pretty sophisticated thing - reasonable, of course, but rather sophisticated. When I think about Gary's key, and think about the basic instruction in the 3LBB's, it makes me wonder if that sophistication was present in the original game. Was that stuff present, but just improvised on the spot, or did the original referees (gary, Dave, Rob, etc) have a detailed idea of how all the parts fit into the larger whole that they kept only in their heads?
Since Rob and Mike both post here, I'm curious if either (or anyone else who might know) could shed light on this aspect of dungeon creation. How sophisticated were the original dungeons? Were there multiple factions? Was there a lot of interaction between monsters and NPC's of various levels? Was there a lot of legend and backstory to the dungeon? Or was it, as it seems to me (though I am admittedly ignorant - thus the post), more of a simple (relatively speaking) game where maps were drawn, then levels populated with horrible monsters, and then the game begins? (As Rob Kuntz apparently once pitched the game to Mike, roughly paraphrased: "Gary has this new game called Greyhawk, where you explore beneath an old castle and kill monsters and find treasure.")
In some ways it appears to me like the actual roleplaying aspect was fairly minor (like maybe it hadn't fully dawned on anyone how seriously people might take the immersive aspect of the game, with elaborate world building, legends, political relationships, etc); the game instead seems to have been much more of a strategic sort of game that emphasized mapping and careful experimentation/guesswork with regard to strange effects and monsters. In other words, a much more "gamey" game than seems to be the norm today. (Whether this is correct or not, there is no value judgment from me; just curiosity).
To open this up more for a wider variety of folks to participate, I would ask the question, what level of sophistication do you like for your own dungeons? Do you like for them to make sense in some way, or are they more funhouse/gonzo/nonsensical? Do you emphasize relationships between various monsters/NPC's/factions throughout the dungeon, or are monsters placed more for the gameplay/strategic/challenge aspect? Do you develop your dungeon world in terms of story, legend, background? Do you see some benefit or merit to approaches other than your own (if no, this is not the same as condemning another's style - just a statement of your own taste).
I welcome any thoughts on the subject, from whatever angle, from anyone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2012 18:46:05 GMT -6
There would be some special things here and there, but also a lot of "There is a monster and it has some treasure. Period."
Google the story "The Magician's Ring" for Gary's account of an adventure. The giant scorpion was just a giant scorpion. No connection to anything else.
When people gave me sh*t about "how do these monsters eat" I put a McDonald's on the sixth level.
I might have a few little "story type" areas here and there, but no f*cking WAY did I have "a story for everything."
|
|
|
|
Post by verhaden on Dec 10, 2012 19:12:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Dec 10, 2012 19:49:04 GMT -6
Thanks both of you; I had never read that story. And thanks a lot for your comment, Mike. You have such a bold and comical way of getting your ideas across. A McDonalds on the sixth level? REally? That's hilarious!
|
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Dec 10, 2012 22:54:53 GMT -6
In my most recent large dungeon game, I just drew the levels and then plopped in monsters and treasures mostly at random. I sometimes think about what they are doing there, especially if it seems like an unusual situation, but it can't be too specific, as you never know when the PCs will find their way to that area (if ever.) For example, don't put a freshly dead monster in one room and the NPC who killed it in the next room over, 'cause what if they find the dead body and then don't go to the room with the NPC for another couple weeks? He's not going to still be there wiping the blood off his sword, is he?
Personally, as soon as I start developing the dungeon too much it starts to fall apart. I much prefer dealing with things as they arise out of play, not planning them beforehand, so I can see how a very minimal dungeon key (as people see in the photo of the Greyhawk notes) would be an asset. Another asset will be your players, as they will give you tons of ideas as they discuss their own plans and try to make sense of it all. They will come up with stuff you could never have imagined, and put new spins on things. You just have to be able to wing it and not be afraid to have fun with the whole thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Dec 10, 2012 23:25:44 GMT -6
Benoist has done some astounding work outlining his approach to the megadungeon. I'm awed by it! And others - philotomy, grodog, melan, etc, have done fascinating writing on the subject. Thanks inkmeister, although I think awe is a bit strong---but hey, if you feel so inclined, my favorite ritual offerings are gold and rubies   [The Castle Greyhawk] key apparently contained only 18 notes, each taking up a single line on regular note book paper. I think about that, and I think about some of the instructions in the Underworld and Wilderness Adventures book, and it makes me think - what kind of background did Gary have in mind for much of that work? When I think about Gary's key, and think about the basic instruction in the 3LBB's, it makes me wonder if that sophistication was present in the original game. Was that stuff present, but just improvised on the spot, or did the original referees (gary, Dave, Rob, etc) have a detailed idea of how all the parts fit into the larger whole that they kept only in their heads? [snip] How sophisticated were the original dungeons? Were there multiple factions? Was there a lot of interaction between monsters and NPC's of various levels? Was there a lot of legend and backstory to the dungeon? From stories I've heard from them, Gary and Rob would wing a LOT of details in play, but they also communicated back and forth with each other between sessions when they were co-DMing together to keep each other abreast on campaign developments. My sense is that the Castle levels certainly evolved during play, in direct response to the PCs' hostile actions (which could certainly disrupt or create factions/etc.), and the players certainly ganged up into factions over time, too, so it seems only likely that at least some of the monsters would do so in response, too. I don't know how much legend or backstory there was to the original Castle when it was first being explored---I think that the Greyhawk mystique grew in the telling for publication (not that it wasn't there, just that it literally grew over time, as people delved its environs), but that Q's a mystery to me. Perhaps Rob or Mike will chime in with more context. In some ways it appears to me like the actual roleplaying aspect was fairly minor (like maybe it hadn't fully dawned on anyone how seriously people might take the immersive aspect of the game, with elaborate world building, legends, political relationships, etc); the game instead seems to have been much more of a strategic sort of game that emphasized mapping and careful experimentation/guesswork with regard to strange effects and monsters. In other words, a much more "gamey" game than seems to be the norm today. (Whether this is correct or not, there is no value judgment from me; just curiosity). Jon Peterson's _Playing at the World_ explores this in some detail in chapter 4 (although it's a part of the book I haven't read yet, as my copy's on loan to a friend right now). From my personal experience, I think you can play RPGs with various levels of immersion vs. abstraction, and may choose to do so with different levels at different times during the game, too (lower level individual play vs. higher-level campaign play, for example). I also think that your DM and the rest of the play group wield a significant amount of influence on how role-playing manifests in a game---if you're a studied thespian and everyone else are ex-SEALs, then the game may be more abstracted and focused on the PCs as strategic and tactical playing pieces vs. amateur Horatios---or it may not, which is always one of the fun things about playing with different folks at conventions, too! To open this up more for a wider variety of folks to participate, I would ask the question, what level of sophistication do you like for your own dungeons? Do you like for them to make sense in some way, or are they more funhouse/gonzo/nonsensical? I like both, with probably a 65/35 split or so, but my gonzo/funhouse side also gets more free reign after designing a series of traditional levels/encounters/NPCs/magic items/whatever. I've been working on a "Boardwalk Level" at K&K recently, and that's actually pushed me to build a funhouse style boardwalk level next. So, it comes and goes in cycles, for me anyway. Do you emphasize relationships between various monsters/NPC's/factions throughout the dungeon, or are monsters placed more for the gameplay/strategic/challenge aspect? Sometimes, although because my dungeon is relatively large, there aren't any dungeon-wide forces/threats/factions---things are usually more local, although due to the dungeon geography, even "local" groups could still wield influence over a number levels or areas of levels that are close together physically, or connected by elevators/teleporters/etc. and therefore be relatively far apart physically but still "in touch" (so to speak). In general, though, I try to take into account whether any group or ogranization or NPC or whatever has the smarts and inclination to be so proactive, organized, and methodical as to manage their own dungeon environment or not, and then see where things go from there. Unless you want such creatures to take over the entire dungeon (which could also be fun via an invasion or whatever), most monsters will have some "fatal flaw" which prevents them from dominating large swaths of territory---they're likely to be relatively weak (as with Gary's Old Guard kobolds), or not too numerous, or not too organized, or whatever. Or not: it's your dungeon, do what you want with it Do you develop your dungeon world in terms of story, legend, background? Yes, but I also rely strongly on Greyhawk as part of my campaign. Mendenein (my primary homebrew campaign) is a sister-world to Greyhawk, so the two are "close" in the planar sense, and travel and traffic between the two Primes is relatively easy and frequent, even at low levels. I don't write much campaign background/fiction anymore, but can and do draw on what I've create on my own in the past, as well drawing from Greyhawk (mostly, but also the FR, Kalibruhn, Melnibone, Beleriand, or whatever other sources are relevant to the adventures at hand). Do you see some benefit or merit to approaches other than your own (if no, this is not the same as condemning another's style - just a statement of your own taste). Yes, I'm happy to borrow good ideas from whoever has them  |
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Dec 11, 2012 3:02:17 GMT -6
Grodog Said: "Yes, I'm happy to borrow good ideas from whoever has them." Yes. I figured that out after years of question-laden letters, phone calls and e-mails from you. Once an object always an object... I fell Sooooo USED! RJK |
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Dec 11, 2012 8:30:05 GMT -6
Blackbarn, thanks for the thoughtful (as always) response. I think I agree with you; I find overplanning to be very stifling to my creativity and I easily succumb to analysis paralysis anyway. When you have 100+ rooms per level, the various combinations and possibilities are too much, even allowing for most of the rooms to be empty. Is that what you mean when you say that too much development causes your dungeon to fall apart?
I am really curious about this point because a lot of folks in the blogosphere and on various forums who have respectable work and opinions seem to try to make the case that a very large dungeon needs more than a map and a key. Perhaps the reality is much more of a synthesis than is apparent from reading. For example, naturally there should be all manner of types of monster and people in the dungeon, and it should be possible to have friendly alliances between various groups (including PC's with monsters, etc), but none of that needs to be known at the outset, but can instead be developed through play. On the other hand, some would claim that there needs to be some kind of purpose or legend or story for the players to discover in order to entice the players and make the experience meaningful. For example, if the players can discern a relationship between monsters and factions, they can use that information strategically.
Grodog, I've seen a lot of your writings over the last few years, and a goodly number of your maps (especially on dragonsfoot), and they are seriously impressive and creative. I wish I could reward you with some GP's and rubies. Seriously, work like yours (and others in this community) inspires and educates a lot of people who want to learn about a different style of gaming. Thanks a lot for your comment. My question to you, about development of various NPC groups in the dungeon, is this: do you pick a room and go "5 orcs inhabit this room," and call it done, or do you try to establish that they may be part of such and such clan, which also has ties to such and such kobolds in some other part of the dungeon, and trades with some human cult on the level below, etc? Or just let it happen through play?
I guess the way I'm starting to envision things is less planning up front, and more of the idea that as referee you are basically a player (a general basically) that must control the forces of the dungeon in a logical and challenging manner, and so while the initial state may be minimally defined, as the game progresses, decisions are to be made in a way that "makes sense," given the circumstances and forces in question. Basically playing the pieces as best you can.
|
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Dec 11, 2012 9:41:10 GMT -6
Grodog, I've seen a lot of your writings over the last few years, and a goodly number of your maps (especially on dragonsfoot), and they are seriously impressive and creative. I wish I could reward you with some GP's and rubies. Thanks again. I post many of my maps over on DF too, but in general my mainstay for maps posting has been the Megadungeons forum on K&K. I used to cross-post more regularly, but haven't as much (in part simply because I wasn't posting them, too---I've only recently gotten access back to my web site host after a couple of years of issues; the hazards of free hosting from friends, sometimes!). My question to you, about development of various NPC groups in the dungeon, is this: do you pick a room and go "5 orcs inhabit this room," and call it done, or do you try to establish that they may be part of such and such clan, which also has ties to such and such kobolds in some other part of the dungeon, and trades with some human cult on the level below, etc? Or just let it happen through play? That depends entirely on the nature of the encounter. I doubt that I'd put too much effort into 5 orcs at the onset of play, although if I had already developed some tribal relationships/rivalries, I might note in the key something like "5 Bonegnawer Orcs (hp 7, 2, 5, 4, 5) armed with polearms and daggers; 28 ep), guarding the west passage; will sound alarm gong if engaged" or whatever. OTOH, if I'm working up a more important, set-piece encounter, or working with higher-level monsters that are intelligent and might be interesting to use for more than a quick combat one-off, I'm more likely to develop and leverage further information/notes. Example: a lair of rakshasas exists in the dungeons, and they are allied with both weretigers and normal cats (who spy throughout the dungeon for the weretigers and rakshasas); let's call this group "the Cats of Ulthar". Any random encounters with normal cats yield a chance that the cats are a spies for the group (and what if your PC casts find familiar in the dungeon and nets a cat, hmmm? ). Depending on where/how they're interacted with by the PCs---if at all---the group might remain just that: something with development potential that may or may not ever be realized in play. If the PCs meet some weretigers as WM on an upper level, perhaps that becomes a forward outpost for the Cats, or perhaps they're rivals or unaffiliated. It just depends on what direction the play takes things---and this applies on both sides of the screen, too: if I've sat down and developed The Cats of Ulthar into a network of spies and assassins with specific goals, and outposts, fall back lairs, and such, and the PCs don't interact with them at all, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're static either---they may be raiding other areas of the dungeons, kidnapping noble daughters to sell into the slave trade, or otherwise doing their own thing too. In terms of tying together disparate encounters, sometime's it's as simple as the Cats using a sandy cavern further from their main lair in the level as a litter box, too, so WM encounters in that cavern and to/from it are more likely to be some Cats heading to/fro.... I guess the way I'm starting to envision things is less planning up front, and more of the idea that as referee you are basically a player (a general basically) that must control the forces of the dungeon in a logical and challenging manner, and so while the initial state may be minimally defined, as the game progresses, decisions are to be made in a way that "makes sense," given the circumstances and forces in question. Basically playing the pieces as best you can. I think you have to do both, while maintaining flexibility to react to the players' actions and reactions, too: if you only populate the level with orcs and kobolds and whatever other standard stuff the dice dictate, then the levels will be relatively drab and boring, even when set into motion; you still need the set-piece encounters, specials, enigmas and mysteries, and other strangitude in order to make the players curious, and keep their interest in exploring and learning more secrets/mysteries/whatever motivates your crew. |
|
|
|
Post by mgtremaine on Dec 11, 2012 13:33:50 GMT -6
Personally, as soon as I start developing the dungeon too much it starts to fall apart. I much prefer dealing with things as they arise out of play, not planning them beforehand, so I can see how a very minimal dungeon key I like this piece of truth ..... I've been doing bit of pondering about the "Megadungeon" in general lately. In my world I have Castle Evermoor, which sits outside of Tybor, the second largest city in the world, and figures heavily in the history of the area. So the weight several millennia of history is almost unbearable for anything I start to map out on this place. The interesting thing is I've never really had to run it . there have been a few short missions by mid level groups to enter and get to s specific place but no one has ever really used it as focus for their group. The history has been far more useful, the concept of the Lords of Plunder who in the past have raid Evermoor and built their own nearby strongholds far more often comes up. The plain and forests around the Ruins of Evermoor are filled with legacy of the Lords of Plunder... Opps halt ramble back to point... What I was thinking is I don't have to ever map the whole d**n thing, all I really need is map the small pieces of it that are important currently. I have list of 20 - 30 "features" like Level 1: Warrens of the Silverspear (Orcs) Halls of the Goblin King -> Gemflower Mines Scions of the Green God Fountain of Stars -> River of Life Bottle City Ruined Library The Sunken Graves Instad of drawing the map I know what level they are on and what direction they are headed. Then I use a random roll to determine how long the party wanders through the tunnels before they encounter a "feature" which can be rolled randomly. So if you enter level one and head west you might wander for 1d6 hours, I roll Wander Monsters as required until you run into a fearure. I roll 1d4 -> 1) Silverspear Warren 2) Scions of the Green God 3) Fountain of Stars 4) Bottle City [ Thanks Rob ] then they play out the feature. Once completed they can head back or head towards another they may get so lost in the tunnels that come back to where they started. I like this because it lets the complex be un-mapable and vast, truly "You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike" That's my current thoughts and I'm slowly working out the resolution tables.... When a feature gets old and over abused I can remove and add something else. -Mike |
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Dec 11, 2012 14:14:02 GMT -6
What I meant earlier about too much development making my dungeon fall apart was that one detail leads to more, and before long my mind is creating a lot of things that seem interesting or cool, but in the end do not serve actual gameplay. For example, maybe I see some connections between creatures or NPCs in the dungeon, and imagine a plot behind it all. I could develop that, but then it starts to feel like revealing that to players is the point, or that I must prepare more and more before being "ready." I don't think that works well, at least not for me. It becomes too much to manage.
|
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Dec 11, 2012 14:59:15 GMT -6
Blackbarn - I definitely see your point. I have the same issue. There are too many variables, too many possibilities, and always more questions that could be asked and answered. AT least that is what I take away from what you are saying.
I think too a big part of it is who you want to please. There are some people who will never be pleased with a megadungeon (or any dungeon) campaign anyway. Some people want the heavy backstory and roleplaying and depth. I think others are happy to have the challenge of mapping and dealing with all kinds of whacky situations where some degree of story arises through the play experience itself.
I get to doubting myself sometimes though. Recently reading some various criticisms of various dungeon designs, and also reading the really good stuff from Kevin Crawford (Stars Without Number, and Red Tide); his works in particular seem modern in the way he treats monsters less as monsters and more like different kinds of people, and encourages a lot of background story depth, even though his games emphasize oldschool (moldvayesque) mechanics. So I start thinking, d**n, maybe I'm missing out on something. And no matter what you do, you are missing out on something.
Maybe I'm weird, or my vision is somehow lacking, but I think I like the idea of the megadungeon being less serious and deep... not that cool ideas and stories can't come up or be inserted, but that I think of it initially more like a game that can have some extra life breathed into it when fun/needed.
That is kind of how I read some of the other comments here by Mike and others.
By the way, Blackbarn, have your players cracked the 3rd level of your dungeon yet? Any casualties yet?
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Dec 11, 2012 17:13:19 GMT -6
Well, I'm going to chime in here.
First to Background. Make it what you want, really, because, guess what? It's your dungeon and you get to create and stock it and explain it to your own heart's content. There is no just add water and mix formula. It's all wildly different according to way too many variables to detail, digest or even comprehend and implement.
Some have been identified. Fun House dungeons, for instance. This is what most folks were weaned on. Then came the scientific approach which I reject whole-heartedly. Why? Because the whole underlying principal of megadungeons like Greyhawk filled with monsters for any reason is a most absurd concept to begin with, and thus to lend scientific formulas to its being is equally absurd. So, within the limits of the prescription any thing goes and is satisfactory. Wanna add ecology? Have at it. I myself have more useful channels (as did Gary) for my creative endeavors.
This model could very well change based upon myriad factors, but that enters once again into singular objectives and details beyond the scope of a general treatise and denotes specificity in regard to one's own creations and campaign history that would influence the matter overall and thus cannot be retro-fitted in any complete way back to generalized formula. This would rely on a specific tone and "realistic" stocking of an area that has internal and external relations and thus cannot be classed as other than scenario driven for overall story. This is part and parcel of what I accomplished in designing the Greyhawk City Sewers (1974).
But as far as MDs, just be creative, maintain mood, throw in mysterious rumors, bring background to foreground, leave 'em clues and create a maddening array of strange and perturbing instances that keep players at the edge of their seats and coming back for more "enchantment". After all, the dungeon is but the vehicle for the story and all that accompanies it. It's your test-tube of creation wherein either you succeed or fail at keeping your players involved within it. IOW, this is about story and adventure, not science.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Dec 11, 2012 22:03:40 GMT -6
Personally, as soon as I start developing the dungeon too much it starts to fall apart. I much prefer dealing with things as they arise out of play, not planning them beforehand. Interestingly, I first learned this through Traveller. When I first started running games in the Spinward Marches I tried to plan and design everything beforehand - but it soon became obvious that, even in a Jump-2 Type S Scout/Courier, the players had far too many options for me to predict and prepare them all. So, I basically went seat-of-the-pants and, to my surprise, both the players and I had much more fun than in my earlier efforts. I haven't looked back since, in any genre. |
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Dec 14, 2012 11:33:48 GMT -6
I've noticed lately that there is some heavy discussion of the Dwimmermount dungeon on other forums, and some negative reviews on a few blogs. At the outset, I should say that I've never read any releases or previews of this product, and have no judgment on it or its creator. This comment is just for discussion purposes. One of the major complaints of the first level of DM was that it contained too many empty rooms. There was also the complaint, if I'm reading it right, that there was a lot of description of these empty rooms, but a lack of meaning or interactivity. One fellow (at this blog: forgottenrunes.blogspot.com/2012/10/old-school-dungeon-crawling-is-like.html ) comments that one of the problems is that the Dwimmermount dungeon doesn't just call the empty rooms "empty rooms." Others have discussed the potential problem of over-description of rooms that are empty as far as function is concerned. For example, you get into this thing of whether a person should say "I search the room" vs. "I search the top left drawer of the desk," and so on. If a house is truly empty, do you want to spend 5 hours discussing the exact ways in which it is to be searched? Once again, pondering Gary Gygax's map (from the picture floating around on the webz), you see 18 entries on the map key, each taking a single line or less, and you see a map that takes up every last square of a page of graph paper. A lot of those rooms are going to be empties, no? So one question I have is whether Gary and contemporaries would try to give great life and history to much of the dungeon (which apparently James M has tried to do with his dungeon, and most everyone seems to advocate), or whether many of those rooms would be described as "20x30 empty room, exits in the north west and north east." If this is indeed how it was handled, then might a dungeon such as DM benefit from that same approach? Maybe the same dungeon would work better with much more rapid gameplay based on not dwelling on empty rooms. No question the original game advocates a good portion of the dungeon being empty. So, with regard to this discussion of "sophistication," are the rooms merely to be treated as "empty," or, more often than not, is there to be some story or purpose to each and every room? (I know I simply have no interest in putting that level of detail in even one level with 100+ rooms, let alone 5 or 10, and if that means my dungeon sucks and isn't fun, then it means I'm probably not meant to do dungeons! ) I am curious what you all think about this. My own (probably baseless) feeling is that the (historical/oldschool) game is much about risk management, careful guesswork, and mapping. The rooms of the dungeon aren't there to be endlessly described and given deep meaning; the meaning of the rooms and corridors is to make the mapping difficult, and to give some sort of pacing and non-linearity to encounters. Some sort of analogy could be made to chess; the pieces of the game aren't there to reflect social roles or history or anything like that; they are mere pieces in a competitive puzzle game. Another thing I see a lot in various parts of the oldschool community is the idea that every choice should be meaningful up front. I see a semi-criticism of series of intersections and alternate routes where there is no obvious upfront information as to what the difference is between the various choices. This rubs me a little bit the wrong way. It would seem that in a game of exploration (and especially a game that emphasizes mapping to such a strong degree) that the situation is not automatically meant to be meaningful, but rather the situation is calling for exploration/recon, and based on THAT, meaningful choices are to be made (take on this lair, or look for secret entrances to that blank spot on the map, etc). I may well be a fool, and certainly lack a lot of the experience and knowledge of the community here. I am trying to understand the dungeon stuffs, because I have some strange curiosity and interest in it even though most of my gaming was never in dungeons. I'm all for interactive rooms, situations that can be handled many ways, and "specials." But it also seems to me, and I think Geoffrey pointed this out in a different thread here, that much of the game initially was meant to be basically about exploring, mapping, and risk management - Geoffrey made the observation that most of the tricks and traps in the LBB's are just to screw with the mappers. The dungeon perhaps isn't about story so much as it is a challenging environment. In this light, Gary's whacky, mazelike dungeon seems ideal; the dungeons that emphasize naturalism and history are cool, but already veering away from this initial style of game and becoming something else (not to say you can't have elements of both, but that in some way these elements point to different things). No value judgment from me on what anyone enjoys. My point is not that style X is better than style Y. I think the evolution of the game has brought a lot of great things. I'm interested in understanding traditional dungeon crawling and the merits thereof. I wonder if the game evolved away from Gary's convoluted dungeon style towards story/flavor, etc because most people see the game as more of a fantasy, whereas the original players perhaps saw it as a wargame with fantastical elements. I was a huge Starcraft Broodwar addict. I played competitively for 5 years, just about every day. There were two basic types of players. There were those who played the computer campaign and would dabble with multiplayer. They always sucked, horribly, from a competitive standpoint. You could beat 3 or 4 such players at one time if you were a serious player. But they were getting something else out of the game; to them it was about the cool setting (the protoss and the zerg and the terrans vying for intergalactic control!) and cool units and so on. The other type of player (probably the minority, but by far the most avid) were into the game for the competition. It didn't matter what the story was, or what the graphics looked like. It was about executing the best possible strategy to destroy the enemy (always another human being, never a weakling computer AI). I bring this up to say that in some way I feel that D&D originally was more in this competitive vain. In this light, all the crazy "gotchas" seem to make sense; people like Gary were reacting to players who were getting sharper and better all the time, and the challenge had to be maintained; this makes perfect sense to me. In Starcraft, I'd avoid people who weren't any good - it simply was no fun to best newbies time after time, indeed, your skills might even suffer for playing lesser players with any frequency. But then you got that other type of player who is there for the escape. And indeed, it is fun to imagine another world, where you can be part of a knightly order, and visit strange places, and so on. When it comes to D&D (not like Starcraft) , I am definitely into both camps, and respect all styles. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2012 17:03:41 GMT -6
Ah, yes, the great "What is in a room with no treasure and no monster" conundrum.
If you don't describe anything, your dungeon is "unrealistic" and "implausible".
If you describe things, your dungeon is "cluttered with unnecessary details".
Not to mention the players spend six months of real time trying to figure out the deep secret artifact that is just a broken dagger that you meant for a bit of set dressing.
Personally, I'd ignore just about anything anybody else said and do what was fun for me and my players.
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Dec 14, 2012 17:09:21 GMT -6
That's too simple, Michael. And as you know, EGG and David didn't get it right by some interpretations that now abound; so now we need science of what they missed, what they intended and what is the greater exposed matter of it all, so help me Newton!
I believe that there is more discussion done these days about the d**n game rather than playing the firggin' thing or creating matter for it. What's the word for that? BitD it was "Arm Chair Generals..."
|
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Dec 14, 2012 17:35:21 GMT -6
Mike, agreed; comical way to put it, as usual. If it's enjoyable and it's not hurting anyone, then it's good. I'm not sure if a whole lot of simply "empty" rooms is fun, but I also know that coming up with story and purpose for all sorts of functionally empty rooms is tedious (and sort of contradictory - finding a sensible purpose for a room in a nonsensical location) and un-fun. So, like I said, if I have to do that to make a good dungeon, then I probably will go back to not using a lot of dungeons. I have total respect for some of these people like Melan and Grodog and Benoist and many others who are powerhouses at coming up with cool details for their dungeons. I'm not like that at all.
Rob, I think I might take a different perspective than you on discussing the game. I think there is a lot of value, potentially, in discussing the theoretical side of these games. Not that you or everyone has to enjoy that sort of discussion, of course.
The way I see it, D&D is not at all "one thing." It's a whole bunch of sometimes contradictory or incompatible things that all share a single label. But it's not as simple as any one approach being automatically better than the others. There are a lot of GOOD ways to play. For me, these forums and discussions help me clarify and learn about cool ways to play. So for me, it's worthwhile. The whole old-school movement has really opened my eyes to a lot of stuff I would have missed otherwise. I started playing D&D when I was 12 years old in 1995 - so I missed a lot of this stuff you guys take for granted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2012 17:40:45 GMT -6
That's too simple, Michael. And as you know, EGG and David didn't get it right by some interpretations that now abound; so now we need science of what they missed, what they intended and what is the greater exposed matter of it all, so help me Newton! I believe that there is more discussion done these days about the d**n game rather than playing the firggin' thing or creating matter for it. What's the word for that? BitD it was "Arm Chair Generals..." Somebody once observed that talking about RPGs was an entirely separate hobby from playing them. In the model train world we call them "armchair modelers." Now, to be fair, that's all they're able to do sometimes. On the other hand, a lot of people talk a good game. |
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Dec 14, 2012 17:44:56 GMT -6
Mike, agreed; comical way to put it, as usual. If it's enjoyable and it's not hurting anyone, then it's good. I'm not sure if a whole lot of simply "empty" rooms is fun, but I also know that coming up with story and purpose for all sorts of functionally empty rooms is tedious (and sort of contradictory - finding a sensible purpose for a room in a nonsensical location) and un-fun. So, like I said, if I have to do that to make a good dungeon, then I probably will go back to not using a lot of dungeons. I have total respect for some of these people like Melan and Grodog and Benoist and many others who are powerhouses at coming up with cool details for their dungeons. I'm not like that at all. Rob, I think I might take a different perspective than you on discussing the game. I think there is a lot of value, potentially, in discussing the theoretical side of these games. Not that you or everyone has to enjoy that sort of discussion, of course. The way I see it, D&D is not at all "one thing." It's a whole bunch of sometimes contradictory or incompatible things that all share a single label. But it's not as simple as any one approach being automatically better than the others. There are a lot of GOOD ways to play. For me, these forums and discussions help me clarify and learn about cool ways to play. So for me, it's worthwhile. The whole old-school movement has really opened my eyes to a lot of stuff I would have missed otherwise. I started playing D&D when I was 12 years old in 1995 - so I missed a lot of this stuff you guys take for granted. Sure Inkmeister, but doen't your quote: "The way I see it, D&D is not at all "one thing." It's a whole bunch of sometimes contradictory or incompatible things that all share a single label," dispel the very idea of a scientific approach to the matter? Wanna know how we did it? We took a map and drew it, sometimes with an overall idea, though not always concrete, in mind. Then we looked at it and more often said, "This is what we'l do with it," by the very exposition that it conveyed. Thus there is no one true way, as you have inferred; and thus it is left to the vagaries of creative extrapolation, and that only occurs at the point of it happening. Everything else to the contrary is at best imitated processes, or at worst, infantilism, and not creativity in its most diverse and entertaining, and informative, stance. Once people stop looking at the game under a microscope and start experimenting with it as it fits their individual styles then the fullest expression of its vision will be realized, and for each individual according to their own. YMMV |
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Dec 14, 2012 18:05:49 GMT -6
Rob, you mention creativity a lot. Of course creativity is important, maybe the most important thing. At the same time, I don't necessarily see it as the only important thing. I play keyboard pretty much only so that I can play the music of J.S. Bach. In his own day, Bach was considered old-fashioned. I'm fascinated by his music, though. It's intensely creative. At the same time, he wouldn't be the one to produce music like that of Debussy, or Miles Davis, or what have you. Creative as he was, those choices weren't available to him, or to even the most forward looking of his time. And hell, at one point Bach's music would have been considered far too "baroque" and dissonant.
There is too much of this individualistic thinking in our society - this idea that we truly make our own world. I think it's much more of a give and take than that. Yes, we all have creative potential, and we should foster that, but I also think we speak a language that came before us. A person without influences and foreign ideas will not be so creative. You need that input. You guys did a lot of pioneering work, but it was built on things that came before. In a lot of ways, the hobby has moved in different directions, sort of like music moved away from what Bach was doing. For folks coming at it from a different angle than you or Mike, it can be helpful to see a different method.
You have people like Luke Crane, a designer of a successful modern RPG (Burning Wheel) rediscovering 1981 Moldvay D&D and understanding for the first time why the role of mapper and caller is so important. Those are two things people almost instantly throw out of their own games. Are these jettisoned because they are dumb ideas, or because they are misunderstood?
Anyhow, I feel like I've benefited a lot from the kinds of discussions folks have about this stuff.
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Dec 14, 2012 18:31:57 GMT -6
"There is too much of this individualistic thinking in our society..."
Well this answers it all...
|
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Dec 14, 2012 20:04:16 GMT -6
I remember, Rob, you are a political fellow from your blog. Sorry if I alienated you up with a buzzword - ie too much "individualism." Let's unpack that; I'm not talking about your politics or mine. I'm saying that in general, there is a common misunderstanding about creativity. There is this idea of the architect or engineer; that we somehow engineer our world and our life as a completely distinct individual. In reality we reflect so much of the world around us. This is my point when I say that it is valuable and worthwhile to discuss different ways of playing games. I wish you would have looked past my use of the word "individualism." I mean only to say that there is a balance between individual creation and external influence and learning. That's not too controversial, eh?
If one's desire is to be creative, it makes sense to take in as much information and influence as possible, to enrich the process of synthesis. That's all. I am a creative person, but I wouldn't be creative in the ways that I am if it weren't for many other people, influences, etc.
I welcome further discussion from any angle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2012 21:44:48 GMT -6
I think Inkmeister has confused "individualistic thinking" for "can't be bothered to learn the basics."
Pablo Picasso was an artistic genius. Part of the reason he went the direction he did, is that by the age of 20 he had mastered realism. Having mastered realism, he took his art in other directions.
If you haven't mastered realism and start doing things like you think Picasso did, you'll produce utter garbage; you will not produce art.
There IS a difference. Picasso didn't just "do weird sh*t," and if you know anything at all about art, it is obvious. I don't think this is "somehow engineer our world and our life as a completely distinct individual," I think this is simply, as Isaac Asimov put it, maintaining that "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge."
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Dec 14, 2012 22:17:01 GMT -6
inkmeister: Politics had nothing to do with my reaction; ideology did. Listen, I am all for taking what one learns and sluicing it into other forms; the human advance as a species has been predicated upon imitation for the most part. But I will say this: How does one learn to swim? Swimming cannot be imitated, It can be observed only. The actual event of learning to swim occurs at the moment when the body and mind act in unison to fathom (pun intended) its new situation of swimming, and therein will be found little or practically no correspondences. And therein lies the route to learning for all things. I have stated my opinions already, up thread, and heretofore restate them again: "First to Background. Make it what you want, really, because, guess what? It's your dungeon and you get to create and stock it and explain it to your own heart's content. There is no just add water and mix formula. It's all wildly different according to way too many variables to detail, digest or even comprehend and implement. Some have been identified. Fun House dungeons, for instance. This is what most folks were weaned on. Then came the scientific approach which I reject whole-heartedly. Why? Because the whole underlying principal of megadungeons like Greyhawk filled with monsters for any reason is a most absurd concept to begin with, and thus to lend scientific formulas to its being is equally absurd. So, within the limits of the prescription any thing goes and is satisfactory. Wanna add ecology? Have at it. I myself have more useful channels (as did Gary) for my creative endeavors. This model could very well change based upon myriad factors, but that enters once again into singular objectives and details beyond the scope of a general treatise and denotes specificity in regard to one's own creations and campaign history that would influence the matter overall and thus cannot be retro-fitted in any complete way back to generalized formula. This would rely on a specific tone and "realistic" stocking of an area that has internal and external relations and thus cannot be classed as other than scenario driven for overall story. This is part and parcel of what I accomplished in designing the Greyhawk City Sewers (1974). But as far as MDs, just be creative, maintain mood, throw in mysterious rumors, bring background to foreground, leave 'em clues and create a maddening array of strange and perturbing instances that keep players at the edge of their seats and coming back for more "enchantment". After all, the dungeon is but the vehicle for the story and all that accompanies it. It's your test-tube of creation wherein either you succeed or fail at keeping your players involved within it. IOW, this is about story and adventure, not science." Ciao and good luck with your quest! Rob
|
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Dec 15, 2012 19:54:08 GMT -6
Rob, of course I appreciate you taking the time to share some of your thoughts here (weird as it might seem to you, it's really a treat and an honor for someone like me to discuss D&D with one of its pioneers!).
To be clear, in this thread and any thread I make, my interest is in discussion, not final answers. Also, I'm here because I enjoy talking about (O)D&D (if that makes me an armchair general, so be it!). I enjoy analyzing and thinking about how the game is played, and how other people play it. I don't mind if that's a scientific approach or whatever. Basically this is a hobby I really like, and I enjoy discussing it and finding out what other people do and how they think about it.
That said, Trent Foster - a person who has done some impressive writing and theorizing about D&D, said roughly what I've been coming around to (and I only just found this). From TheRPGSite on "What's The Appeal of Megadungeons?":
--------------------------------------------------
Trent Foster:
In a big dungeon that's done right, the sameness of it all becomes one of the features, and lets those same-y details fade into the background so only the things that are actually different (the key encounters and locations) stand out. When you've got dozens of hallways and doors and more-or-less identical empty rooms you move through that stuff quickly by necessity, so it becomes backdrop to the handful of rooms and chambers that aren't just like everything else and makes them stand out more.
I think that's one of the problems of a lot of the published big dungeons - that they're not big enough for that scaling factor to take place - that in a dungeon/level with 40 or 50 rooms every room, every hallway, every door still feels important, like it needs special attention from players and GM alike. In a way, exploring 20 empty rooms is less boring than exploring 6 empty rooms, because in the latter case the GM is probably making some attempt to differentiate each of those rooms with incidental color and detail and the players are spending a significant amount of time on each (thinking that there are hidden details or significant things that they'll be missing if they don't), but with so many empty rooms the process inevitably gets sped up and the boring stuff gets glossed over. Once the players realize the scale of the dungeon - that it's too big for them to ever thoroughly explore and investigate everything (and that everything isn't worth thoroughly exploring and investigating) - then they stop trying to, the pace speeds up, and they more quickly get to those areas that are interesting. And because of all of the empty rooms and hallways they've passed through to get there, they have more of a sense of the place - it size, its imposing and awesome scale - like they're in a true labyrinth or underworld.
The first level of my big OD&D-style dungeon has 300 or so rooms in it - I don't know how many exactly, because most of them are empty and have no number or keyed description, they're just spots on the map filling space between the key lairs and locations (which make up 20% or so of the total and typically require some exploration (navigating along long hallways and through empty rooms) to get to). When the party enters one of these empty rooms it's described as "another empty room; x feet by y feet with a [door/hallway] at z and the same sort of garbage and debris on the floor as usual" and the players know not to spend 20 minutes of realtime searching through that debris and trying to uncover hidden meanings that aren't there but rather to go quickly through that exit and pass along a couple more hallways and through another 3 or 4 rooms just like this until they come across a monster, or a trap, or an interesting/unique location. At the end of a session they might have explored 25 rooms and had 4 significant encounters (plus some wandering monsters that they probably ran away from - note that it's pretty easy to get away from wandering monsters when you're in a maze of small rooms and twisting hallways; just try not to get too lost doing so!) but it probably feels like they accomplished more than if they'd had those same 4 encounters in 4 rooms, or especially if they'd only had 2 significant encounters and spent the rest of their time vainly searching 6 effectively-empty (except for some "filler" detail that the GM put in to try and disguise their featurelessness which fooled the players into thinking there was something potentially interesting about them) rooms. And at very least they'll have gotten a a sort of gestalt or holistic mental picture of the place - how big and labyrinthine it is, how they could probably spend years exploring it and never discover everything.
All that said, yeah, eventually the players are going to get bored doing more-or-less the same thing every session and are going to be ready for a change. And when that happens you set the dungeon aside and run other adventures. But when they feel like exploring the dungeon again, it'll still be there waiting for them (but might have gotten more dangerous while they were away - some new baddies may have moved in, or the old ones may have gotten smarter and better prepared).
[EDIT: funny to see me and Benoist (in the post right above) pretty much directly contradicting each other - him saying you want to avoid the "same-y stuff fading into background" feeling, me saying you want to encourage it. Clearly one or the other of us needs another visit to grognard-groupthink reeducation camp
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2012 20:20:51 GMT -6
"eventually the players are going to get bored doing more-or-less the same thing every session and are going to be ready for a change. And when that happens you set the dungeon aside"
If that's the case, you're doing it wrong. Greyhawk Dungeon was where the weird, exotic things were. Sure the first level or two were pretty ordinary, but once you got below Level 3, you were in a strange place.
Outdoor adventures for gold and XP, dungeon adventures for interesting encounters.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Dec 15, 2012 20:29:28 GMT -6
A few words about J. S. Bach and then a small observation about dungeon design.
In a great essay entitled "Bach gegen seine Liebhaber verteidigt" - "Bach defended against his admirers" - Theodor Adorno argues (convincingly, I think) that despite his music's well-documented reception history, which you quite rightly note makes it very clear that contemporary audiences found his music too "baroque" in the pejorative sense, Bach was a herald of the enlightenment. The complexity of his contrapuntal music, Adorno claims, is a harbinger of nascent early modernity, giving voice not to Lutheran dogma but rather to Cartesian reason. I bring up this article not to contradict your account of Bach's position in the aesthetic world of early 18th-century north Germany, one which he inherited from the likes of Buxtehude and Franz Tunder, but instead to suggest that (like Bach's oeuvre) dungeon design is a matter we might conceive dialectically.
My experience has been that a certain kind of player appreciates large dungeons whose rooms do not furnish an exploratory arc - dungeons that strive to approximate "real" structures, including weird empty rooms or latrines or whatever - and another kind of player appreciates dungeons of fewer than 10 rooms, each of which provides particular set-piece affordances and opportunities for the party to be super cool. I always try to deliver the content my audience (i.e., the players) will enjoy most - not a strategy Adorno would likely endorse, but one that recognizes the consensus-character of the game and one that Bach the organist would surely have hailed.
Not to mention his sons J.C. and C.P.E. Bach, who embraced the crowd-pleasing galant style... I bet they would have bought Vornheim.
|
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Dec 15, 2012 22:24:41 GMT -6
Zeraser, you sound a good bit more educated on philosophy and social theory than I. I am fascinated by these topics, and appreciate you chiming in the way you have. That said, I'm not totally sure I get what you are saying. In teasing it out, I think you might be saying that Bach was considered outdated in spite of the fact that his work anticipates future trends (sort of ironic that way). I'm not an academic, but I understand that a lot of the great scientists of the past (Newton, Gallileo, etc), were motivated by their religious faith, so that can be a related strand.
I brought up Bach mainly in the context of my exchange with Rob; Bach illustrates the value in looking "backwards" in some way, and also illustrates (as anyone does, really, but this is a good example) the limits of creativity; Bach did wonderful things with what was available to him at the time, but would not even have the chance to create fusion jazz. Those pieces (of thought, culture, music, etc) just weren't available (thus, there is value in seeking out information and outside influence - it's why I'm here asking about other people's views on a game, and not simply going it 100% on my own). If I'm reading you right, it seems as if we might be in agreement on this (that Bach, in aiming to further old religious views, was actually employing a sort of philosophical approach that would lead to a secular culture; he was caught up in a wider cultural force).
Beyond that, you make the good point that one should consider the interests of their friends. This kind of D&D that I'm contemplating is of, I think, obviously limited appeal (which is why I think it so quickly fell out of fashion). It does, however, appeal to me. Many other styles do, too.
I think Benoist and others illustrate a sort of hybrid design. I think in some ways they are a "new school" of mega-dungeon design. I am, of course, awed by that dude's work. I think I am leaning more the way of T. Foster, though, copied above.
Maybe the way I'm starting to think about this particular type of game is not even what was intended by Gary and Dave and others at the beginning (but it's the impression I'm getting). I'm perhaps making too much of a 2 dimensional picture of it. I think it does epitomize what Forgies talk about as "gamism." The dungeon is your enemy, and you have to step up and do your best to overcome it. The fantasy stuff is bolted on to a game that really could use any other sort of trappings (sci fi, whatever). As I see it, it CERTAINLY is not about making real world sense, and it's really not even about making sense in the context of fantasy fiction. It's a quirky squadron based war game with fantasy elements. The dungeon isn't there to be meticulously and thoroughly described; it is vast and complex just to be difficult to map and to navigate. Everything about the game is there to challenge the players. Cool story and description are not the point, though these enhance the game.
There are tons of other ways to play, of course! Like I say, I'm interested in lots of things. But I suspect what I'm talking about is what is described (kinda loosely) in the LBB's. It's why the map is emphasized so much; you want to make a really difficult, sprawling map (I don't recall a lot of mention of making interesting history or factions or cool descriptions of rooms) and you want to constantly screw with the players to make the already difficult map even more difficult.
I'm also thinking that this is already reflecting an evolution; I think Gary's work represents an effort to deal with already experienced players who were there at the beginning and thus grew used to the old challenges (maps without the teleporters and weird slanting passages and so on). There was a cool thread elsewhere in which people argued whether Gary was a good DM (based on what they had read, not from firsthand experience). A LOT of them argued that he would be horrible because he was (they say) all about tricking and killing the players. This angle (regardless of the facts of how Gary ran his games, just talking about the perceptions here) is not "wrong;" it reflects a very different set of gaming priorities. Stuff like green slimes, level drain, rot grubs, and all the other crazy tricks and traps just seem unbelievably senseless and cruel and dysfunctional to perhaps the majority of gamers. And that is because they aren't playing the same D&D that is laid out in the LBB's. They aren't playing a game about mapping and about overcoming insane challenges in a squadron based war game. They are playing "let's pretend." And that's fantastic, but I want to try this other game.
Anyway, I hope this jumble makes some sense.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Dec 16, 2012 9:19:25 GMT -6
I see what you're saying, Inkmeister - and in a way this whole discussion illustrates a weird (but, I think, very relatable) dichotomy in how we think about roleplaying games: Are they social negotiations among people at a table or abstract frameworks that allow us to imagine certain fictional things and events in certain ways? My general feeling is that if a problem emerges in the game (in the rules, or even in the dungeon's layout!) that pertains to that social negotiations, I as the DM am responsible for fixing it. If, however, a problem emerges that pertains to my unwillingness to imagine something in the game's world in the way that I'm inclined to, the solution is that I need to get over myself. Good luck finding players who are of one mind with you to play that "other game;" I'm sure they're out there!
Regarding Bach: yes, that's more or less what I was getting at; one listener's "old-fashioned" is another's Aufklärungskomplexität (if you'll excuse my Frankensteinian German neologism). I applaud your interest in a the historical context of Bach's music! It makes me want to do a Gygaxian analysis of a fugue...
|
|
