In defense of smaller dungeons

[tkdco2]

Megadungeons have always been popular. I've seen a few threads about such projects. But don't discount mini-dungeons. They're fast and easy, and they can provide good side quests. I prefer that style, since I don't game enough to complete a long adventure.

Johnn Four wrote a book named 5 Room Dungeons.

Likewise, here's a video explaining why smaller dungeons are a good idea.

[Deleted]

Jul 3, 2021 15:52:40 GMT -6 tkdco2 said:

Megadungeons have always been popular. I've seen a few threads about such projects. But don't discount mini-dungeons. They're fast and easy, and they can provide good side quests. I prefer that style, since I don't game enough to complete a long adventure.

Johnn Four wrote a book named 5 Room Dungeons.

Likewise, here's a video explaining why smaller dungeons are a good idea.

It's more common for me to play shorter and less frequent face to face games as I get older, so smaller dungeons have their appeal. I'm still mentally fiddling with how this affects level progression, though. You'd need to cram much more or higher-value treasure per dungeon or reward XP on some other metric, like Milestone or RP/Objective based. It would be a bit of a slide back towards the 5e or Black Hack games I ran a few years ago. Not a bad thing necessarily, just different. Worth looking into.

[Finarvyn]

Yeah, one of my favorite low-prep tricks is to Google "dungeon map" or something like that and just download and print one of the many online. Takes almost zero time to fill it, no big plot stuff but it's a quick afternoon's entertainment.

[Deleted]

Jul 3, 2021 16:29:36 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Yeah, one of my favorite low-prep tricks is to Google "dungeon map" or something like that and just download and print one of the many online. Takes almost zero time to fill it, no big plot stuff but it's a quick afternoon's entertainment.

I've done this several times, notably during my 5e game that ran from the D&D Next playtest through early 2016, before switching to WB, although I found that if I found a map I liked ahead of time and found a way to work it thematically into the region in which it was found, preferably linking it to an NPC or a known problem, it was easier to thematically flesh out the encounters and contents. If that makes sense. 

[aramis]

The only appeal I see to megadungeons is that they're campaign settings in their own right.

My style of underdark setting is that used in The Shadow Elves, not a detailed out megadungeon.

[jeffb]

I find the tales about the original megadungeon campaigns fascinating. Blackmoor, Greyhawk, Gristlegrim and such. There are some great bits to steal.

But I hate running the things, and hate playing in them even more. I much prefer small "dungeons" and a variety of them.

The only large scale adventure locations I've ever cared for are the (mostly)above ground ruined city types. e.g. The Big Rubble and Parlainth.

[tdenmark]

Agreed. Small dungeons are the best! This is why I started making Bookmark Dungeons.

odd74.proboards.com/thread/14902/bookmark-dungeons

[Deleted]

It's far more common for modern computer rpgs and tabletop campaigns to use smaller dungeons, for that matter. (Even the largest dungeon in Skyrim for instance would only qualify as a very small megadungeon, and that's Blackreach, which is kind of the Underdark of that game that's accessible through several different smaller dungeons.)

Smaller dungeons naturally imply a different universe or milieu from mega-dungeons or the Mythic Underworld, of course. When I was a kid and I first began running games in "the seven realms" I had no concept of a classic D&D dungeon. The closest thing that commonly cropped up was the zeppelins used by forces of the sinister Macho Man, which all had a similar internal layout but different treasure and other obstacles each time. We also experimented with "boss fights" locally because we all played Final Fantasy and other JRPGs. Kind of did the 4e "minion" thing a lot of years before 4e was a thing. I'll never forget the final, climactic duel between Kermit the Frog and Randy Savage in the driving rain, as lightning flashed around them. Now that was a D&D campaign for the ages, folks.

[yesmar]

Jul 8, 2021 18:02:39 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

I'll never forget the final, climactic duel between Kermit the Frog and Randy Savage in the driving rain, as lightning flashed around them.

Fantastic!

[Vile Traveller]

I've never seen how megadungeons could provide satisfying campaign play. We had no inkling of the concept back in the day, as far as we were concerned the way was shown by the B/X modules and examples. I can see how it might have had traction at the origin of the hobby, when the very idea was novel and many different players adventured in the same, ever-changing underground stetting. There also seems to have been more of a "out-think the referee" vibe, in a way more closely related to computer gaming than our idea of role-play today, so these kinds of settings with many and varied puzzles to overcome might be appealing if run that way. But it would need a very imaginative referee to keep it fresh session after session, and down-time would have to be either handwaved or seriously downplayed as time went on and it got harder and harder to get out of the dungeopn between adventures, and then back down to where you left off. No wonder shortcuts and teleports were the order of the day.

[Deleted]

I've noticed a lot of the mega-dungeon modules I've read and a lot of the roguelike crpgs include safe zones, like little towns within the dungeon, usually ran by friendly or neutral monsters. Goblins, mushroom people, etc. In practice, this kind of transforms one single dungeon into several dungeons with towns in between.

There are many anecdotes about Castle Greyhawk and Castle Blackmoor using zones like this back in the earliest games. I guess it's always been a thing, so when you think about it, focusing on the overworld and spreading the dungeon levels out by making multiple smaller dungeons in the world serves the same purpose, just flavored differently.

[derv]

Jul 10, 2021 14:22:08 GMT -6 Vile Traveller said:

I've never seen how megadungeons could provide satisfying campaign play. We had no inkling of the concept back in the day

It kinda gets to the point of, what is it that you personally enjoy about rpg's. Me, I actually like wilderness romps into unknown locations. Yet I've heard similar complaints about sandbox play- that it can get a bit stagnant, repetitive, and requires an imaginative ref to keep it fresh.

I wonder if the dungeon concept has lost its mysteriousness over the years. The first time I played I remember being struck by this idea of venturing into the dark unknown, sort of akin to going to a haunted house on halloween where you didn't know what lie around the corner.

It was always in mind that each level might bring something new, something different you had not encountered. The dungeon was its own unique environment. There might be an iced cathedral that a blue dragon was laired up in and yetis roamed on level 8, the land of the lost with dinosaurs, cave men, giant bugs, and sleestaks on level 6, a giant underground lake that leads to the abyss on level 10, and a maze of interlocking and shifting complexes with puzzles and alien technology on level 4. The rumors and hints kept you wanting to explore these deeper levels. It was this mystery that made us want to go further more then the promise of gold.

Over time all the tropes become a bit used and that same draw to the dungeon changes. I'm not sure a strict dungeon only setting would appeal to me anymore.

I guess this is why small dungeons have there place. If you are running a sandbox and you don't want to get locked into an extended period of play in one location they make sense. They also make sense for a random lair encounter with little prep. They generally don't offer as much diversity that lends to the surprise factor in my opinion. So, if you enter a small tomb or temple for example, the players already have an idea what they are going to encounter.

[muddy]

I love dungeon crawls - as DM and as player. At Gary Con dungeon crawls run by very old school DM's are what interest me the most by far.

Dungeons are an adventure rich area where normal rules don't apply and with some caution PC's can regulate the level of risk they encounter.
The puzzles there don't need to be puzzles, just something intriguing enough to keep the players interested - the fountain on the other side of the large crevice that seems to spill liquid gold.

Many of the critiques - the need for an imaginative DM, for some hand waving, etc - seem applicable to any sort of play.

I've wondered recently whether the root of the dissatisfaction is actually with the lack of a pre established plot line. If the players prefer to play a PC with a well well developed backstory that fits well into a pre-established plotline, than playing an open ended dungeon crawl with (initially) thinly developed characters won't seem very appealing. But if the players trust that the DM has a coherent, well thought out world/dungeon worth exploring, where encounters are organic to the setting and not a series of random events, then it can be.

[ThrorII]

Jul 3, 2021 15:52:40 GMT -6 tkdco2 said:

Megadungeons have always been popular. I've seen a few threads about such projects. But don't discount mini-dungeons. They're fast and easy, and they can provide good side quests. I prefer that style, since I don't game enough to complete a long adventure.

Johnn Four wrote a book named 5 Room Dungeons.

Likewise, here's a video explaining why smaller dungeons are a good idea.

My co-DM and I (he's running B/X right now) just had a discussion about incorporating the 5-room dungeon concept in to B/X, but somehow retaining the resource management that makes B/X exploration so good.

I came up with the following:

When, during a hex crawl or other exploration, the DM decides that a (smaller) dungeon has been discovered, the DM may resort to the following to create a random mini-dungeon:

1. Roll 1d8 for the 5-room dungeon type (see nerdsonearth.com/2017/12/5-room-dungeon/) (1=The Railroad; 2=The Rooster; 3=The Cross; 4=The Spiral; 5=The Mighty Duck; 6=The Decision; 7=The Wrong Way; 8=DM Pick)

2. Roll 1d2 to determine the order/placement of the Puzzle and Setback (1=as listed; 2=swap them).

3. Roll 1d6 for the corridor between nodes (Entrance node, Setback node, etc.) That is the number of TURNS to travel between that node. Note that you will roll for wandering monsters ever 2 turns, and most likely spend at least 1 turn in each room/node - searching for secret doors, tending wounds, resting, etc. Remember to track torches and lamp oil each turn.

The DM still needs to know how to set up the 5 rooms, populate the dungeon, determine treasure, etc.

[Deleted]

I think there is a use for dungeons of all sizes. There's no reason that every dungeon has to follow a particular mold.

That said, I more or less disagree with the video and the sentiment that smaller dungeons are better dungeons as a general rule. I would not want every session to be megadungeon play, but if I had to name my favorite activity as both DM and player it would be megadungeon play.

Small dungeons as little one-offs here and there are fine. But the problem with small dungeons is that they are almost always linear. So they present players with few, if any, choices in terms of exploration. It also takes away tactical options. Small dungeons are, in effect, railroads; you can follow them to their preordained destination or not, but you can't decide to take a different route to the end of the line or head off to an entirely different destination. And while I do not mean to start a BADWRONGFUN kind of argument, I do think that people who routinely want their sessions to consist of a very orderly 5-room jaunt to the big bad boss effectively want to play a game other than the one spelled out in the 3 LBBs.

Melan wrote a great article on this subject that I always reference when it comes up; here is THE LINK.