The Ten Assumptions of Dungeon Design

[calithena]

www.dungeonaday.com/categories/assumptions

I thought these were actually pretty good. Since we're supposedly the experts, comments?

I didn't look at much of the dungeon but I have to say I think this is a really good idea. I don't know how much support for it there will be (will people pay? Is 3e better than Oe/1e or 4e from a commercial viewpoint? who knows?) but it seems to me to be a very plausible, and fun, commercial project. I wish (a) I'd thought of it and (b) I had the free time to do something like that in the first place.

[edsan]

Isn't this that Monte Cook thing?

James Maliszewski of GROGNARDIA had been blogging about this, as had other people. I think the general consensus was that Mr. Monte was just trying to jump into the Old School bandwagon and make a few extra bucks...

The project looks interesting but the whole "membership" angle leaves a sour taste in my mind. We have folks who have been making Megadungeons for quite some time and make the fruits of their work available for free at their websites or blogs.

I really can't see how Dungeonday.com will really be any better and justify shelling over 100$ per year, not counting the cost of printing the stuff.


Edit: The page also paints a pretty picture of "Whether you're playing out of the little white box, the Basic Set, 1st Edition, 2nd Edition, 3rd Edition (or 3.5), or 4th edition, dungeons come into the game" but the fact remains it is written for 3rd Ed.

[James Maliszewski]

Monte Cook was kind enough to give me a free month's subscription to Dungeonaday.com. I'll be reviewing it more formally later, but, after the first few days of content, I can safely say a few things:

1. The website is very well done and (mostly) intuitive to use.

2. The dungeon itself is indeed very old school in its (general) conception.

3. I don't think it'd be hard to use the dungeon with a pre-WotC edition of the game.

4. Reading the 3e mechanical bits, now I remember why I ran screaming from it into the arms of OD&D again.

5. I have a hard time imagining this, at $10/month ($7 if you subscribe early), being a viable business model, both because of the way the information is being parceled out, and because, even with the ability to print off sections in PDF form, there's no physical product at the end of it that you can take and read and use at your game table.

Overall, I think idea behind it sounds more brilliant than it is. It's possible I'm mistaken and there are just tons of people out there willing to shell out money for a piecemeal dungeon. If so, kudos to Monte for coming up with this idea.

[Finarvyn]

Mar 15, 2009 9:56:08 GMT -6 James Maliszewski said:

Monte Cook was kind enough to give me a free month's subscription to Dungeonaday.com. I'll be reviewing it more formally later...

I'd appreciate a review sooner than later. While I doubt that I join up, if I do so it would be by the end of March to get the special deal.

Mar 15, 2009 9:56:08 GMT -6 James Maliszewski said:

Overall, I think idea behind it sounds more brilliant than it is. It's possible I'm mistaken and there are just tons of people out there willing to shell out money for a piecemeal dungeon. If so, kudos to Monte for coming up with this idea.

I haven't seen this, and certainly have nowhere near the knowledge you have of it since you have a (temporary) subscription, but a couple of thoughts pop immediately into my head:

1. I've bought PDF copies of books before (with no actual physical thing at the end of my purchase) and am not sure that this sounds that much different.

2. Unless a DM waits until the dungeon is "finished" won't he have to either steer his players into certain regions of the dungeon or hope to be lucky enough that they only venture into parts which are complete? Or, perhaps I don't understand the concept of what Monte is up to.

3. Monte Cook has some neat ideas, but his materials always seem so wordy to me. I'd rather trim out about 2/3 of the text (and maybe it's more of a 3E effect than Monte himself) and stick with "bare bones" materials. While I suppose wordy products are a good buy to many, I find them somewhat tiring. For example, compare Ptolus to the City-State of the Invincible Overlord -- Ptolus is a lot more clever but I'd rather run CSIO for my campaigns.

[mythmere]

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.

[James Maliszewski]

Mar 15, 2009 10:10:36 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I'd appreciate a review sooner than later. While I doubt that I join up, if I do so it would be by the end of March to get the special deal.

I'll post it to my blog well before the end of the month. I want to give Dungeonaday.com a fair shake, though, since it's not even been a month since its release.

1. I've bought PDF copies of books before (with no actual physical thing at the end of my purchase) and am not sure that this sounds that much different.

It is in the sense that there's not a single PDF that incorporates everything on the site. So, there's a PDF of the level 1 map, PDFs of each room on that level, PDFs of new items, etc. It's very unwieldy, at least at present. Maybe there will be a compilation once he finishes a level, I don't know.

2. Unless a DM waits until the dungeon is "finished" won't he have to either steer his players into certain regions of the dungeon or hope to be lucky enough that they only venture into parts which are complete? Or, perhaps I don't understand the concept of what Monte is up to.

No, you understand the concept correctly. This is as much of a problem as you wish to make it, in my opinion. In my experience, old school megadungeon campaigns proceed slowly, so it's not hard to "keep up" with the pace of releases. Alternately, there's always the Greyhawk Construction Company to bar the way

3. Monte Cook has some neat ideas, but his materials always seem so wordy to me. I'd rather trim out about 2/3 of the text (and maybe it's more of a 3E effect than Monte himself) and stick with "bare bones" materials. While I suppose wordy products are a good buy to many, I find them somewhat tiring. For example, compare Ptolus to the City-State of the Invincible Overlord -- Ptolus is a lot more clever but I'd rather run CSIO for my campaigns.

I think this is the biggest issue from my perspective. There's a lot of verbiage expended on descriptions, explanations, and mechanical development that are just useless to me. There are lots of great ideas in this dungeon, no question, but, considering the price, I'm not sure it's worth it for old schoolers who prefer a more minimalist approach.

[kesher]

His points were fine, and nicely summarized, but in the end nothing that hasn't been discussed in the million pages of Evereaux's theads over on Dragonsfoot and elsewhere, or shown in Fight On!'s very own The Darkness Beneath. Or Under Xylarthen's Tower. Or The Mines of Khunmar. Maybe you see where I'm going with this.

And in the end that's what bothers me about the whole project. I mean, I think it's distinctly non oldskool in spirit to ask someone to subscribe to your megadungeon; I can't immediately think of anything less DIY.

Maybe I'm being unfair, but I've been playing UXT, which was immediately ready to play, has six levels (and is primed for more) and follows all 10 points, for two sessions now, and it was free...

[Finarvyn]

One idea does occur to me -- when I design a one-shot adventure dungeon I try to populate it with a manageable number of somewhat mundane rooms and a couple special and interesting rooms. (An unusual encounter, a puzzle to solve, something like that.) If Monte’s “room a day” concept actually gives an interesting encounter, and if they are essentially geomorphic, then I could simply mine his ideas and put a couple together to make a one-shot dungeon.

[coffee]

I don't want to sound like I'm jumping on the Monte Cook bandwagon, but I'd like to bring up a few points that have occurred to me:

1) Monte Cook has to eat. Since he doesn't seem to want to work on 4e (and I don't blame him), he's going to stick to what he knows. He has fans; perhaps he can make enough of a living from this. If he does, good for him; it shows a willingness to embrace the new digital economy.

2) Subscriptions are very old school; Judges Guild had their subscription program. This is just digital, as opposed to paper. Monte Cook thus neatly avoids having to charge for postage; he can put that money into a better website.

I haven't been to the site yet (I took a brief glance earlier; I'll probably look at it more tomorrow on my lunch break (where I have a faster connection than here at home.)), but from what I've heard, it's a nice one.


Well, anyway, that's my two cents.

[Zulgyan]

Though I didn't like want Monte was doing (primarly for the lack of brevity), I think that there can be a positive aspect of this. Newschoolers that are Monte's fans will be exposed to a "more" old-school approach to gaming. Maybe not 100% or 90% or 80% old-school, but something that shares some aspects of it. That may spark the interest for more and later look into the more authentic old-school stuff.

That´s how I got to OD&D, being 23 years old. I bought Necromancer Games stuff for 3.5. In the boards people talked a lot about 1E and OD&D occasionally. Then C&C appeared and I thought it would be good to try it. I did, liked it and then started to explore the true older editions.

[kesher]

I certainly don't have a problem with Monte Cook doing whatever he wants to do to make money, I'm just not a fan of this particular project. And I have to ask, did JG really have subscriptions for something like this? A parceled-out dungeon at what again, to me, seems like an excessive cost?

Although, as I wrote that it occurred to me that that's probably similar to what people pay for WoWC and the like, so maybe that's where the price point is coming from.

Zulg, you do make a good point about it functioning as a gateway, so to speak; I hadn't thought of it that way. 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...

[Random]

If I were (a) rich (b) a 3.5 DM, (c) running my 3.5 game via forum (I could never use those huge room descriptions at the table), and (d) not supremely creative, you betcha I'd subscribe to this.

But as it is, I don't really have any interest in a non-free 3E dungeon, even if it is really big, ongoing, and possible to regularly chit-chat with the creator (and many other people running it) about the dungeon and suggestions for its future content.

I wouldn't call it a bad project or anything though. It actually looks kinda fun. What would impress the living hell out of me (and possibly make it worth a subscription) is if the site provided graphics and instructions for constructing a likeness of the dungeon from card stock (to make little dungeon visuals like you see in the pictures).

[Finarvyn]

Mar 16, 2009 6:49:44 GMT -6 kesher said:

I certainly don't have a problem with Monte Cook doing whatever he wants to do to make money, I'm just not a fan of this particular project. And I have to ask, did JG really have subscriptions for something like this? A parceled-out dungeon at what again, to me, seems like an excessive cost?

Not exactly the same, but a similar concept. What Judges Guild did was to sell you a campaign one chunk at a time. You would get a module or a wilderness map or a town or something like that each month, along with a newsletter.

The Wilderlands campaign that you could buy as a huge boxed set was orignally delivered in small parts via a monthly subscription. There were 18 campaign maps total, mostly divided up into a couple maps per instatllment. Each map came with a little book of possible encounters.

So the general concept isn't new, but the electronic aspect is a new twist.

[kesher]

Hm, well, I had no idea the Wilderlands originated that way. Okay, I raise my hands in friendly defeat.

Maybe I just need to go work on my own dungeon...

[Zulgyan]

I think the only thing Dungeonaday and the Wilderlands have in common is that both are meant for D&D.

Otherwise, I don't find any other similarity.

[Random]

I keep reading the title as Dung on a Day. I suppose that's silly, but oh well!

[coffee]

Mar 16, 2009 20:36:50 GMT -6 Random said:

I keep reading the title as Dung on a Day. I suppose that's silly, but oh well!

But funny!

[chgowiz]

Mar 16, 2009 6:49:44 GMT -6 kesher said:

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]

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.

[coffee]

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.

[blackmoor]

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.

Dave Arneson
"the First Referee"

[akiyama]

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.

[akiyama]

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.

[ragnorakk]

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.

[evreaux]

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.)

[benoist]

I've been a subscriber from the get-go and really like DungeonADay. I actually wrote a piece describing what I like about it there, on the Citadel.

As for the ten dungeon design assumptions, I'd combine them with the "quick primer to old-school gaming" and various other pieces like Philotomy's "creating a mythic-underworld dungeon" and would consider this all as very good advice when running dungeon-based games.

[foster1941]

Apr 2, 2009 7:59:47 GMT -6 evreaux said:

9. Food is fairly abundant in the dungeon.

[/b]

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.[/quote]
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!

[howandwhy99]

Mar 15, 2009 11:23:24 GMT -6 mythmere said:

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.

[evreaux]

Apr 8, 2009 3:11:37 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

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.

Apr 8, 2009 3:11:37 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

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.

[evreaux]

Apr 5, 2009 20:00:05 GMT -6 foster1941 said:

Apr 2, 2009 7:59:47 GMT -6 evreaux said:

9. Food is fairly abundant in the dungeon.

[/b]

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.[/quote]
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. [/quote]

On looking through it again, I suspect your read is correct.