How do you go about designing your MegaDungeon?

[Stonegiant]

One of the problems I have faced with the mythic underground was the need of the party to heal, resupply, level up, etc. in their base of operation. Along time ago I read a story in Dragon called "Catacombs" which inspired me, in the story was a city called Wizard's Gate which controlled the access to the Mega-Dungeon and the city was underground as well and thus the otherworldlyness of the setting even when in the city was not lost.

[dwayanu]

After months of waffling about with other notions, I have settled on the following premise:

Two jaded and incredibly hoary wizards, powerful enough to fear no meddling by princes in their affairs, entertain themselves with a game of dungeoneering. They invite adventurers to brave their labyrinths, with special rewards for those who accomplish missions pertinent to the wizards' rivalry.

Each serves a Lord of Chaos with strategic ends to which the "harvesting" of high-level mortal souls is a means.

This "game within the game" should be warrant enough for whatever artifices I contrive to challenge players.

I am now considering what peculiarities of character should distinguish the two realms of the Underworld.

[Deleted]

That's a pretty neat idea, dwayanu; it seems to evoke a little of Richard Connell's "The Most Dangerous Game".

[dekelia]

I've been wanting to try my hand at running/creating a megadungeon, but honestly, it all seemed like a lot of work.

The more I read from the regulars on the subject though started to remind me how I used to play long ago. I mostly ran one other guy solo (similar to what I'm doing now - with an occasional second or third). I NEVER planned anything. He either decided to stay in town and find trouble or travel the 4 days by boat to the dungeon entrance he'd found.

I would just make up everything on the fly and we had a great time. In the "dungeon" I almost exclusively rolled on the random dungeon generator from the DMG (but then morph the results into something interesting).

I've decided to see if I can regain that magic (and my own imagination ) by trying that again. I want to have a base to start with though so I started rolling on the tables to see what came out.

I decided that the "entrance" is a magic portal in the basement of Mabelak's tower (Judges Guild adventure). I like the idea of the entrance being a portal (inspired from this thread) so it sets the precedence (and I'll go with the assumptions) that everything about the "underworld" is otherplaner to some extent and all entrances will be magical. Doors "out" of the dungeon could actually be anywhere in the world.

I won't try to plan the dungeon out (i.e. high level plan), but instead just insert anything I come up with that I think would be fun. I will plan areas ahead of time, of course. It will be never ending and could theoretically lead anywhere (the river Styx will be in there somewhere). This IS the "underworld". This is bastion of Chaos.

Starting from the mystical and magical removes any bounds and make anything possible. Need a town to recoup...put one there. They may not even KNOW you came through the underworld...heh.

The more I think about it the more inspired I am and the more I want to flex my creative muscles. It may end up great, it may be a train wreck...we'll see.

PS. I don't pop into these discussions much, but I've been lurking for quite some time. Thanks to everyone who participates, you've given me some great ideas and inspiration.

[coffee]

dekelia said:

It may end up great, it may be a train wreck...we'll see.

Absolutely.

As a matter of fact, with dungeon design as well as any other creative endeavor, just taking the risk that it might end up a train wreck liberates you enough to make it great.

If you go into it thinking "This has to be great!" there's too much pressure. But if you take the attitude "Hey, this might stink, but I'm gonna go for it!" you have a better chance of achieving greatness.

Good luck with your dungeon, and let us know how it turns out!

[dekelia]

coffee said:

But if you take the attitude "Hey, this might stink, but I'm gonna go for it!" you have a better chance of achieving greatness.

I also think the bottom up approach (just design as you go and add as the good ideas hit) gives you the best chance to fix it or adjust if it is a train wreck (and learn as you go) with the least amount of wasted effort, which I like. Very much like rapid development or extreme programing for the software engineers in the crowd.

[dwayanu]

I think this may relate to the "bottom-up" issue: What about long-term consequences? What about reuse?

It's a drag all around if players must trek too much through mapped, much less "cleared," areas to get back to the Unknown. On the other hand, a bit of that both gives an impression of a changing environment and allows players a chance to savor the evidence of their exploits.

I think that striking the proper balance in that regard is behind much of my own frustration of late with the mega-dungeon.

It hardly figures at all when one deals in discrete locations on the campaign map. Once Kobold Kommand is sacked, adventurers bypass it for more promising precincts.

[sham]

As anyone who reads the Mega Dungeon sub forum at K&K knows, I'm a huge dungeon crawl fan, and a recent Mega Dungeon convert. I decided to undertake a true Mega Dungeon effort recently, and I can tell you that I've been wallowing in the details for weeks now. Everytime I turn around I think of some other variable or side project that I feel needs work.

The pit-fall for me thus far has been literally sweating the details. Why? Because I want this to be an archival work. I will have plenty of connections available for higher level PC's to skip and not have to slog through an army of Kobolds everytime they enter or exit the Mega Dungeon, but...I continually come up with some other aspect of the Mega Dungeon that I feel might need more attention.

Recently, after finishing Level 1's 178 rooms and play testing a bit with my step son,

www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=27705

I made another list of 'to do's' AND decided that the Goblins on 1B + 1C were too organized for a level 1 dungeon. Thus I kicked around the idea of a Level 0, but ended up instead with my current project of a new sub level 1 which will 'almost' *shudder* rail road the PC's a bit before they reach the more dangerous parts of Level 1.

It will open up big time after a little crawling in the sub level, but I'm adding it as almost a 'buffer' level for low level PC's.

Anyhow I posted this over at K&K

www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=4161

although I am thinking of trimming down my prep work a bit since I find I am spending too much effort on variables that might not even come into play for months.

~Sham

PS-I love the Mega Dungeon Campaign concept, in case you didn't figure that out already!

I suppose I'd like to add that I am finding that a buffer level, upper most level, or a sub level intro bit is a good way to give you the time to get the MD underway before the PC's make it into the MD proper with it's many low level connections and variables you want to add later (which take a ton of prep work). I wish I had started this way. Months from now, when the MD is more 'fine-tuned' you could even discard the intro feel of that beginning bit by adding low level connections to it as well.

[ffilz]

One thought on skipping through the boring stuff...

Worry about it later. Everaux suggests the mega-dungeon be a living dynamic work. Don't write it all up ahead of time.

You can always pencil in a new passage. The players might decide to dig/blast some short cuts. You might put a magic item or something on the lower levels.

Frank

[coffee]

ffilz said:

The players might decide to dig/blast some short cuts.

Why he had it, I'll never know, but there was one kid in my original group back in the day (AD&D this was) who had a scroll with seven Disintegrate spells on it.

We were having trouble with a guardpost of some kind (trolls, maybe? I forget). So he pulls out the scroll and starts making his own flanking tunnel around the side, so we could get into "the real fight".

Afterward, I think the DM kind of regretted having given out that scroll...

[grodog]

Dec 30, 2007 1:16:43 GMT -6 @oltekos said:

That's a pretty neat idea, dwayanu; it seems to evoke a little of Richard Connell's "The Most Dangerous Game".

An excellent short story, btw, and one I'd like to re-read sometime. Thanks for the reminder

[Ghul]

Jul 11, 2007 21:12:33 GMT -6 @irishwarrior said:

How do you go about designing your MegaDungeon?

The same way I eat an elephant: One bite at a time.





I feel that a fine approach is to map first, fill in second. Some rooms you might fill with deadly and creative material, while others might be left simple and bare.

I feel that the mapping should be done on graph paper with a mechanical pencil, 0.5mm being my personal preference. Keep the lines light, however, and if you feel the need to number early on, number very lightly, for as you begin to develop the dungeon, you might wish to expand an area here, add a secret passage there, and this can radically change your numbering sequence.

I must also concur with Evereaux. Having a basic plan as to how you will fill your dungeon is key, IMO, or at least a vague idea on how you intend to fill it out. I like to have an outline of the major adversaries to the party, a decent idea of their prime motivations, and then fill out around them. How the major adversaries' motivations conflict (or possibly a agree; as in alliances formed) is something else to consider. And sometimes you will have vast areas where the inhabitants are living in a predatory environment within which there is no motivation except death and mayhem.

Really, there are many excellent posts on mega-dungeon theory across the net (K&KA + DF being prime examples), and among my favorite MD theorists are Evereaux, T. Foster, Grodog, and Melan. There is something to be learned or inspired by from each of these gentlemen, and many others as well.

In the end, no matter how much you read about it, you will find, I think, that you need to stumble through it on your own, discovering what went wrong along the way, what went right. It's a very challenging yet gratifying experience. The finest gratification occurring when your players are several layers deep into your diabolical dungeon, the tension is high, and a single roll of the die determines victory or defeat; the overcoming of a hard-won obstacle after which high-fives across the table are met. These are the times when all the lonely work of your mega-dungeon creation are paid off: when fun is had by your group!

[premmy]

To answer the original question, I'm a bit too impulsive and fickle to create a proper Megadungeon; so instead, I build smaller "complexes" which I then either use as standalone set-pieces, or link together for a larger dungeon.

Such a complex usually starts with a single spontaneous idea for an interesting spacial feature: for instance, I decide I want to do something centered around a spacious, multi-floor open area like a cathedral's nave, with smaller rooms around it; or I might decide on a makeshift outpost in a set of natural caverns dominated by underground streams and a waterfall.

Then I come up with a function for this dungeon feature: the large nave would be spot-on as the central room of an abandoned cathedral; while the cavern outpost could be use by, say, smugglers.

At this point I might start drawing the map, but at the same time I also decide on further stylistic elements which flesh out the location: is the abandoned temple full of minor magic like light globes for illumination and automatically opening doors, or is it dark, forlorn and non-magical? Are the statues and decorations modeled after ancient Egypt, or Aztec architecture, or something else? Are the damp, irregularly shaped caves rendered habitable by placing wooden platforms on scaffolds, or are the caves carved into regular rectangular sizes with small drainage channels, or is it a mixture of the two? If platforms, are they sturdy and well-maintained, or broken and rotting?

At this point, I have enough details to start thinking about the kinds of monsters I want to see - the cathedral is abandoned, so it will mainly have animated guardians - golems, statues, gargoyles, caryatids, etc.. It might also have restless spirits and ghosts. If I went with an Egyptian style, a few mummies are in order, along with mummy-looking lesser undead. For the smugglers' caves, the smugglers are probably there, but the streams and waterfalls are also a great entry point for subterranean and/or aquatic monsters.

One important factor I always try to keep in mind is three-dimensionality. The "standard" dungeon with its discreet, clearly separated and completely horizontal levels is, well, a bit boring, and also unrealistic - in real life we have uncountable examples of facilities and installations that span several vertical floors (not to mention natural caves, which tend to be strongly vertical and completely lacking discreet "floors" or "levels"), so why not have them in the dungeon, too? Furthermore, strong verticality also provides the players interesting mapping, orientation and combat challenges. My personal advice is: have multi-floor halls and vaults, balconies overlooking lower locations, temporarily erected gangways and bridges over depths, and climbable pillars and chutes. The concept of "dungeon level" is an abstract organizational concept with a side effect of forcing architecture into predictable patterns. Floors or storeys, however, are architectural concepts free of the constraints of an artificial dungeon organizational system. Think in terms of storeys, not levels.

Once I have several such complexes, I might want to link them together into a proper dungeon. At this point, again, the question of spaciality comes into play. Do I really need to have one of these complexes directly below the other, or could I arrange them in a different, more interesting way that makes just as much (or even more) sense? The fact that the complexes are already multi-storey easily facilitates arrangements side-by-side, staggered, or even one partially encircling the other.

Of course it goes without saying that such a linking of pre-made complexes necessitates changes vis-a-vis what creatures might live where and the like, but this is elementary and requires no comment.

It's good to have numerous transit points between different sections of the dungeon: it gives the players navigational alternatives, and it makes the dungeon feel like a a complex, integrated place rather than a haphazard collection of separate levels. (Of course, some sections make more sense being isolated from the rest of the dungeon, so there are always exceptions.)

[Deleted]

For myself on any dungeon/mapping project, I like to look at the work of others to get inspiration as I find that helps to get the creative juices going and to do rough outlines of the levels before I start getting really serious into the design stage. Some of my favorite large-size Dungeons are:

* the Undermountain Modules ( Skull Port is my favorite)

* Expedition to the Barrier Peaks

* the First Ravensloft Module

* Tegel Mansion from Judges Guild

* The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan

* All the original Arduin Dungeons ( Dave was a master of filling an entire 8''x10'' sheet of graph paper).

[dwayanu]

I find myself tending more (at least in the first phase) to "map the fill" versus filling a map.

I'm trying out an approach of mapping by sectors of 30 x 30 squares. That leaves room on the same page for a succinct "key."

[Ghul]

Dec 21, 2008 12:27:49 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

I find myself tending more (at least in the first phase) to "map the fill" versus filling a map.

I'm trying out an approach of mapping by sectors of 30 x 30 squares. That leaves room on the same page for a succinct "key."

It would be interesting to hear how this works out for you. I tried it once before and the results were less than satisfactory.

[sham]

Dec 21, 2008 12:27:49 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

I find myself tending more (at least in the first phase) to "map the fill" versus filling a map.

I'm trying out an approach of mapping by sectors of 30 x 30 squares. That leaves room on the same page for a succinct "key."

I too would like to hear how this works out for you. One of my issues with further work on my megadungeon has been that I've created so many layers of detail that I feel it's become burdensome, threatening to collapse under its own weight.

I'd like to strip away the mechanical layers and go back to the basics, which would likely make it confusing and unplayable by anyone else looking at my notes.

The notion of a dungeon made up entirely of one-page levels is simply fabulous. Twenty or so maps, as you said with a 30x30 square map, and the key hand-written on the same sheet, could make one helluva megadungeon, with limitless creative space provided.

I'd take my megalist of single phrase ideas for the rooms, and use that. If I forgot exactly how a particular room was supposed to work, I'd wing it and keep it fun and interesting. With the time off next week, maybe I can test this method out on a six-map dungeon and see if I like the results.

Thanks for the inspiration, Dwayanu!

[chgowiz]

Dec 21, 2008 12:27:49 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

I find myself tending more (at least in the first phase) to "map the fill" versus filling a map.

I've been meaning to ask you, and Sham's blog post reminded me...

What do you mean by "map the fill versus fill a map"?

Thanks!

[dwayanu]

By "mapping the fill," I mean first coming up with interesting situations and then drawing appropriate locales on the map. The reverse approach is to make up a map first and then think of what to put in the various places.

Some folks might seamlessly combine the methods while drawing a whole level at one go. I'm finding that it works better for me to work out special areas and relationships in some detail before designing the whole.

I will first place such features as the temple with a multi-level chamber (and secret access ways within the huge idol), the caverns at different elevations linked at points by a stream (that leads to a pool at a deeper level), the monster lair accessible only by a route through another level, or the treasure vault protected by a gauntlet of puzzles and traps.

Then, I will draw more passages and rooms to connect those regions in interesting ways. My main interest is in how the layout affects players' exploration. Things for which I aim include:

* plenty of branches, so that players are neither stuck too long on a linear path (with no options but to go forward or back) nor making essentially trivial choices (because anyplace is easily accessible from any other)

* "choke points" defining regions accessible from only one or two (widely separated) entrances and thereby easily defensible units

* turning and splitting ways not all blocked with doors, to facilitate evasion of pursuit -- and on the other hand, dead ends in which monsters might trap delvers

* plenty of secret ways potentially bypassing perils or offering shortcuts

* ready enough access to ways up and down

* difficulty in finding or reaching some of the special areas, so that a good bit of exploration is likely to be necessary (rather than going straight from one to the next)

The latter infrastructure is something I will stock largely after the fashion suggested in Vol. 3.

[yesmar]

I'm finding that it works better for me to work out special areas and relationships in some detail before designing the whole.

I do something similar. I have a little graph paper Molekine that I scribble interesting maps into all throughout the day... you know, whenever inspiration hits. Later, when I've accumulated enough, I add the various bits into the level map I am currently working on. I find that this technique allows me to make far better maps. It's sort of like the writer's "little black book," but in this case it's the cartographer's scribble pad.

[chgowiz]

dwayanu, thank you! Makes sense now, that "fill" == "concept/idea/cool thing".

[badger2305]

Dec 29, 2008 18:33:58 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

By "mapping the fill," I mean first coming up with interesting situations and then drawing appropriate locales on the map. The reverse approach is to make up a map first and then think of what to put in the various places.

Totally cool. Have an exalt for that. I like that a lot.

[blackmoor]

Very good. I generally start with the maps.

Dave Arneson
'Dark Lord of Game Design'

[dwayanu]

I must look into those "Moleskin" things.

I have a very pretty spiral-bound (at the top) little notebook of sheets of grids with a "frame" sort of border from Boku Books (www.bokubooks.com). It's so pricey, though, that I can't bring myself to scribble just anything in it.

[dwayanu]

Maybe it's a "German" thing akin to stereotypical Scots frugality. I ought to recall how dearly I as a child wished Grandma had actually used up some of the supplies in her pantry during the Great Depression or the Second World War.

[urban]

I wanna make a megadungeon, but I dont wanna burn out while building it. So:
- The upper works are just piles of trash.
- Because I dont want my dungeon to become too deep, Im thinking in broad levels with totally separated parts, parts that can be only reached from lower levels and parts which are temporarly sealed.
- I want a lot of intra-level movement, so I guess I need at least the first two level for the start around 75% and 50%, and maybe plans for the third one.

Am I 'right'? Whats your experience, approxiametly how many detailed (filled?) room do I need for the start? 100?

(Sorry, I dont wanted to start the n-th MD thread)

[Deleted]

It depends upon how comfortable you are with "winging it". If you very comfortable with it, slap a one phrase description on your map key and flesh it out on the fly. "Wrecked kitchen" or "evil chapel" should immediately bring a picture to your mind's eye.

The 1e AD&D DMG also has some nice tables in the back for randomly generating some rooms. A few rolls on this table might get your creativity flowing.

[evreaux]

May 6, 2009 7:03:05 GMT -6 urban said:

I wanna make a megadungeon, but I dont wanna burn out while building it.

Start playing it as soon as possible, then, with a minimum of work up-front. Keep working on it as your group moves through. In my experience, if you're doing it as part of active play, you've got a much better chance of successful long-term effort.

May 6, 2009 7:03:05 GMT -6 urban said:

Am I 'right'? Whats your experience, approxiametly how many detailed (filled?) room do I need for the start? 100?

I would say you need something in the neighborhood of 15-30, most likely, to run your first session (depending of course on the density of monsters and empty rooms you want). That's plenty of rooms on the first level, plus a handful of rooms around the egress points of any downward connections to deeper levels (in case they poke their head out down there and sniff around). Pragmatically speaking, anything more than that is at least a couple of weeks, and possibly months or years if you're talking about lower levels, of active gaming from potentially seeing the light of day.

Really and truly, that's it. The megadungeon should start with Room 1, then Session 1, then the rest, in my opinion.

Have fun!

[urban]

Thank you for your helpful answers! As you can see on dragonsfoot I already posted about my first two session. It really worked with only a handful of rooms and brief keying.

BTW does somebody know where can I get isometric sheets (in electronic format) for mapping?