S&S literature has no megadungeoneering.

[geoffrey]

Many D&Ders have been returning to the (mega-)dungeon, which was the campaign style presented in the 1974 rules: a vast dungeon in which most of the campaign play occurs. Wilderness and city-based adventures take a back seat.

At the same time, many D&Ders have longed for a more pronounced sword & sorcery feel to the game.

I've been thinking of all the literature that I've read that influenced the creators of D&D, and I can't think of a single example of megadungeoneering. Yes, there are vast constructions (such as the city of the Old Ones in H. P. Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness), but nobody repeatedly enters these over the course of years.

S&S heroes have wilderness adventures, city adventures, and adventures in small "dungeons" (sometimes called "lairs" to distinguish them from megadungeons). I can imagine (for example) Conan swaggering through the Keep on the Borderlands, wandering the Wilderlands, or attempting to plunder the Tomb of Horrors, but I can't imagine him spending years exploring Castle Greyhawk.

Of course, a series of novels centered upon explorations of a megadungeon would probably be quite boring. As Gary once said, "Books are books, and games are games." That said, I think megadungeons on the one hand and sword & sorcery literature on the other are two very different things. Megadungeoneering is a D&Dism, and I think that if one wishes to increase the sword & sorcery feel of his campaign, a megadungeon might not be the best idea.

[cadriel]

Honestly, I have to say that EGG nailed it. In the various discussions that got me into OD&D, one of the core differences between D&D's original design philosophy and that of modern games is that D&D took it as a given that you weren't emulating literature, you were creating games - emphasis on the game - that were inspired by it. Flourishes were drawn from the literary roots of the game, but the original design prioritized the idea that it was a game and not a literature emulation engine. The dungeon, which is a brilliant way to make a sandbox manageable, is pure game. And it works beautifully in game.

When you say you want a more S&S feel in the game, what are you really looking for? Flavor? Structure? Creatures? I think the procedural result of this will depend on what you are aiming at.

[James Maliszewski]

Feb 2, 2009 9:44:27 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Megadungeoneering is a D&Dism, and I think that if one wishes to increase the sword & sorcery feel of his campaign, a megadungeon might not be the best idea.

I always make the distinction between D&D and the things that inspired it. Certainly the game was heavily inspired by pulp fantasy literature, but it rarely apes those inspirations. If it had, I'm not sure the game would have proved as attractive to many people, because it's the unique aspects of D&D, most significantly dungeon-delving, that set it apart from other similar activities descended from tabletop wargaming.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that D&D has never really been an emulation of pulp fantasy literature, so the fact that it deviates from it in an important way doesn't bother me. I think D&D is best understood (and played) in the context of the pulp fantasy revival of the late 60s and early 70s, but I don't think it's limited by it.

[coffee]

The trouble with attempting to exactly duplicate those old pulp stories was that each one had it's own hero.

Singular.

They didn't, for the most part, present a party of heroes. Instead, there was a singular hero that went his own, lone way upon the world.

Can you imagine Conan having a sidekick? How about Solomon Kane?

I have to agree with both Cadriel and James. I prefer D&D as the game it is, and don't feel the need to pulpify it any more than that.


Please note, however, that wI'm only expressing what I like. Geoffrey, you go right ahead and play a pulpier version of OD&D without a megadungeon if you like; no one will stop you. All I ask is that you come back and report on it (or publish it, like Carcosa! If indeed that's not what you were talking about all along...)

[Zulgyan]

Even thought D&D might have been based on the mega-dungeon (this is not that clear since Blackmoor reports talk about a lot of Wilderness and City adventures), I much prefer the gaming style geoffrey is taking about.

I like big dungeons, yes, but not really mega-dungeons.

Very nice post Geoffrey!

[geoffrey]

I've been playing D&D since 1980, and I have never (either as a referee or as a player) been involved in a megadungeon campaign. Yes, dungeons have been explored, but none of them was ever the focus of the campaign. (FWIW, wilderness exploration has been more prevalent than dungeon exploration in my experience).

The closest I've come in my Carcosa campaign to a major series of dungeon expeditions is about 15 consecutive weekly sessions (averaging 4 hours each) spent exploring the Putrescent Pits of the Amoeboid Gods. This was at the beginning of my campaign, and the campaign has since branched out all over the published campaign map (and beyond).

The past 2 years of my Carcosa campaign have featured wilderness exploration as well as exploration of small dungeons (of the same general size as those found in most published modules). If all that time had instead been spent in a megadungeon, I think the campaign would feel less S&S than it has.

In short, megadungeoneering is only one possible form for an old-school D&D campaign to take. Even Blackmoor was not a megadungeoneering campaign: odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=gns&thread=1721&page=1

Of course, I am not in any way denigrating megadungeoneering. I only wish to state that, if you want to maximize that swords & sorcery feel in your D&D campaign, it might be easier to do so without a megadungeon.

EDIT: Zulgyan beat me to the punch with Blackmoor! ;D

[dwayanu]

I had second thoughts about introducing an Underworld in my new game, but the players have chosen to focus on dungeon delving. I think a significant factor is that it is a peculiar feature of old-style D&D, part of the distinction that got them interested in playing OD&D in the first place. Nothing quite like it has characterized their experience of 3E / 4E.

Both Chivalry & Sorcery and RuneQuest advised against "sprawling mazes full of random monsters," and I think that view was broached in the APA 'zines almost from day one.

The strength of committing to any particular model (e.g., "s&s literature") is also its weakness: limited focus. I have taken that route on occasion; King Arthur Pendragon has an exceptionally tight focus, and is one of my favorite games.

More often, I have been pleased to shape the setting in accord with the players' interests. That D&D includes so many things more or less at odds with most sword-and-sorcery fiction just makes it that much easier. For true literary fidelity, I would probably choose another set of rules.

I see the dungeon as rather like the Enterprise in "Star Trek": a vehicle for getting to all sorts of interesting situations besides those directly concerning it. Some may be one-shot episodes, while others may spin off whole campaigns.

This particular group of players has expressed interest in not exploring some things I happen to dig, and that's nice to know. I can direct my energies in ways they are more likely to appreciate. So long as they remain interested in the dungeon, I'll keep making it more "mega!"

[Zulgyan]

I'm actually a very dungeon-oriented DM, but I prefer them smaller and separate, because I love wilderness travel, I love changes of main town or city and I love terrain, climate and cultural changes in the envoiroments the PCs adventure in. But in my campaign 95% of the best treasures are found in dungeons, only that scattered around the world.

I also love sea travel, and there must be a reason for including like 5 types of ship in the rather minimalistic equipment list of OD&D!!

[philotomy]

It's probably no surprise that I gravitate towards underworld and megadungeon play. I find that it's a style that is exceptionally well-suited to D&D. Don't get me wrong, though, I enjoy wilderness and hex-crawling, too, but I like for that to arise as a natural progression of the campaign. I think it tends to happen on its own, even if the underworld has been the focus of lower-level play. Eventually, the characters and events in the campaign start expanding the focus into the wider world, or maybe the players just want to do something different, and move from the underworld sandbox to the wilderness sandbox. When that happens, they're usually better suited (i.e. higher level) for the dangers of the wilderness, too. And nothing prevents them from returning to the underworld, if they so desire.

I guess that last part sums up how I see an underworld vs. the wilderness; they're not really in opposition -- they're two sides of the same 'sandbox' coin. Zulgyan, your preferred approach sounds like the dungeons are sites or lairs within your greater wilderness sandbox -- they just happen to be underground. I don't see anything wrong with that; it just boils down to where you want to focus.

[Deleted]

The Conan story "Red Nails" took place in a ruined city that was sort of like a megadungeon. Not to mention he had a sidekick for most of that story.

[busman]

I used to megadungeon back in the pre-AD&D days and then we sort of moved away from that as we grew up and branched out. I still have a soft spot for megadungeons. There's something that continued plumibng of the same dungeon brings with it. Skilled repopulation of the dungeon brings twists and surprises for the complacent players. Mythology grows, stories get told.

I love the gold rush boomtown feeling that happens around megadungeons as well, as more adventurers come and test their might against it.

The Lake Geneva early days were clearly focused on megadungeoneering and in my return to old style gaming, I want to get my group trying it out as well. I've spent so many years moving away from it, I yearn to try out the more basic experience megadungeons bring.

I've finally been able to convince a small group of my co-workers to give OD&D a shot, I should be starting a megadungeon here in the next few weeks, I'm pretty pumped about it.

[Thorulfr]

Quarmall. That's about as 'Megadungeon' as they come.

(Though, to be fair: Fafhard and the Gray Mouser don't exactly explore the depths of Quarmall.)

There is also the rat city under Lankhmar.

[Melan]

Merritt's Face in the Abyss has something that might be a megadungeon, too, although it is only a part of the setting. Then there are the underground domains of the Pnume from Vance's Planet of Adventure (although you would want to get out of them, not into ), and if we go way back, Talbot Mundy's excellent King -- of the Khyber Rifles has a lengthy segment about the bandit-inhabited caverns below the Himalayas that went on to inspire REH and his cohorts.

[calithena]

Michael Shea. In Yana, The Touch of Undying has a megadungeon. Hell in Fishing of the Demon Sea/Mines of Behemoth is in some ways a megadungeon.

(Dante's Inferno?)

There is a lot of D&D, including some old-school D&D, that has never seen the inside of a megadungeon either.

The literature emulation question is way more complicated than you guys are making it out to be. Not yes and not no.