I was reading through the latest dungeon and thinking about why I liked the Bullywug Gambit but neither of the other two adventures. The first thing that jumped to mind was that the Bullywug Gambit had far more than just a dungeon crawl, and while that is certainly part of it, I don't think it describes the reason very well. Instead I broke it down into parts of the adventure
Bullywug Gambit
---------------
Travel to dungeon site
Small Dungeon - Kraken's Cove
Travel from dungeon site
Alternate adventure area (city encounters)
Small Dungeon - Vanderboren Estate
The travel wasn't focused on, in and of itself a LOT, but it was definately there (rewarding players for taking Profession (sailor) for instance).
More importantly was the use of several smaller dungeon split up with other types of encounters, in this case the city encounters.
Greymalkin Academy
------------------
BIG DUNGEON - the academy
This just felt like a big dungeon splat in the middle of everything. Nothing for it to hold on to. It was a well designed dungeon mind you, but the adventure left a lot to be desired.
Hellfire Mountain
-----------------
Slight amount of RP (meeting king)
Big Dungeon
Same deal on this one. It just didn't inspire me for the same reasons.
The more I go back and look at the adventures I really like, the more I see they take the PCs out of the dungeon and then split up the action.
It reminds me of a George Lucas interview I once saw where he stated his concept was to always have at least three distinct and interesting locations for the action to happen on. For Star Wars: A New Hope you have Tatooine (desert planet), followed by the Death Star (clean, man made environs) and finally an epic space battle. Certainly there was intermediate transitions but those were the main areas. I think adventure design could learn a lot from this.
So I am wondering how many adventure designers think about this type of thing when they are designing? If I use smaller dungeons seperated by some other type of adventure interaction will I be more successful?
Anyway, just my rambling thoughts. I think 2 smaller and dinstinct dungeons and some other type inserted encounter type (a chase, an investigation, city encounters, rp encounter like a feast or ball, whatever) really helps make the adventures more interesting.
Sean Mahoney
|
I agree with you 100% regarding the smaller dungeons and multiple locations. I find that my group responds best to these smaller dungeons for a number of reasons:
1) as you stated before several dungeons present more varity in location and encounter opprotunites of differing types.
2)Theres a sense of acomplishment and of moving forward in the session, that is difficult to achieve with a larger one huge dungeon.
That being said though, everyone group has their favorite types of advenutres and playing styles and I'm sure there are probably lots of groups that love the sprawling adventure sites like Maure Castle, and other dungeons like Undermountian or Rappen Athuk.
So I am wondering how many adventure designers think about this type of thing when they are designing?
What made Academy and Hellfire weak for me was that while they had interesting premises, nothing was really done with those premises; rather, both adventures were run-of-the-mill hack 'n slashers. If more had been done with the factions and turf set-up in Academy, and if the ethics of Hellfire had been made the focal point, then they might have been stronger.
Bullywug was a good adventure because it had a good story and exciting set-pieces. I don't think the "formula" of dungeon to wilderness to dungeon to city had anything to do with its quality. Whispers of the Vampire's Blade is a good example of an adventure with considerable variety of dungeon and wilderness settings, but is total rubbish.
Personally, when I put together adventures for my group, my thought is to create an interesting premise then conceive a story that executes on that premise in an exciting way. Structure then flows from that process. In short, the story dictates form...
Foxish, I think you make a good point. So really in your opinion, you are saying an adventure needs a "hook." Something that is different about that specific adventure, that makes it stand out. Like the factions or ethics COULD have done, but didn't come across as having much done with (note: a DM could run these with an emphasis on these points, but it isn't really as written).
Sean Mahoney
My group has an unusually large number of players who crave roleplaying, so extended dungeon crawls rarely hold their interest. Given this, I craft adventures that place roleplaying encounters (investigations, diplomatic negotiations, trials, etc.) between small set pieces involving combat or other action (chases, escaping fires or flooding mines, etc.) My group also loves changes of scenery.
So, I usually end up with a series of smaller, separate "dungeons" set off by non-combat encounters. Plot twists, or at least substantial advances in the plot, usually mark the point when the party races off to a new site. I try to make each site wholly different in feel than the last (one underwater, one in a castle, one in a burning building, etc.), which, I guess, follows George Lucas's paradigm. This makes, in my experience, for much more lively stories than "the big dungeon crawl" does.
I've developed a helpful device that maintains the story's momentum when using a series of separate, small dungeons. Limit the combat encounters in the first two or three dungeons to no more than four encounters (assuming their ELs are close to the party's level). That way the party completes each set piece near the end of its resources but without needing exit, rest, and re-enter the dungeon. They recover their resources while moving through the next non-combat adventure piece (travel, investigation, masked ball, whatever).
If the last dungeon is meant to be small as well, bump up the ELs or give the party five solid combat encounters, so they are pushed to or beyond their resources' limit and face genuine peril by the end of the climactic encounter. Mix in the story's resolution with that climactic encounter, and it all crescendos nicely.
Foxish, I think you make a good point. So really in your opinion, you are saying an adventure needs a "hook." Something that is different about that specific adventure, that makes it stand out. Like the factions or ethics COULD have done, but didn't come across as having much done with (note: a DM could run these with an emphasis on these points, but it isn't really as written).Sean Mahoney
In a sense. It isn't necessary to strive for a unique masterpiece each time; just arrive at a concept that potentially will engage the players and make them want to stick with the adventure. Even a sweep-and-clear adventure can do this as long as each encounter is exciting enough that the party wants to press on and see whats next.
What I was trying to illustrate is that the central concept and the story that flows from that determines how an adventure is structured. For example, if the concept is the PCs are on a ship where the crew mutinys, then the adventure has to be organized in a way that makes being confined to the ship interesting. So the task of the DM is to arrive at an adventure format that does this. Whether this means a dungeon crawl, event-based encounters or whathaveyou, depends on how the DM wants to engage his/her players and how they potentially want the story to unfold...
I'm also a fan of the short dungeon crawl, or not having them at all, really. i think in the last 3 sessions i have run one "dungeon" for the pcs. i think what has helped me design most of my more memorable adventures is to use "the Hero's Journey" model. Also, borrowing from movies and tv is also a good idea.
i tried running the WLD about a year ago and it fell apart after three sessions because it became boring and felt tired. i was trying to relive the old days of "Bash down door kill monsters" style but it didn't have the same feel for some reason. i guess i've grown up.
here's a general outline of a typical adventure for me:
minor skirmish, combat, random encounter just to get the dice flowing and everyone in the mood. this is a quick and dirty hack and slasher that the pcs can delve into and win to make themselves feel good. usually with a cr 2 less than they are. it might burn off some resources but it's not going to really hurt them at all. just a warm up for later.
next comes RP, finding out about whatever they need to do. usually in a long running campaign they have already told me where they want to go and what they want to do so i already have an encounter in place for them to interact in a RP way. Example: the next session they have to go negotiate with a hobgoblin warlord for help against an orc scourge that is heading toward a town they are set to defend. 4 sessions ago, the paladin of the group saved the life of the same hobgoblin leader, and this hob owes him a life debt. Pally and the group are going to collect on that debt and maybe get the tribe to help them.
This encounter usually takes about an hour or so of real role playing. it's all for info gathering.
Then, maybe another small encounter, but this one is attached to the main quest in some way, either assassins on the road, old enemies, new adventure hooks, etc. this one can possibly be a RP encounter, or combat depending on how it goes.
Up to this point, we are usually at the half way mark in the planned session for the evening. since we only have 2 sessions a month, each one is usually 8-10 hours.
Then, we have another RP encounter, which ratchets up the action, and starts the process for the main "villain" of the night. the party finds out where he or she is, or what it is, and then goes to confront said person. This is where the meat of the adventure for me is, and where i plan most of everything.
adventure design for me is like following the rising action storytelling device. slowly build up the stakes, challenge the players at every turn, and then the climax of the tale where you meet the bad guy. its also a good idea to have three or 4 different overall plots going on at one time, to avoid the sense of railroading.
you were asking about dungeons and here i am rambling on. my point is this: adventurers need a good reason to go on a big dungeon crawl. short ones are better because they are more logical and can be done in one session, or part of a session. big ones that take 2 or more sessions can be boring because the flow of the story seems drawn out. why have 20 rooms in a dungeon when you can tell the story with 10? its more concise, and effective. smaller ones also increase the sense of drama, and speed up the pace of the overall plot.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I don't think comparing an adventure path adventure, particularly one designed to traverse multiple levels, against a typical dungeon adventure is a very accurate comparison. Adventure paths have the luxuary of 2 to 3 times the word count of any other adventure in the magazine, and 2 to 3 times as many maps. I am frequently struck by how the non-Adventure Path modules feel pared down - as if additional information was cut away - to accomodate the Adventure Path. I might be making this up entirely, but that's my observation. The handful of issues between the AoW and SvT somewhat illustrate this - they tend to be longer adventures with more locations and encounter types.
Plus, the Bullywug Gambit is designed so that you have an opportunity to level up between dungeons. It's almost two adventures sandwhiched together.
Anyway, I do generally agree and also prefer several smaller locations over one sprawling dungeon. I'm just not sure that there is room for more than one such adventure in a particular issue of Dungeon so long as there is an Adventure Path running.
I have to disagree with the general sentiment expressed regarding "Hellfire Mountain." I thought it was a very interesting adventure. I have to admit that it is not heavy (as written) into traveling and roleplaying (except for the meeting with the fire giant king), but it has an interesting locale, a strong theme, challenging encounters, and interesting villains. I think those are key components of a good dungeon-crawl type scenario.
Also, I think it is unfair to compare this adventure to "The Bullywug Gambit" for not only the reasons enumerated by Sebastian, but because it is damn near a masterpiece.
Well, I do have to admit that I tend to not be as interested in the high level adventures. I don't know if it is because they always have to be shorter just to include the stats in the same word count, but they never feel "epic" as I would expect for high level play. But I digress...
Ok, even reading The Bullywug Gambit and comparing it to There is No Honor gives some useful comparisons. For instance I think the dungeon at the end of TiNH is WAY too long, for many of the reasons described here... the long dungeon just gets boring and repetitive. I really like the advice "Why use 20 rooms when you can tell the same story in 10." given earlier.
Now, I think I like TiNH better than tBG just because it is the first in a series and that always excites me, and of course it is supported in the same issue by the backdrop, but I think it is a valid comparison.
Sean Mahoney
Heathansson,
I was thinking the same thing. How unique and interesting would this adventure been if it was actually two adventures, the first being around first level and showing the characters exit from the academy and then a "return to" adventure similar to the one that was there only with more interaction between the factions.
Now, how to fit that into one adventures space... well, that is another reason for the short dungeon!
Sean Mahoney
|
|
I dont want to compare the AP adventures to the others in the mag but it does seem that the AP adventures get much more space, attention, and what have you and thats fine by me. Im sure that the other adventures dont suck, but its gotta be tough for a regular adventure to stand next to an AP adventure and not seem second rate.
I agree that you need more to an adventure than just the formula of a small dungeon followed by travel followed by another small dungeon.But it does have its merits, and obviously everyone wants somthing that engages them in the adventure for some its dungeon room sweeping and looting for others its heavy roleplaying, but in the end were all diffrent and enjoy diffrent styles of play as well as adventures.I think Dungeon does a great job of covering the bases.
Kobold Press
|
Im sure that the other adventures dont suck, but its gotta be tough for a regular adventure to stand next to an AP adventure and not seem second rate.
I have to disagree: some of the standalones are brilliant *because* they only have one shot at it. Any writer will tell you that writing a short story requires more work per word than writing a novel. You need to make it all work in less space, and that's hard. Oneshot adventures are like short stories: no wasted wordcount.
What's amazing about the Adventure Paths is that the editors keep it all straight and on deadline *every month* for a year. It's the editorial equivalent of... Well, there IS no equivalent.
Barbara Young and I did sometimes talk about editing a series of adventures in Dungeon, but we always talked ourselves out of it because of the crushing burden of coordinating all the moving parts (multiple authors, plotlines, foreshadowing, level advancement). True, we had a smaller staff (just 3) than Paizo does, but Dungeon was only bimonthly then too.
It was too hard, and we were cowards. So we left the module trilogies to the TSR game department.
I think Dungeon does a great job of covering the bases.
Can't argue with you there! :)
I have to disagree: some of the standalones are brilliant *because* they only have one shot at it. Any writer will tell you that writing a short story requires more work per word than writing a novel. You need to make it all work in less space, and that's hard. Oneshot adventures are like short stories: no wasted wordcount.
I agree with that whole heartedly. There are some very good adventures that came out during the various adventure paths some of which are every bit as good (sometimes better) than some of the individual pieces of the path. By the same token though the AP is written by "invitation only" authors so you tend to get some very good pieces.
To name a few adventures (this is by no means a complete list) that earned some buzz over the course of the Age of Worms, there was: "Chimes at Midnight," "Wingclipper's Revenge," "Palace of Plenty," "Clockwork Fortress," "Murder in Oak Bridge," and "Chamber of Antiquities."
GGG
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I have to disagree: some of the standalones are brilliant *because* they only have one shot at it. Any writer will tell you that writing a short story requires more work per word than writing a novel. You need to make it all work in less space, and that's hard. Oneshot adventures are like short stories: no wasted wordcount.
It's not that I don't think the non-adventure path pieces aren't good - it's that I think when push comes to shove they get cut to fit the Adventure Path modules and that detracts from their quality. I really liked Heart of Hellfire Mountain, but it read as if a significant chunk was cut out. I realize there are only a finite amount of pages and that the Adventure Path takes precedence, but I think there is a cost to having such a robust and well written series. In general, it's a cost I'm willing to pay, but now that I am not actively following an adventure path for the first time, I feel that cost more acutely than before. I wouldn't mind seeing the adventure path give back a couple pages to its companions in a particular issue.
(Either that, or cut Downer!)
(just kidding)
(mostly)
"Chimes at Midnight," "Wingclipper's Revenge," "Palace of Plenty," "Clockwork Fortress," "Murder in Oak Bridge," and "Chamber of Antiquities."
Alright, these are some more good examples. Let's look at what made these work. What was different about them that set them apart?
Off the top of my head I recognize Chimes at Midnight and Murder in Oak Bridge. Both were mysteries as I recall, so they had a different "hook" besides just action and treasure (they still fit those niches though, action and treasure were still to be had, they were just secondary to the story).
Chimes at Midnight had interesting encounters that were original and made the characters think. As well as a timeline that pushed the action.
I will need to go back and read some of these to refresh (not a bad deal really). Though, wasn't Chamber of Antiquities one of the Maure Castle things? Or do I have one of the wrong adventures?
Sean Mahoney
Creative Director
|
Actually... when we need to make cuts from an adventure to make everything fit, we do it to the adventure that can bear the cuts the best. Sometimes this is an Adventure Path installment, sometimes it's not. "There Is No Honor" had about 9000 words cut form it, and if I remember correctly, "Hellfire Mountain" actually had a few thousand words ADDED to its length (mostly Fiendish Codex II stuff we added in).
The Adventrue Path is certainly the most popular thing we've done in Dungeon, but it's not untouchable. Often, those huge adventrues can bear cuts better than the smaller ones. Especially when we get in an installment that's 9000 words over what it should have been at because the foolish author was too unprofessional to design an adventure to the required word count, as was the case with "There Is No Honor."
"Chimes at Midnight," "Wingclipper's Revenge," "Palace of Plenty," "Clockwork Fortress," "Murder in Oak Bridge," and "Chamber of Antiquities."Alright, these are some more good examples. Let's look at what made these work. What was different about them that set them apart?
Isn't a large part of it that each of them _is_ something different? As noted elsewhere, two are mysteries, and a third is a "Maure Castle" installment. "Palace of Plenty" was one of the few Oriental Adventures presented, and "Clockwork Fortress" was certainly unusual.
As regards the big dungeon/small dungeon question, I don't think there's a clear answer. It all depends why the PCs are in the dungeon in the first place. If they're there because they're dungeon delvers seeking fortune and glory, then a large dungeon such as "Tomb of Horrors" or "The Mud Sorcerer's Tomb" is appropriate. If, however, the PCs are there for a specific purpose (rescue the missing children, chase down the killer...) then a smaller dungeon would seem more appropriate. That is to say, both types of dungeon have their uses, and it's important to use the right tool for the job.
I find "The Forge of Fury" very interesting in this regard. Run as written, my players quickly became bored. They felt little reason to be there, and eventually abandoned the module (sadly, just before the climactic encounter). However, the module was structured such that it was really five interconnected dungeons. As such, it was actually quite easy for me to later rip out the pieces of the dungeon to use as seperate adventures.
I think the best option is to just get a good balanced deal of everything... Some random encounters, some roleplaying, some dungeon crawls (long and short), some mysteries, some war scenarios, some outdoors adventures, and even some R&R ones.
And if you can mix it all up real nice to have the players only guessing at what comes next, then you (as a DM) have done your job correctly.
Variety is the answer. Too much of even the best stuff can, on the long run, get boring.
Ultradan
Especially when we get in an installment that's 9000 words over what it should have been at because the foolish author was too unprofessional to design an adventure to the required word count....
Guilty as well....
GGG
Isn't a large part of it that each of them _is_ something different? As noted elsewhere, two are mysteries, and a third is a "Maure Castle" installment. "Palace of Plenty" was one of the few Oriental Adventures presented, and "Clockwork Fortress" was certainly unusual."Chimes at Midnight," "Wingclipper's Revenge," "Palace of Plenty," "Clockwork Fortress," "Murder in Oak Bridge," and "Chamber of Antiquities."Alright, these are some more good examples. Let's look at what made these work. What was different about them that set them apart?
I would say that each had a strong central theme, interesting characters, and a mood set by the author that allowed for a more immersive reading experience. Yes, "Chamber of Antiquities" was part of Maure Castle, but it really could have been dropped in anywhere and is just as much a mystery as "Chimes at Midnight" which actually probably owes more to Batman the Animated Series and Dick Tracy comics than Agatha Christy. "Clockwork Fortress" was a curiously designed 'dungeon' with a clockwork theme. Had I been a few months quicker on the query draw it might have been mine - almost down to the name - still I was happy with my little bit of a "Menagerie" which got a little buzz of its own and had its own theme. I suggest that the best adventures are those that have a strong, well-explored theme. Older examples of this princile include the original "Ravenloft" (I have yet to see the redux), "Isle of Dread," and "Expedition to the Barrier Peaks" all of which hang together very well even though the latter two are 'just' dungeon crawls with face lifts (i.e. a bunch of strange monsters living in a mostly sealed habitat).
GGG
Variety is the answer. Too much of even the best stuff can, on the long run, get boring.
Ultradan
Amen to that.
GGG
Delericho, you make some good points but I still feel like those big dungeons just aren't as good of adventures (while I know some people love them, I lump Maure Castle and Mud Sorcerer's Tomb into these categories). I guess the question becomes "is it necessary for Dungeon to provide any of the motivation or situations surrounding the dungeon to make it a 'good' adventure?"
For me, I am finding the answer is yes. In both the cases of the Greymalking Academy and the Mud Sorcerer's Tomb, for instance, I felt both had extreme potential to be great adventures if the situations around them were developed, but instead we just got a big dungeon plopped in front of us... boring to read and not fun to play with out significant additional work (like you described for Forge of Fury).
Looking at the Mud Sorcerer's Tomb I was all excited while reading the back story, my mind filled with ideas of an Indiana Jones like rush to find the missing clues left by long dead cults and surviving derivitive cults protecting those secrets to find the location of the tomb. Instead I got a static dungeon environment.
Now, I am the first to admit that there is a HUGE matter of taste and preference involved here and I am probably directly attacking the "large dungeon" adventure which I am sure some people love (the Maure Castle board always seems to have people posting for instance). I guess what I am looking for is there some common elements that make up the most successful adventures? What makes them stand out from their counterparts? And most importantly, can these be things authors and editors are cognizant of in improving the output of adventures (I love Dungeon and I think it is great and puts out great material, I am just never one who thinks you are at a point you need to stop trying to improve).
Sean Mahoney
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Actually... when we need to make cuts from an adventure to make everything fit, we do it to the adventure that can bear the cuts the best. Sometimes this is an Adventure Path installment, sometimes it's not. "There Is No Honor" had about 9000 words cut form it, and if I remember correctly, "Hellfire Mountain" actually had a few thousand words ADDED to its length (mostly Fiendish Codex II stuff we added in).
I should've known better than to theorize about the process of publishing.
Sebastion,
That actually helps my point here. There was more that could have been done with the adventure that you felt likely meant cut sections. So in your opinion what would you have liked to see added to that adventure to make it live up to the potential you saw?
Sean Mahoney
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sebastion,
That actually helps my point here. There was more that could have been done with the adventure that you felt likely meant cut sections. So in your opinion what would you have liked to see added to that adventure to make it live up to the potential you saw?
Sean Mahoney
It's a lot easier to criticize existing material than it is to create new material, so I don't have a good answer to that question. The adventures where I think cutting has occured are those where an idea is mentioned in the intro, but not picked up in the body of the adventure. Or where paragraphs don't quite flow together.
The intro for Hellfire Mountain struck me as having greater depth than was carried through by the adventure. Maybe that's just a function of the fact that the intro portion is the most important from the perspective of getting a reader's attention and therefore receives more editting by the staff and revision by the author than the rest of the adventure.
It's a lot easier to criticize existing material than it is to create new material, so I don't have a good answer to that question.
You are 100% right and please don't think I am attacking the author, I am sure it is better than what I can currently create (note my title says subscriber, not contributor). But I am hoping that by analyzing existing work I can get more clarity into what it takes to make an adventure that I think is good. So that I can make a good adventure myself and perhaps get published someday.
Sean Mahoney
One challenge that I see authors of Dungeon adventures facing is the razor's edge of enough plot and setting to satisfy the "story-gamer's" desires and so much plot and setting that the adventure becomes a nuisance to splice into an existing campaign.
Writing formulas for creating this balance can be developed to a limited extent, just as they can (and are) for any other sort of pot-boiler fiction. But, the adventure that captures the imaginations of gamers for decades may or may not follow the formula; there's just too many nuances involved in crafting a classic to predetermine when a hit has been created.
That said, I would encourage authors to err on the side of detail when designing adventures. One idea I have been mulling over for how Paizo might enhance the ability of authors to tell larger stories without adding to their word count is to leverage the power of the Internet to create a new kind of collective writing community. The foundation of this community would be its existing Website and these messageboards, of course, but the first floor above that foundation would be a relatively simple database of story elements from previously published adventures that Paizo would allow authors to draw upon for their own adventures. The database need not contain much specific information. At minimum, it would contain a kind of copyright index, simply identifying those elements of published adventures that writers who wish to write adventures for Dungeon could use in their own adventures. Naturally such a database would need to have its terms of use clearly detailed, but the hassle of drafting a new legal document pales in comparison to the potential benefits for Dungeon's readers and authors.
While occasional readers might not notice the reuse of story elements in Dungeon adventures across the span of many issues, I suspect many regular readers would enjoy revisiting an old location or a particular social setting.
There are many more potential benefits of this system of collaboration, which I'd happily share in private with anyone interested in hearing more about the idea, but I've already gone on long enough here.
Greymalkin Academy
------------------
This just felt like a big dungeon splat in the middle of everything. Nothing for it to hold on to. It was a well designed dungeon mind you, but the adventure left a lot to be desired.Hellfire Mountain
-----------------
Slight amount of RP (meeting king)
Big Dungeon
I'm just now getting caught up in my magazines, so I'm a little behind the times, but I'd like to add my 2 cents worth, because what Sean wrote is exactly how I felt.
At the end of both adventures, I felt like, "Man, did I miss something? There was supposed to be more to it than this."
Graymalkin Academy felt flat, like, as another poster wrote, it had been trimmed leaving out something good, something vital. The thing I think it lacked most was a sense of dynamicism (is that really a word?). It's hard to imagine that the PCs could finish the mod in one go, yet there was no real sense that things would change based on the PCs' actions. Maybe Vaxis and Aldevein make an alliance, each hoping to slit the other's throat when the dust settles. Maybe the aboleth calls in a favor or backs off in favor of some other servants. Maybe it throws up another roadblock in front of the vault.
Ironically, one thing that others didn't like (big dungeon), I would have like to have seen expanded. Make the academy bigger! (It felt odd with only one dormitory room for all the students anyway.)
Graymalkin Academy, as another poster wrote, would be much more relevant to characters who've been there before, either as students, as adventurers seeking knowledge, or as folks looking to buy or sell magic. That, of course, is well beyond the scope of a single adventure.
Hellfire Mountain, while more dynamic, just didn't do it for me. I can't really put my finger on it. Lack of personality, maybe? There just didn't seem much to the main characters beyond their stat blocks.
I like some big dungeons and not others. I'm ambivalent about Maure Castle, but I loved Life's Bazaar. I thought there was a lot of flavor and variety to it. My players, on the other hand, started to get bored with it at the end.
I would say that each had a strong central theme, interesting characters, and a mood set by the author that allowed for a more immersive reading experience.
I certainly agree with you here though I have to wonder whether this is really all that many peoples cup of tea. Certainly I noticed on a moderately recent thread about adventures that the readers often complained about excessive plot or don't want to see background that is not clearly for the players included as its a waste of ink unless the players are going to get in on it at some point.
Similarly when one looks at the thread about what adventures where the favourites to actually play in the AoWAP one finds Three Faces of Evil being cited a lot. Now if there is an adventure that's just a Dungeon Crawl in the AoWAP Three Faces of Evil is it and yet apparently it was an absolute blast to play.
From personal experience I encountered something of the same phenomena in a recent adventure I made for my home game. The first part of the adventure deals with a sunken city spread around a huge cavern. Players have to traverse over great heights and climb vine bridges as well traversing sewer pipes and all sorts and precarious elevators. Encounters include ambushes by advanced Monstrous Spiders and a battle on two parallel platform elevators all sorts of cool stuff that I was really pleased with myself in terms of the design. But I must have fallen asleep near the end or something 'cause the final encounter was nothing but a Dragon a Sorcerer and a Death Knight in a big open space.
My players liked the battles on elevator platforms and the grand vistas of of the ruined cities as well as encounters with Gully Dwarves well enough. However the part of the adventure that they loved the most by far was the big fight with the Dragon, Sorcerer and Death Knight. They have been talking about that fight for the last month. As for the rest of my carefully crafted dungeon - the only thing they really seem to have taken from it is that apparently in my game Rings of Feather Falling are required. I'm not sure that that was really the message I was trying to convey with this lost ruin full of unorthodox challenges.
Let me preface my comments by saying I have only been playing DnD for about 2 years, and only DMing for less than half of that.
But as both a player and DM, resting in Dungoens never really made much sense to me. If you have time to rest, why don;t the inhabitants of said dungeon have the time to organise a co-ordinated defense to make you pay for invading their home? I know that is exactly what i would do where someone to enter my home.
There are a few options to get around this, the one I prefer is to have dungeons that hte PCs can clear out in one incursion (or maybe two if they need to retreat after getting especially worked, but rest assured the inhabitants will be waiting for them when they return).
Another opiton is to have the Dungeon inhabited by factions, that don;t really care if you spend your time beating the others up, they wil just be able to move in once you are finished.
A third option is to have the dungeon inhabited by unitelligent monsters (undead / golems) that are not capable of organising a defense.
The fourth option is to include notes about the monsters response. In this scenario, it means you play the dungeon more like a city, with dynamic responses from the inhabitants. But this takes much more effort to do properly, and if you go this route, you may as well play a city campaign for the amount of work the DM needs to put in.
So I prefer the first option. Why does the dungeon need to be so big that the PCs can't clear it out in one go? The option to rest doesn't seem to be realistic to me. I know when I first ran SCAP, by the end of Jzardirune (sp?) I was sick of the place, it just seemed to go on and on, and for no good reason really. Sometimes it seems like big dungeons are basically a way for the PCs to gain XP and loot wihtout needing to advance the story. That seems like a waste to me.
I think a dungeon that tells a story, rather than being a simple obstacle course, is a good one. TFOE is an excellent example of this--with three sets of interesting tactical challenges rewarded by pieces to a puzzle that lead you from one section to the next to the next. Resting in the dungeon became part of the tactical puzzle.
Whispering Cairn told a different sort of story--well several, really. There is the story of the PCs' first adventure, which really recaptured the feel of the fascination of my first ever dungeon-crawl--it had the sort of "bunch of teenagers explore an old mine on a dare" feel to it. But there were also the unfolding stories of the Wind Dukes and Alastor Land to uncover--you don't get the whole story of the Wind Dukes in the one adventure, but you get enough to feel like there's a reason this tomb was built, and to get a little bit of the flavor of this brilliant lost civilization, kind of like crawling around in Luxor or Chichen Itza or Angkor Wat. The fact that it was designed to explore bit by bit, then retreat to sell loot and rest was a strong point rather than a weak point, since it gave an excuse to alternate dungeon delving with roleplaying.
WC had the advantage of having an adventure backdrop attached, but with just a bit of work, it's not too hard to attach one of those seemingly less interesting dungeons to a locale, seed it with plot hooks, and make it work. This works best in concert with creating backstory for PCs--if you know you want the players to do a certain adventure, you can build in the plot hooks in advance.
I think WC also had the advantage of tying into an existing campaign world that made it feel particularly "real" to those who have played in Greyhawk. This is harder to do with generic one-offs. I think many of the most successful adventures in the pages of Dungeon have had some kind of tie in to Greyhawk or another campaign world, even if it's a bit tenuous.
So if you like some of the ideas in the dungeon, but it lacks that certain je ne sais quoi that will make it interesting to your players, think about what it needs and add to it. You can also modify it so that it has less of a "dungeon-clearing" feel--e.g. for the adventure in the giant's castle, change it so that it's "an infiltrate and assassinate the leader" or "retrieve an item" adventure instead. This doesn't take that much work because you don't have to do any re-statting--just alter the tone of the mission-defining role-play at the beginning of the adventure. You can also lift a section that has really cool tactical challenges and drop it into a different situation entirely.
So if you like some of the ideas in the dungeon, but it lacks that certain je ne sais quoi that will make it interesting to your players, think about what it needs and add to it. You can also modify it so that it has less of a "dungeon-clearing" feel--e.g. for the adventure in the giant's castle, change it so that it's "an infiltrate and assassinate the leader" or "retrieve an item" adventure instead....
Coming soon...Dungeon 147.
GGG
Let me preface my comments by saying I have only been playing DnD for about 2 years, and only DMing for less than half of that.
But as both a player and DM, resting in Dungoens never really made much sense to me. If you have time to rest, why don;t the inhabitants of said dungeon have the time to organise a co-ordinated defense to make you pay for invading their home? I know that is exactly what i would do where someone to enter my home.
There are a few options to get around this, the one I prefer is to have dungeons that hte PCs can clear out in one incursion (or maybe two if they need to retreat after getting especially worked, but rest assured the inhabitants will be waiting for them when they return).
Another opiton is to have the Dungeon inhabited by factions, that don;t really care if you spend your time beating the others up, they wil just be able to move in once you are finished.
A third option is to have the dungeon inhabited by unitelligent monsters (undead / golems) that are not capable of organising a defense.
The fourth option is to include notes about the monsters response. In this scenario, it means you play the dungeon more like a city, with dynamic responses from the inhabitants. But this takes much more effort to do properly, and if you go this route, you may as well play a city campaign for the amount of work the DM needs to put in.
So I prefer the first option. Why does the dungeon need to be so big that the PCs can't clear it out in one go? The option to rest doesn't seem to be realistic to me. I know when I first ran SCAP, by the end of Jzardirune (sp?) I was sick of the place, it just seemed to go on and on, and for no good reason really. Sometimes it seems like big dungeons are basically a way for the PCs to gain XP and loot wihtout needing to advance the story. That seems like a waste to me.
What I don't like about this whole line or reasoning is that it is so very contrived. All dungeons will have 4 level appropreate encounters - no more, no less. That's the ideal for adventurers and hence the entire world morphs to conform with their needs.
Personally I go with your option 4. The locals the players are going to adventure in are usually there for some reason. They act in an internally consistent manner. If the players attack them and then retreat there may or may not be changes to the behavoir of the places denzens based on what they are and how they are likely to behave under such circumstances.
Especially when we get in an installment that's 9000 words over what it should have been at because the foolish author was too unprofessional to design an adventure to the required word count, as was the case with "There Is No Honor."
LOL. Funny, funny man. Hopefully your humor is not lost on the masses.
As for the arguments about adventure design, dungeon crawls vs. other types of adventures, word length and so such who cares? As long as your players are happy with the adventure and the way you DM why worry? If an adventure doesn't work as written (in your opinion) get off your behind and make the necessary changes instead of whinging about it (unless you are not going to use it and just like complaining). Who runs DUNGEON adventures entirely as written anyway?
That should get in a few peoples craws.