Dungeon Design 101

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Voss
Prince
Posts: 3912
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeon Design 101

Post by Voss »

Calibron at [unixtime wrote:1194297083[/unixtime]]
Because it doesn't belong to any single god, it's a powerful artifact somehow connected to the nature of Divinity itself. The gods themselves don't fight over because, while it's pretty shiny, it's not nearly shiny enough to merit the risk of fighting another, or several other, deities. So Maxus' scenario actually does make a good bit of sense.


Only if you swallow a *very* bullshit explanation first. Like Dragonlance level Divine bullshitery. (You know, gods throw rocks at the world, wander off, come back, get not-killed in a self-nullifying time warp bullshit, wander off again, come back again, and whatever.) So all the gods are sending followers to their deaths for a shiny rock. Good plan. It still isn't really justified if someone thinks about it for a few minutes.

Its like the amazing world saving artifact that is the only way to defeat Evil Dark Lorddidork , but it is locked up in some lethally trapped labyrinth (which is probably lost as well) rather than hanging in an armory where someone can actually pick it up and kill him with it.

Come on, these are stupidly bad B movie plots, not interesting setups for a fun story or game.
User avatar
Maxus
Overlord
Posts: 7645
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeon Design 101

Post by Maxus »

I could resort to some explanation about the Weapon of Insertgodhere, but it's not important enough. I refuse to develop emotional attachments to stuff I made up on the spur of the moment.

Really, though, I have no problem with part of campaign being something like "Pass the tests, claim the artifact in the name of Insert God Here!" That's the kind of stuff that turns up in DnD, and has been for years, because it does its job on some level. To relate this to the original purpose of the thread, if you're going to have adventurers willingly facing loss of limb and/or life, you're going to get slightly cheesy stuff like the Hall of Insertgodhere and its treasure, and these places will almost certainly involve moving mirrors around, pulling levers as big as you are, drawing on the wall with magic paint, fighting some monsters of an appropriate CR, and dealing with the occasional unexpected spikes or blades swooshing out of nowhere if you step on an arbitrary place on the floor.

And, you know, I'm fine with that. In moderation of course. I don't pretend that an entire campaign of nothing but that is scintillating subject matter.
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.

--The horror of Mario

Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
Jacob_Orlove
Knight
Posts: 456
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeon Design 101

Post by Jacob_Orlove »

Voss at [unixtime wrote:1194311925[/unixtime]]Come on, these are stupidly bad B movie plots, not interesting setups for a fun story or game.

"First, the breath of God. Only
the penitent man will pass.
Second, the Word of God, only in
the footsteps of God will he
proceed. Third, the Path of God,
only in the leap from the lion's
head will he prove his worth. "

Was Indiana Jones a B movie? Sure. Was it stupidly bad and not interesting or fun? Hardly.
User avatar
angelfromanotherpin
Overlord
Posts: 9745
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeon Design 101

Post by angelfromanotherpin »

Voss at [unixtime wrote:1194311925[/unixtime]]Its like the amazing world saving artifact that is the only way to defeat Evil Dark Lorddidork , but it is locked up in some lethally trapped labyrinth (which is probably lost as well) rather than hanging in an armory where someone can actually pick it up and kill him with it.


See, this actually works, because long ago the heralds of Lordidork stole the thing out of the armory and were unable to destroy it. So they did the next best thing, which was to put it somewhere a) far away, b) hard to find, and c) full of pain.

Of course, that's not a 'testing ground' dungeon. That's a 'cuisinart' dungeon, which isn't there to reward the clever, but to massacre the unwanted.
Voss
Prince
Posts: 3912
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeon Design 101

Post by Voss »

Jacob_Orlove at [unixtime wrote:1194317963[/unixtime]]
Was Indiana Jones a B movie? Sure. Was it stupidly bad and not interesting or fun? Hardly.


Arguable. Movie preferences get fairly subjective, and I'd be more than willing to call it crap.

Look, confrontational tone aside, my point is that 'testing ground' dungeons lack a kind of plot quality control. You are, at a basic level, having the designers kill off people that are useful to them. Thats just dumb, in a very 'Evil Overlord' list kind of way. It also, in D&D terms, means rogues are 'most worthy' of anything. You aren't actually measuring any sense of worth other than 'can you get through a dungeon'.

angel's 'cuisinart' dungeon can work- if the point of the dungeon is to actually kill off people intruding, there is actually a reason for all those traps.
User avatar
Maxus
Overlord
Posts: 7645
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeon Design 101

Post by Maxus »

null wrote:Look, confrontational tone aside, my point is that 'testing ground' dungeons lack a kind of plot quality control. You are, at a basic level, having the designers kill off people that are useful to them. Thats just dumb, in a very 'Evil Overlord' list kind of way. It also, in D&D terms, means rogues are 'most worthy' of anything. You aren't actually measuring any sense of worth other than 'can you get through a dungeon'.


That's actually pretty accurate on several points. Maybe I'm contaminated by reading Discworld, but I've gotten used to the ideas that deities often do things that aren't very logical. Or they simply don't care for individual worshippers and instead focus on the group.

As an extreme example, if one of Pelor's followers tries to get through this hypothetical dungeon and traps onto the spike pad, he's not going to miss this one person very much. This feels like this is something Frank would say, but I doubt Pelor's going to get very excited about losing a hundred worshippers over a period of years. Or even a thousand. He's probably been in wars that cost him more than that in a couple of weeks.

It makes him sound callous and uncaring, which he's not-- he just has millions of worshippers he has to think of before he can get too worked up over his average cleric or paladin getting killed trying to make a name for himself and earn some celestial cred (which maybe be a counter-productively cynical way of viewing Pelor's relationship with his servants).

But, at the same time, if one of those paladins or clerics or a group of Pelorites together take it upon themselves to go hunt down a randomly-opening demiplane, pass the tests of logic, strength, and probably something about alignment and morals cooked up by the DM, and claim an artifact in the name of Pelor...

I'd imagine the Big Guy would take notice of them and let the radiance of his eyes and the sparkle of his teeth shine upon them when it's appropriate, whether it's letting them have his favor to meet the prereqs for a PrC or a comfy spot in the afterlife.

And I'd imagine the gods in general don't mind they lose two or ten adventurers a year to this place. They lose worshippers all the time. It's just the Good gods try to arrange things so it doesn't happen that much, whereas the Evil gods simply don't care or encourage it.


WARNING! TANGENT!
Come to think of it, being an adherent of an Evil god is probably a lot like being a Death Eater in the Harry Potter series (maybe a vice-versa would be appropriate in that statement?). You're serving something you acknowledge to be greater than yourself, but it won't hesitate to betray or abandon you if you cease to be useful. And no matter how much you really do believe that you really are the special one, the chosen one above all the rabble, you're still just a tool and will be kept as long as you remain useful.

He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.

--The horror of Mario

Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
Voss
Prince
Posts: 3912
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeon Design 101

Post by Voss »

The tangent raises some wacky points. I decided to wade through the Dragonlance Chronicles again (for a laugh/criticism), and the dumb bitch Takhisis does this exact thing, particularly at the end, where she's watching the showboating in the throne room at the expense of ignoring ShinyGemDude setting off the traps (and alarms) for no apparent reason. (Why have a fucking alarm go off if you don't do anything about it? Send minions who have to get there when the person who tripped the alarm has to walk all of 50 feet?) Tracey tries to push it as a moral lesson, with that evil turns on itself crap, but it really comes off as just stupid beyond all reason.

But anyway, I don't know. I'm a bit tired of Evil = Lack of Loyalty and assorted crap. (like incapable of love, or riddled with hatred and blah). There is a place for Stupid Evil, but Clever Evil seems much more interesting. And... this is going to turn into a alignment rant if I keep going. And possibly a rant on how plotholes the size of England aren't acceptable things, even in childrens' books.
Koumei
Serious Badass
Posts: 13880
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: South Ausfailia

Re: Dungeon Design 101

Post by Koumei »

I never went by "Evil = Disloyal and Incapable of Love". My favourite cleric is Evil, and is in a nice, loving relationship. She also has firm loyalties (deity, lover, church, kingdom) and the church isn't going to just scapegoat her. Likewise, her goddess doesn't encourage the deaths of her followers, and doesn't even encourage death in general. She might not particularly care about my character yet, but still, I can expect to be rewarded in (whatever Lower plane Loviatar hangs out in these days) at the end of the day
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
User avatar
tzor
Prince
Posts: 4266
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeon Design 101

Post by tzor »

Jacob_Orlove at [unixtime wrote:1194317963[/unixtime]]Was Indiana Jones a B movie? Sure. Was it stupidly bad and not interesting or fun? Hardly.


By you got to this particular movie it can be debated whether the series moved from serial episode plots to B movie plots. (Raiders of the lost ark is a classic serial plot you could almost divide each of the sections with the cliff hanger section that segways into the next section to be seen "next week.")

Last Crusaide on the other hand was just plain sloppy in a number of ways and the three tests was the perfect example. The legend of the holy grail is generally placed in the late 12th and early 13th centuries. The first use of the word "Jehovah" wasn't until the late 13th century and I strongly doubt it would have been in the "Joseph d’Arimathie." More ironic is that by this time J is in the Latin alphabet and the original Latin word used "J" while the first use of the word in English used "I." (So they actually got it backwards.) Note that didn't happen until 1530 and had different vowel endings (Iehouah) which is, as they would say, way off from the discussion. It also didn't have the ending "h" in the first Latin version.

--

As for "Evil = Disloyal and Incapable of Love". I would offer the following argument. The first half - loyalty - is a matter of law and chaos not good and evil. The second half, the matter of "love" depends on your definition of love. If you define love as the selfless acts of one towards another, then true evil cannot love because true evil is all about the self. They can have really hot wild and fun relationships but in the end it's all about mutual self satisfaction ... not "love."
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeon Design 101

Post by RandomCasualty »

Voss at [unixtime wrote:1194319572[/unixtime]]
Look, confrontational tone aside, my point is that 'testing ground' dungeons lack a kind of plot quality control. You are, at a basic level, having the designers kill off people that are useful to them. Thats just dumb, in a very 'Evil Overlord' list kind of way. It also, in D&D terms, means rogues are 'most worthy' of anything. You aren't actually measuring any sense of worth other than 'can you get through a dungeon'.


Actually, not in a D&D sense. See D&D doesn't care about numbers. You'd rather have a single 10th level wizard than a bunch of 1st level ones. Building dungeons full of challenges to help upgrade and train your potential heroes makes a lot of sense actually. Because in D&D you really don't care how many low level guys have to die to make that one 10th level hero.

If you can produce one worthwhile hero out of 100 that enter the cavern of no return, then by all means it was worth it. And if the newbies die, well you just recycle their gold/gear to the guy who set up the proving ground.

Proving grounds actually tend to make sense in the D&D setup, they're a place where you can assure that aspiring heroes get level appropriate encounters to help them develop, as opposed to running into a warband of giants at 4th level and getting pulverized. Putting items at the end can also make some sense too, since you want your more powerful warriors getting ahold of your items. If a 1st level fighter ends up getting your +3 sword, he'll only end up dead by goblins and then you'll have some goblin hero using that weapon against you.
Voss
Prince
Posts: 3912
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeon Design 101

Post by Voss »

Oh, come on. You can't play the metagame crap with this. An 'assured ground for level appropriate encounters' doesn't mean squat, because they'll get level appropriate encounters anyway.

What you suggest only works if the DM is prepared to outright kill the party with completely inappropriate encounters if they don't go to his bullshit proving ground.
Lago_AM3P
Duke
Posts: 1268
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeon Design 101

Post by Lago_AM3P »

But anyway, I don't know. I'm a bit tired of Evil = Lack of Loyalty and assorted crap. (like incapable of love, or riddled with hatred and blah).


Evil needs to be defined better, then.

At its most basic level it means putting some sort of object or ideal above the welfare of other people to a (often self) destructive level. And once this is established almost anything goes. If some soldier can be convinced to kill prisoners for a promotion then it follows that he can be convinced to turn his gun on his family for X amount of reward.
Voss
Prince
Posts: 3912
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeon Design 101

Post by Voss »

Someone else can do it. I'm not having a multi-page 'Evil' discussion with you again. :biggrin:

Though I disagree with both your definition (it doesn't have to be self-destructive in any way, which is why the riddled with hatred/lack of loyalty thing bugs me) and example. There is a huge line between executing Bob the child-raping serial killer and killing your wife Cindy and little Timmy and Susie.

Interesting though. Your definition does flatly define most religious figures as evil. As well as, (in D&D), most paladins, lawful folks, and gods. And any given 'average person', since most will put providing for their family over welfare of other people in general.

But, no, really. Have fun with Evil debates with someone else. :)
Lago_AM3P
Duke
Posts: 1268
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeon Design 101

Post by Lago_AM3P »

Though I disagree with both your definition (it doesn't have to be self-destructive in any way, which is why the riddled with hatred/lack of loyalty thing bugs me)


I put self in parenthesis to point out that sometimes the 'self' prefix doesn't apply but in any evil act there's always some level of moral destruction.

Interesting though. Your definition does flatly define most religious figures as evil. As well as, (in D&D), most paladins, lawful folks, and gods.


I'm saying that exactly, but that's not important towards the discussion.

I am saying that since an Evil person definitionally puts a morally destructive amount of emphasis towards some ideal or thing above that of the welfare of other people, they are definitionally put into a impetus of 'lack of loyalty' to some extent.

You've already demonstrated your ability to harm some other group for material wealth / emotional security / etc.. How can you say in good faith that with sufficient motivation you won't turn on some other group?

But, no, really. Have fun with Evil debates with someone else.


If you don't want to discuss it, maybe you shouldn't have debated the moral component to this topic in the first place?
User avatar
angelfromanotherpin
Overlord
Posts: 9745
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeon Design 101

Post by angelfromanotherpin »

Cinematically speaking, Evil tends to come down to two states: depraved indifference and active sadism.

Depraved Indifferent Evil is the state of not giving two tugs of a dead donkey's dong what happens to other people. This is Grand Moff Tarkin territory, where you blow up an entire industrialized planet and you don't even think twice about it. Some people of this ilk define 'other people' as anyone who isn't them personally, and some of them have a broader circle of value, like family, comrades, or nation. Anyone outside that circle, though, can cheerfully be used as reactor shielding. Or not. Whatever's most expedient for the benefit of those within the circle of value.

Actively Sadistic Evil is like Sauron, where you will conquer the Shire for no reason other than Hobbits who are miserable and enslaved are more pleasing to you than Hobbits who are happy and free. Maybe the suffering of others brings you joy, or maybe so much as seeing another being not in pain makes your head hurt. Either way, this sort is almost continually engaged in reducing the amount of happiness in the world, as a goal in itself. Like the other kind of evil, it can be more or less selective with its targets, depending.

Neither of these types is necessarily incapable of loyalty or enlightened self-interest.
Lago_AM3P
Duke
Posts: 1268
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeon Design 101

Post by Lago_AM3P »

Neither of these types is necessarily incapable of loyalty or enlightened self-interest.


But which group is more likely to turn on its comrades/benefactors/subordinates? A group that abhors committing worse (or lesser) crimes or a group where to get membership you have to show a willingness to steal, kill, and torture to begin with?

The extent which evil people will betray and lie and break loyalties is up in the air, but the fact that they both perform and have the moral impetus to perform these acts more than good and neutral people is undeniable.

It's like saying that, all other things being equal, a wife beater is more likely to steal than a nun. Stealing isn't a prequisite to be in either of these groups but being a wife beater requires you to cross a moral line that's further than the moral line of stealing.
User avatar
angelfromanotherpin
Overlord
Posts: 9745
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeon Design 101

Post by angelfromanotherpin »

Lago_AM3P at [unixtime wrote:1194387660[/unixtime]]But which group is more likely to turn on its comrades/benefactors/subordinates? A group that abhors committing worse (or lesser) crimes or a group where to get membership you have to show a willingness to steal, kill, and torture to begin with?


That depends. If that willingness to steal, kill, and torture is on the behalf of a particular group, then that's just a stronger show of loyalty. If an abhorrent act is required by loyalty, then it is loyal to perform that abhorrent act. That's the classic Samurai dilemma.

In fact, in criminal societies where horrible violence is more common, loyalty tends to be valued more than in civilized societies, because the consequences for being betrayed run a lot higher.

The extent which evil people will betray and lie and break loyalties is up in the air, but the fact that they both perform and have the moral impetus to perform these acts more than good and neutral people is undeniable.


Um, it's very deniable until you define your sample group.
Koumei
Serious Badass
Posts: 13880
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: South Ausfailia

Re: Dungeon Design 101

Post by Koumei »

Lago_AM3P at [unixtime wrote:1194386711[/unixtime]]
I am saying that since an Evil person definitionally puts a morally destructive amount of emphasis towards some ideal or thing above that of the welfare of other people, they are definitionally put into a impetus of 'lack of loyalty' to some extent.


Balderdash. You are the one here who has decided that loyalty has to be towards the vast majority. If the Evil person just has a real hard-on for kicking puppies and slaughtering peasants, then it just means they're loyal towards that ideal - moreso than they are towards the collective puppies and peasants.

And seeing as peasants are just a convenience and form of currency, no-one important in the world even cares. Some people (Druids, Arcanaloths and furries) care about the puppies, though.

At any rate, nothing stops that villain from being *more* loyal towards his wife, his brother or his king than that cause. He simply cares more about the cause of kicking puppies and killing peasants than he does about most people.

It's just a matter of priorities.

Similarly, an Evil Cleric is *probably* loyal primarily to his or her deity. But there really isn't anything saying "In order to get caster levels, you have to care about your god more than you care about anyone else." Heck, for some deities it makes more sense that you don't, that you just agree with them in general and do your own thing. Heck, mind flayers have clerics dedicated to Ilsensine, and they don't worship her, they just like the cut of her jib.

Evil has nothing to do with being disloyal. Just because you don't care about most people, doesn't mean you care more about yourself (or Evil itself) than a small few.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
MagnaSecuris
1st Level
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeon Design 101

Post by MagnaSecuris »

Indeed. It is possible to do totally evil things, like burning down a monastery full of defenseless women and children, and then looting the corpses. For fun. All while still being loyal to your own people and nation. Or even to just your adventuring team.

RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Dungeon Design 101

Post by RandomCasualty »

Voss at [unixtime wrote:1194378373[/unixtime]]Oh, come on. You can't play the metagame crap with this. An 'assured ground for level appropriate encounters' doesn't mean squat, because they'll get level appropriate encounters anyway.

What you suggest only works if the DM is prepared to outright kill the party with completely inappropriate encounters if they don't go to his bullshit proving ground.


No.

See, there are lots of adventuring parties that go out and don't return. The NPCs have no idea that this group happens to be PCs instead of NPCs, who are supposed to get level appropriate adventures regardless of what they do. But when you're training a level 10 NPC wizard, maybe he doesn't get level appropriate encounters along the way.

It provides a good reason to produce training ground dungeons.

And it's not as if the NPCs who built them know the difference between PCs and NPCs, so it makes sense to build proving grounds in game.
User avatar
JonSetanta
King
Posts: 5525
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: interbutts

Re: Dungeon Design 101

Post by JonSetanta »

This may be a cop-out, but divine intervention could produce traps across a wide area of unexpected places.
Even someone like an archmage could snap fingers and bam, suddenly every cellar in a town is filled with interlocking maze-dimensions, treasure, automatons, and lava pits.

Or, like in Genius Girl, make castles with the sole purpose of becoming
semi-sentient deathtraps.




http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/ggmain/ ... 070725.jpg
The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:25 pm
Nobody gives a flying fuck about Tordek and Regdar.
Post Reply