Page 2 of 3
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:58 pm
by RadiantPhoenix
I don't see a problem with the "DUNGEON master's guide" having a large amount of space being devoted to what a DUNGEON is, and how it is run. In fact, now that I think about it, Frank's 2/3 figure sounds a little low.
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:21 am
by hogarth
sabs wrote:1st Edition Champions has rules for building your secret base/evil lair.
Huh? I'm pretty sure they were introduced in the book "Champions 2".
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:29 am
by hogarth
PhoneLobster wrote:hogarth wrote:I think it goes without saying that basic questions like "how do I smash down a door?" should be addressed in the basic rules of an action game. But I wouldn't classify that as "stronghold building".
Which then leads to questions like "How many doors are there?", "What Types of are there?" and "Where in the stronghold/dungeon/whatever are these doors?".
Your RPG experience must be quite different from mine as far as maps go. I'd say the breakdown for me is something like:
- 59%: The GM has some kind of map that he either grabbed from a module or from a book or from the internet or whatever. All questions can be answered by consulting the map.
- 39%: The GM is obviously making shit up as he goes along and there's never any maps other maybe the occasional chicken-scratch diagram. Questions like "Is there a door around here?" are answered with a hearty "Sure, I guess. Why not?"
- 2%: The GM actually puts some thought into creating a coherent map of his own based on logic and shit.
Only the last guy would actually use the Stronghold Builder's Handbook, for instance. Obviously the percentages are different in your experience. YMMV, different strokes for different folks, etc., etc.
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:41 am
by fectin
Actually, I'd prefer a pared-down enough core book that it could be distributed in a trade-sized (and cost) book. That means non-core rules need to be pushed off to other books (ideally the same size).
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:50 am
by RadiantPhoenix
That sounds like a good idea. You have the Core Rulebook, which is included in the Box Set, but also distributed separately, which contains the resolution mechanics, a bunch of sample NPCs that seem likely to be common, some really common monsters, and the simpler classes, along with everything needed to make those characters. The three books we are familiar with (PHB, DMG, and MM) would contain the more obscure information, but would also contain the basic rules too.
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:42 am
by PhoneLobster
hogarth wrote:- 59%: The GM has some kind of map that he either grabbed from a module or from a book or from the internet or whatever. All questions can be answered by consulting the map.
This GM uses dungeon building rules because his modules are all MADE from the dungeon building rules. And when he wants to know how the rooms in his module work... he looks at the dungeon building rules...
The dungeon building rules make his game better because dungeons are defined things, and from one random module to the next bathrooms, portcullis's and chimneys use consistent mechanics the players can familiarize themselves with.
[*]39%: The GM is obviously making shit up as he goes along and there's never any maps other maybe the occasional chicken-scratch diagram. Questions like "Is there a door around here?" are answered with a hearty "Sure, I guess. Why not?"
This GM says "Why Not! Itsa..." *refers to table of door types in dungeon building rules and picks something vaguely appropriate*.
The dungeon building rules about the contents of dungeons give him convenient things he can drop into his unplanned dungeon at the spur of the moment. Ideally they should even have some nice lists and tables to help facilitate that.
They make his "sure whatever" dungeon maps significantly better by introducing increased consistency and predictability DESPITE not being planned until the last minute.
[*]2%: The GM actually puts some thought into creating a coherent map of his own based on logic and shit.[/list]
This GM uses the dungeon building rules because they have internally consistent game logic, are not infact entirely based on his PERSONAL (and unreadable) mind but instead on a shared rules set available to be read by players. And he is less likely to make up complete shit based on his own logic.
This GM experiences a better game as dungeon building rules support him with a variety of prepared, interesting and workable options that he doesn't have to spend extra time on working himself before he can even insert them into a premapped dungeon.
YMMV, different strokes for different folks, etc., etc.
A large part of the point however is that not only CAN all those GM styles use the same dungeon building/contents rules all those GM styles SHOULD.
Because when it ISN'T "different strokes for different folks" players can gain and use the same game knowledge with different GMs, and most importantly of all,
the same GM can use different GMing styles because the reality of the "YMMV" of your "/list" is that GMs frequently vary their styles, one week having a prepared map, another having to make something up on the fly, and later still being tempted to include a cool module they found. With the same standardized dungeon rules underlying ALL those methodologies they can be used in the same game without any fuss.
Without actual dungeon building/contents rules... those different game styles all use different rules (sometimes even rules different TO THEMSELVES thanks to inconsistencies of on the fly GMing and canned modules) and aren't reliably the same, or even reliably any good.
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:44 am
by kzt
sabs wrote:1st Edition Champions has rules for building your secret base/evil lair.
So does 6th edition HERO. It's pretty basic, and requires the GM to prevent that Landlord PC, but there is a framework.
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:09 am
by hogarth
PhoneLobster wrote:hogarth wrote:- 59%: The GM has some kind of map that he either grabbed from a module or from a book or from the internet or whatever. All questions can be answered by consulting the map.
This GM uses dungeon building rules because his modules are all MADE from the dungeon building rules. And when he wants to know how the rooms in his module work... he looks at the dungeon building rules...
[*]39%: The GM is obviously making shit up as he goes along and there's never any maps other maybe the occasional chicken-scratch diagram. Questions like "Is there a door around here?" are answered with a hearty "Sure, I guess. Why not?"
This GM says "Why Not! Itsa..." *refers to table of door types in dungeon building rules and picks something vaguely appropriate*.
No, I was there and I'm pretty sure they didn't use those rules. In fact, isn't this thread complaining those rules don't exist in the core books?
Now it would be great if they did go out and use some book for research, but they didn't, and the game worked out just fine. The world didn't end. Laziness prevailed again.
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:20 pm
by PhoneLobster
Oh I see, you are just being a fairy tea party retard, ignoring an example of exactly why such a GM would and SHOULD use this material and just pretending you are illiterate in the process. That's cool... why are you posting again?
No seriously WTF? Are you fucking retarded?
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:38 pm
by hogarth
PhoneLobster wrote:Oh I see, you are just being a fairy tea party retard, ignoring an example of exactly why such a GM would and SHOULD use this material and just pretending you are illiterate in the process. That's cool... why are you posting again?
No seriously WTF? Are you fucking retarded?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
I thought you were arguing that most GMs would benefit from having a bunch of rules about how buildings are created or supported or whatever in the "basic rules". That's not really true, in my experience; most GMs I've seen are pretty lazy and will gloss over details whether there are rules covering that situation or not. For instance, there are a few pages of rules in the 3.X DMG covering weather, but I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've seen the weather rules used; the number would be even smaller if I excluded the cases where the GM was using a module where it said "at this point it's raining, and so everyone has concealment" or whatever. That doesn't mean that having weather rules is a
bad thing, just that a game can trundle along just fine if you just fake it.
Tzor is right; the "basic rules" should give the absolute minimum needed to play the game and there should be supplementary rules (like Frostburn or the Stronghold Builder's Guide) for those who are interested in more than just "orc + pie" adventuring.
But now it sounds like you're talking about what GMs should be doing in PhoneLobster's GM Utopian Fairyland. In that case, I'll agree that GMs should do awesome stuff all the time and have awesome rules to support that and a GM should never have to pull stuff out of his ass. But that's a meaningless thing to assert.
TL; DR -- I can't tell if what you're saying is wrong (and therefore worth discussing), or if it's meaningless.
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:55 pm
by PhoneLobster
I gave you reasons why such GMs WOULD use such rules, how they could, and why they should.
You responded with a juvenile "but they didn't so they can't wouldn't couldn't and shouldn't!".
You did not express an argument, you did not address the fact that such rules are a useful tool usable by all those GM types in the manners I described. You are running an argument of "I played fairy tea party this one time and it was AWESOME !"
That makes you an idiot.
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:26 pm
by Prak
PhoneLobster wrote:You responded with a juvenile "but they didn't so they can't wouldn't couldn't and shouldn't!".
Dude, that's not how he responded at all, he misunderstood what you were saying, I'll grant, but what he responded with was "Yeah, that dumbass totally didn't even touch dungeon building rules (directly)."
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:40 am
by Swordslinger
Lago PARANOIA wrote:The "this is how you make a fortress" isn't just for the players, it's also for the DM who can use them to make his own damn dungeons rather than having to wing everything.
I don't really understand what it is that you'd want.
In fantasy, fortresses come in all manner of flavors, so having some kind of default layout isn't really what you'd want anyway. A dwarf fortress is going to look a lot different from a mage's tower. While you may want a few charts for different ideas for rooms in a fortress, I don't consider it absolutely essential.
Besides that, what other rules do you really need?
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:58 am
by Red_Rob
Swordslinger, we know you think its fine if the rules are pulled out of the MC's ass, and hurriedly climbing a ladder is a DC15 check when the DM doesn't care and a DC30 when he wants you to fail because of his super-special-awesum plot. We know you think "just because!" is a fine justification for whatever asinine reasoning the MC decides on that particular day. Some people, however, would like predicable results from their actions to enable them to decide whether smashing through the locked door is a reasonable plan or a risky manouevre. To facilitate this involves things like door strengths per material, lock breakage DC's and rules for damaging objects.
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:20 pm
by Archmage
Red_Rob wrote:Swordslinger, we know you think its fine if the rules are pulled out of the MC's ass, and hurriedly climbing a ladder is a DC15 check when the DM doesn't care and a DC30 when he wants you to fail because of his super-special-awesum plot. We know you think "just because!" is a fine justification for whatever asinine reasoning the MC decides on that particular day. Some people, however, would like predicable results from their actions to enable them to decide whether smashing through the locked door is a reasonable plan or a risky manouevre. To facilitate this involves things like door strengths per material, lock breakage DC's and rules for damaging objects.
Not to mention that many DMs would benefit from an overview of the less-obvious defenses available to dungeon-designers, especially magical security that doesn't exist in the real world or that exists to thwart offensive tactics that real people can't execute. Explanations of how dungeons can integrate illusions, anti-magic fields, or anti-teleportation measures would be helpful for the novice and the expert alike.
You could just make some of those up out of thin air, too, but my experience is that players feel like the game is being handled more fairly if they're encountering "standard" and semi-predictable dungeon security measures as opposed to arbitrary fuck-yous that render their abilities useless.
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:15 pm
by hogarth
PhoneLobster wrote:
You did not express an argument, you did not address the fact that such rules are a useful tool usable by all those GM types in the manners I described. You are running an argument of "I played fairy tea party this one time and it was AWESOME !"
Right, and you're running an argument of "I'm gonna play fairy tea party with some sweet dungeon rules and it's gonna be double AWESOME!" (I.e. even more meaningless garbage because it's not even an anecdote -- it's a
hypothetical anecdote.)
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:16 pm
by sabs
One of the great parts of Ars Magica are the Covenant building rules. Being invested in the place you live, and it's quality of life makes for some awesome adventuring.
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:53 pm
by Swordslinger
Archmage wrote:
Not to mention that many DMs would benefit from an overview of the less-obvious defenses available to dungeon-designers, especially magical security that doesn't exist in the real world or that exists to thwart offensive tactics that real people can't execute. Explanations of how dungeons can integrate illusions, anti-magic fields, or anti-teleportation measures would be helpful for the novice and the expert alike.
You could just make some of those up out of thin air, too, but my experience is that players feel like the game is being handled more fairly if they're encountering "standard" and semi-predictable dungeon security measures as opposed to arbitrary fuck-yous that render their abilities useless.
Okay, if you want a section on informing the DM how to build dungeon security to counter player abilities, then that would make sense. If anything 3E was very short on this stuff, it needed probably several chapters devoted to solely thwarting high level abilities. I was picturing that people were expecting the DM to map out the cost of a fortress and worry about the labor force required to build it.
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:27 am
by Lago PARANOIA
Well, in your opinion, assuming a 250 page DMG being written for 5E D&D:
A) About how much space should be devoted to stronghold building rules?
B) What concerns should the stronghold building rules cover in the basic DMG?
For comparison purposes, the Stronghold Builder Guide for 3E was 128 pages long. Unfortunately for it, it was still missing out on a lot of stuff you'd expect to see for a standard stronghold and was more aimed at 'castle' than 'general purpose fortified structure'. Moreover a lot of rules referred to existing effects in the other books.
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:09 am
by Hieronymous Rex
OD&D, Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, pages 20-24.
You get:
*How to start a barony (clearing the area)
*Population and revenue
*Rules for hiring professionals, men-at-arms.
*Illustrated guide to costs of stronghold building.
Stronghold and domain rules should be a basic part of D&D, like they were in the beginning.
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:28 am
by Swordslinger
I don't see the point of using real world style castles, because the things you have to defend against in a fantasy world are vastly different. Real world castles weren't designed to handle flying threats, burrowing threats or invisible mages.
As far as holding off orcs, nobody cares, because they suck.
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:49 am
by Prak
To hold off orcs, you let the court necromancer let loose some of his pet skelefrogs with destructive retribution.
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:30 am
by MGuy
Depends on what else is in the DMG. Pathfinder took a lot of the stuff out of the DMG and shoved it in the 1st book. That opens up some space in the DMG for more stronghold stuff.
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:41 am
by K
Swordslinger wrote:I don't see the point of using real world style castles, because the things you have to defend against in a fantasy world are vastly different. Real world castles weren't designed to handle flying threats, burrowing threats or invisible mages.
Well, they are since those things map to "artillery and archers, sappers, and spies," so the covered walls you might have had to prevent arrows would work just as well against flying crap.
Still, your overall point stands. Crap like outer walls are unnecessary when you can have permanent
Symbols of Death that murder attackers if they get within 60 feet of your front door.
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:58 am
by Vebyast
K wrote:Still, your overall point stands. Crap like outer walls are unnecessary when you can have permanent Symbols of Death that murder attackers if they get within 60 feet of your front door.
Or when your front door is a pile of Temporal Stasis'd Djinni with orders to blow the first thing they see to pieces.