Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Extreme Makeover Dungeon Edition!
I love dungeons. Big underground lairs (generically referred to as dungeons by legions of RPG players) have been a staple of fantasy RPGs since... well, since before they named an ad-hoc rule set "Dungeons and Dragons" and started distributing it in the 1970s.You could argue that this was due to an influence of the Mines of Moria - because Tolkien was an overwhelming influence on that game. While I wouldn't disagree, I'd argue that the influence goes back much further than that. The stories of "the underworld" permeate mythology. And folk tales - for one project I still have on the back-burner I was spending a great deal of time reading through American and European folklore, and I was surprised to find a number of stories involving a secret world hidden in caves, holes in the ground, and old ruins.
Ghosts. Forty thieves. Dogs with eyes the size of dinner plates. Secret kingdoms of elves and trolls. Old gods. Witches. Giants. In folk tales, myth, classic literature, the land beneath the world is a place of magic and mystery. And, frequently, monsters.
So it's very natural that they'd be part of a game rooted in myths, legends, folklore, and fantasy literature. In fact, one student of RPG history has suggested that in the original rules for D&D, dungeons were much more like the mythic underworld, and in many ways the very nature of the dungeon itself was hostile towards intruders from the world above.
But there's a small problem with the underlying concept:
Dungeons are kinda stupid.
Stupidity #1 is enemy behavior. Unless you've got a locations that's truly ginormous in size, or contains no creatures smart enough to even come close to normal human intelligence (or they are all craven), there's no way they are just going to hang out in their rooms and wait for the adventurers to kick their door open and kill them.
As David Noonan and Jessie Decker put it in one article on adventure design for D&D:
"In real life, if you attack a site full of armed, dangerous people, the entirety of them will respond—probably overwhelmingly, and probably right at the entrance. But that rarely makes for a satisfying D&D game. First, PCs don’t feel a sense of progression when they’re fighting battle after battle in room A1, not exploring the entire adventure site. Second, the PCs don’t get to make interesting noncombat decisions—the “left door or right door” sorts of questions. Third, a dungeon that empties out in response to a PC attack starts to feel like a random monster generator."So to make an interesting adventure, we have to cheat. Sorta like in how those kung fu movies the bad guys never attack the hero en masse - they always attack by ones and twos. It's unbelievable, but we put up with it because it is entertaining.
Stupidity #2 is the laws of physical science. Ask any civil engineer, and they can give you a reams of lists of issues and dangers of underground construction. Air contaminants, ventillation, structural integrity, the threat of fire, flooding, lighting, limited movement or escape - these are all huge issues in real life. Let alone the fact that there's probably not much in a dungeon for the monsters to eat.
So - in theory - a party could just lay siege on a smaller dungeon and smoke 'em out.
If there's a nearby water source (and we assume most monsters would need water, too), some dungeons might be vulnerable to flooding if you built a dam nearby.... or simply setting up a Decanter of Endless Water at the entrance...
Stupidity #3 is the rather silly arrangement of monsters. So why, exactly, are the weakest monsters at the front trying to protect the strongest "boss" monsters in the furthest and most inaccessible reaches of the dungeon? Maybe all strong monsters are cowards at heart, and all the brave ones die before they level up.
I remember the jokes by EverQuest players about how the monsters would send their children and weakest laborers to go play in hostile human territory while their most powerful warriors were kept safely deep in the back of the lair. Same deal.
I could go on, including more things like ridiculously convoluted architecture (I assume somehow magic is responsible and very cheap), similarly ridiculously convoluted and ineffectual traps, and more. But I'll stop now.
I'm not saying that anything should be done to correct these little bits of stupidity. Dungeons are a long-standing archetype in most human cultures, and we need to play into it. But like action movies, sometimes you have to put a little part of your brain on the shelf to enjoy them - simply because they'd not be any fun, otherwise.
Probably.
Maybe.
I really like the approach Decker and Noonan took in their article - given that a truly realistic response is rarely fun, how could they design around it to give the feeling of realistic, intelligent response without making it boring for players and a nightmare for the game master. Sorta like how the Death Star's defenses are explained to the audience as being undermanned, and confused and unsure about where Luke and the gang are, or even if there there truly are intruders aboard during the middle of Star Wars.
In computer RPGs, designers have a little bit of an advantage in being able to design around some of the problems. While in a free-form dice & paper RPG players might think to do something crazy like re-route the river to flood the dungeon, in computer RPGs the designer has to explicitly provide that option. Though I'm still game to see a simulation-esque RPG along the lines of Dwarf Fortress where you could pull off stuff like that.
If you take the assumption that the plain vanilla dungeon acts as a symbolic surrogate for the underworld, the unknown, the alien, and the world of mystery --- we just HAVE to invade it in our games. It's something of a moral imperitive for adventurers.
But the dungeon doesn't have to be plain vanilla, nor has our exploration of it have to be the typical explore / hack / slash / loot experience of many RPGs, old and new. I mean, we want exploring, we want combat, and we want looting - but maybe there's more to it than we've been playing for decades.
I've talked a little about ways of improving on traditional level design in fantasy RPGs - but I'm wondering if there are some bigger improvements that could be made? What other approaches could RPGs take to shake up the ol' dungeon to make it more believable and/or - more importantly - more fun?
I'm curious what you think.
Labels: Game Design, Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 7:16 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Of all the sins of RPGs, I think dungeons are one of the minor ones. Yes, yes, some may cry, "that's not very realistic!" but compared to a lot of the other conventions in RPGs (character levels, hit points, etc.) they really don't stand out to me.
In order to "improve" dungeons, though, we have to ask "what makes them more fun?" A lot of the issues you brought up about why dungeons are unrealistic is because the more "realistic" option is just not fun. If a change isn't fun, then it's not a good change for a game.
I think another option is to make sure the players can make choices that have an effect. If monsters in the next room are alerted by combat, is there something I can do to avoid that? Perhaps try to lure the enemies out of the room? On the other hand, this shouldn't get too mechanical. As the dungeon adventure article you linked said, you don't want to bog the game down by making people spend five minutes checking every door; likewise, you don't want them to spend five minutes drawing monsters out of the previous room.
Another option suggested by the dungeon adventure design article is to have things get more "realistic" to ramp up difficulty. Harder dungeons with smarter enemies means that the group in the next room will get buffed and ready when they hear combat in the next room. This makes the encounter a bit more difficult, but the player should expect things to get a bit more difficult as they progress and get a bit more wary.
Overall, I think that current dungeon design works well enough. As mentioned in the beginning, dungeons are really fun. I've crawled through a lot of dungeons in paper games and computer RPGs. I've certainly noticed if a dungeon was not fun quicker than I've noticed if a dungeon wasn't realistic.
In order to "improve" dungeons, though, we have to ask "what makes them more fun?" A lot of the issues you brought up about why dungeons are unrealistic is because the more "realistic" option is just not fun. If a change isn't fun, then it's not a good change for a game.
I think another option is to make sure the players can make choices that have an effect. If monsters in the next room are alerted by combat, is there something I can do to avoid that? Perhaps try to lure the enemies out of the room? On the other hand, this shouldn't get too mechanical. As the dungeon adventure article you linked said, you don't want to bog the game down by making people spend five minutes checking every door; likewise, you don't want them to spend five minutes drawing monsters out of the previous room.
Another option suggested by the dungeon adventure design article is to have things get more "realistic" to ramp up difficulty. Harder dungeons with smarter enemies means that the group in the next room will get buffed and ready when they hear combat in the next room. This makes the encounter a bit more difficult, but the player should expect things to get a bit more difficult as they progress and get a bit more wary.
Overall, I think that current dungeon design works well enough. As mentioned in the beginning, dungeons are really fun. I've crawled through a lot of dungeons in paper games and computer RPGs. I've certainly noticed if a dungeon was not fun quicker than I've noticed if a dungeon wasn't realistic.
I always like it when dungeons in CRPGs have some sort of alternate entrance/exit, that I can't use, but presumably other inhabitants of the dungeon could. This gives my mind an easy way to explain away the presence of a good portion of the inhabitants. For example, there's a crevice that runs back into the wall, I can't get into it, but some frogs or lizards can. Then larger animals feed on these, and then the monsters I'm fighting eat the larger animals.
I don't ever really consciously go through those steps in my mind, but having those extra spaces where things could come and go from the dungeon make the dungeon feel like it's part of a larger ecosystem, like there is more to it than what I am seeing, and those extra parts can help explain away the parts that I can explore.
I don't ever really consciously go through those steps in my mind, but having those extra spaces where things could come and go from the dungeon make the dungeon feel like it's part of a larger ecosystem, like there is more to it than what I am seeing, and those extra parts can help explain away the parts that I can explore.
"Sorta like in how those kung fu movies the bad guys never attack the hero en masse..."
Have not watched Once Upon a Time in China series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_China), Drunken Master 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_Master_II), Master Ma (http://www.spcnet.tv/Taiwanese-TV-Series/Master-Ma-review-r393.html), etc., where being attack by enemies en masse is quit often, have you? Just kidding :-P
Great article! :-)
Have not watched Once Upon a Time in China series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_China), Drunken Master 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_Master_II), Master Ma (http://www.spcnet.tv/Taiwanese-TV-Series/Master-Ma-review-r393.html), etc., where being attack by enemies en masse is quit often, have you? Just kidding :-P
Great article! :-)
# posted by 
: June 16, 2009 5:57 PM
: June 16, 2009 5:57 PM
I love... the idea of dungeons. The practical aspects keep tripping me up. (Mainly cause I have my characters go in with a pick and an appraising eye.)
A dungeon, conceptually, is a flowchart. (I subscribe heavily to the 5 room dungeon concept when forced to plan a game. My players broke me of the "planning" disease many years ago.)
To a large degree, as a player, I'd like to see Gygaxian naturalism over more abstract/playable dungeons. I rail against playable dungeons because I, as a player, tend to break the railroad of a dungeon. To restate this concept: I see the entire dungeon as a puzzle to be solved with the least expenditure of resources. This means little rubber balls, chickens, marbles, and the decanter of endless water.
The first mistake is the "chart of graph paper" mistake. If you make the dungeon on graph paper, it's as cluttered as an apartment block. (Dungeon as apartment block would be fantastic, actually. You could have good neighbours and bad neighbours and actually have some fun adventuring in that tighly packed space. Just avoid the garbage tip.)
A proper labyrinth (as opposed to place-to-keep-people-in-until-we-want-them-out) is sparsely populated relative to area. You don't have mutual reinforcements because either a) the monsters are aware of narrative causality in a setting that supports that (Ars Magica's Fey, for example) or b) they're not able or willing to reinforce.
Meaningful choice in a dungeon functionally means either a branching flowchart or a series of subsystems. The branching flowchart provides a good illusion of choice. The subsystems are more interesting.
This requires a good ponder.
A dungeon, conceptually, is a flowchart. (I subscribe heavily to the 5 room dungeon concept when forced to plan a game. My players broke me of the "planning" disease many years ago.)
To a large degree, as a player, I'd like to see Gygaxian naturalism over more abstract/playable dungeons. I rail against playable dungeons because I, as a player, tend to break the railroad of a dungeon. To restate this concept: I see the entire dungeon as a puzzle to be solved with the least expenditure of resources. This means little rubber balls, chickens, marbles, and the decanter of endless water.
The first mistake is the "chart of graph paper" mistake. If you make the dungeon on graph paper, it's as cluttered as an apartment block. (Dungeon as apartment block would be fantastic, actually. You could have good neighbours and bad neighbours and actually have some fun adventuring in that tighly packed space. Just avoid the garbage tip.)
A proper labyrinth (as opposed to place-to-keep-people-in-until-we-want-them-out) is sparsely populated relative to area. You don't have mutual reinforcements because either a) the monsters are aware of narrative causality in a setting that supports that (Ars Magica's Fey, for example) or b) they're not able or willing to reinforce.
Meaningful choice in a dungeon functionally means either a branching flowchart or a series of subsystems. The branching flowchart provides a good illusion of choice. The subsystems are more interesting.
This requires a good ponder.
Wow. Stunning responses so far! (And, as usual).
@Psychochild - Actually, the idea of the enemies getting "smarter" or better prepared as you go through the dungeon to make them "harder" is a fascinating idea. I don't know if they'd make as satisfying a thump as you knock 'em down (the bigger, scarier monsters are always more satisfying to defeat than the same guys but better-prepared), but it's definitely one way of playing around with the concept.
And I don't think dungeons are hopelessly broken, either. I love 'em. But I do like the idea of shaking up the concept a bit, trying to think outside the box, and seeing what falls out.
@Darius - One of my favorite modules for 3rd edition D&D was Necromancer Games' Tomb of Abysthor. It had a little bit of a factional (or at least cold war) going on between inhabitants, a semblance of an ecology, and a good supply of puzzles, mysteries, traps, and so forth. One of my favorite ideas was a drow cleric / wizard who outfitted her zombie minions with chain mail and pole arms! Funny how much more dangerous they get when you do that!
@Anonymous - Hey, I didn't say ALL Kung Fu movies, did I? :) I did see the Drunken Master I, but it was a long time ago, so I don't remember the fights very well.
@Brian Ballsun-Stanton: Yeah, effectively, that's one of the advantages of dungeons from a designer's perspective. It's a much more manageable control flow.
Of course, in the higher-level pen & paper D&D game, you get characters with Passwall or Disintegrate spells, flying, and so forth to really throw a wrench in the works. Though from my perspective, that's half the fun.
@Psychochild - Actually, the idea of the enemies getting "smarter" or better prepared as you go through the dungeon to make them "harder" is a fascinating idea. I don't know if they'd make as satisfying a thump as you knock 'em down (the bigger, scarier monsters are always more satisfying to defeat than the same guys but better-prepared), but it's definitely one way of playing around with the concept.
And I don't think dungeons are hopelessly broken, either. I love 'em. But I do like the idea of shaking up the concept a bit, trying to think outside the box, and seeing what falls out.
@Darius - One of my favorite modules for 3rd edition D&D was Necromancer Games' Tomb of Abysthor. It had a little bit of a factional (or at least cold war) going on between inhabitants, a semblance of an ecology, and a good supply of puzzles, mysteries, traps, and so forth. One of my favorite ideas was a drow cleric / wizard who outfitted her zombie minions with chain mail and pole arms! Funny how much more dangerous they get when you do that!
@Anonymous - Hey, I didn't say ALL Kung Fu movies, did I? :) I did see the Drunken Master I, but it was a long time ago, so I don't remember the fights very well.
@Brian Ballsun-Stanton: Yeah, effectively, that's one of the advantages of dungeons from a designer's perspective. It's a much more manageable control flow.
Of course, in the higher-level pen & paper D&D game, you get characters with Passwall or Disintegrate spells, flying, and so forth to really throw a wrench in the works. Though from my perspective, that's half the fun.
One concept from the article by Philotomy you linked: non-linear dungeons. Have multiple entrances, stairs that span multiple levels, etc. Give the player(s) more freedom of movement. Most of the dungeons I can think of in games are very linear. While this makes it easier to make sure you've cleared out everything, there's not as much fun exploring around.
I really like that idea, and would like to see it more, especially on major dungeons in the game.
I really like that idea, and would like to see it more, especially on major dungeons in the game.
For the "hardness progression" to make sense, you have to create a backstory that supports it. Being monsters and all, this approach could make sense:
"In the land of thinly veiled ideas, there lies a cave. In that cave there be monsters. not just one monster, like in the land of abducted maidens, nor evil overlords and all their surrogate, as found in the land of random trunctuated snippets (also called rts). No, this underground maze houses dozen of various mixed and mal-aligned weirdoes. If you think that cultural differences between the peoples in lala land and dodo meadows are bad, you shoud definitly visit this vile hole in the ground. The oggres and gobblins are in constant war, mostly over the nicely stinking hall on level 4. the vampires and spherical floating spheres of roun doom are constantly nibbling away at the ghoul populacy, to the dismay of the ghoulqueen. all the gnomes and giant rats have been driven out by the constant wars and clashes with the stronger enemies. those poor critters that can't even stand up to a normal rat have been forced to live near the entrance, where the light could break trough the ceiling at any moment (a constant fear of all monsters). I has been told that the strongest beasts even steal all the valuable loot from their weaker cousins, and store it down on level 10..."
See that was easy: constant warfare, weaker opponents are driven towards less desirable places, due to being meek.
As for creating dungeons that are crazy, then flooding em with water... which part of that does not describe the gist, so to say the final quintessence of dwarf fortress? Well.. maybe that flooding it with lava is more fun, but other then that?
"In the land of thinly veiled ideas, there lies a cave. In that cave there be monsters. not just one monster, like in the land of abducted maidens, nor evil overlords and all their surrogate, as found in the land of random trunctuated snippets (also called rts). No, this underground maze houses dozen of various mixed and mal-aligned weirdoes. If you think that cultural differences between the peoples in lala land and dodo meadows are bad, you shoud definitly visit this vile hole in the ground. The oggres and gobblins are in constant war, mostly over the nicely stinking hall on level 4. the vampires and spherical floating spheres of roun doom are constantly nibbling away at the ghoul populacy, to the dismay of the ghoulqueen. all the gnomes and giant rats have been driven out by the constant wars and clashes with the stronger enemies. those poor critters that can't even stand up to a normal rat have been forced to live near the entrance, where the light could break trough the ceiling at any moment (a constant fear of all monsters). I has been told that the strongest beasts even steal all the valuable loot from their weaker cousins, and store it down on level 10..."
See that was easy: constant warfare, weaker opponents are driven towards less desirable places, due to being meek.
As for creating dungeons that are crazy, then flooding em with water... which part of that does not describe the gist, so to say the final quintessence of dwarf fortress? Well.. maybe that flooding it with lava is more fun, but other then that?
# posted by : June 17, 2009 5:14 AM
: June 17, 2009 5:14 AM
The idea of an old-school "Big Dungeon" definitely has its appeal. It helps explain the endless supply of wandering monsters, too...
The dungeon as the monsters' metropolis.
As far as flooded dungeons - I seem to remember dealing with them a lot in Daggerfall. Not super-fun, but different. I remember getting a kick out of realizing that you could actually swim those underground rivers in Ultima Underworld...
Post a Comment
The dungeon as the monsters' metropolis.
As far as flooded dungeons - I seem to remember dealing with them a lot in Daggerfall. Not super-fun, but different. I remember getting a kick out of realizing that you could actually swim those underground rivers in Ultima Underworld...
Links to this post:
<< Home
