 |
| "I'll take the giant for 500 XP, Alex." |
Balanced encounters vs. Randomized threat levels
The current philosophy of Dungeons and Dragon game design is that encounters should always be balanced. You take the party level and from that calculate how dangerous the monster should be. A traditional megadungeon is actually based largely around this idea: first level down is for first level characters, level two is for second level, third for level three, and so on. By the time they reach level ten, they’re tenth level.
This, however, is only a general guide, and players will often delve deeper before they are prepared to. If you look at some old dungeon modules, you’ll sometimes find significantly more dangerous monsters on upper levels. I prefer this, as it teaches players that there are some threats to be avoided, and not to think they’re at the centre of the game universe (yet). They have to earn that. But you have to let players know the world is terrifying and that not everything is scaled to suit their skill level. They have to exercise their own judgement in deciding when to engage, when to flee, and when to hide.
 |
| Famous last 1st level words: "Come on, you guys! We can take down a 20th level monster if we use the power of cooperation!" |
If you do throw in a dragon squatting in the abandoned Dwarven Hall of Grimiron on the first or second level, be sure you give the players plenty of clues as to what lies ahead. Maybe the kobolds worship it, and have built altars, and scrawled their dragon god’s story on the tunnel walls in front.
You want your players to have the option to quickly retreat if they realize they’re in deep trouble.
If players insist on being overconfident, or even outright boneheaded, well… I believe killing player characters should be avoided whenever possible, as players invest a lot more energy and backstory than they ever used to. Dying was a matter of course in AD&D. Now? Not so much.
But the threat of death still has to be there; it’s a vital part of a fantasy adventure. No risk, no reward! Offer players saves and outs and second chances whenever possible. Remember everyone makes mistakes; after all, seeing characters grow and advance is part of the fun!
If a player does die, do whatever you can to make it meaningful.
A player dying during a random encounter is pretty anti-climactic. Dying during the boss fight, saving the lives of the rest of the party? That’s epic.
Always go for the epic and memorable. Stories can come out of good D&D games, ones that will be told and retold in the years to come. Aim for it.
Add breathing space
Dungeons are more believable when they have ‘empty’ spaces. These help build up tension. However, they can’t be (generally) truly empty. They need items of interest, because players get really bored, really really fast. A couple of empty rooms in a row will do it. So be sure to offer clues as to what is ahead (massive scat outside an owl bear or dragon lair, claw marks, offal, broken weapons, stone statues of adventurers petrified by the basilisk down the hall, the smell of cooking meat, the foul stench of ghasts, etcetera). Maybe the giant ants build geometric sculptures out of dirt to mark territory between colonies.
I always feel some anxiety that players will get bored. It makes me throw in more monsters, and more varied monsters, than is believable, even within a fantastical dungeon space. I try to use all the tricks mentioned above to keep it exciting.
Ultimately, I am only trying to make the mega-dungeon passingly plausible. Enough so that players aren’t constantly stopping to say, this makes no sense! That’s death. So always listen closely to your players. They will tell you as the game goes on what works, what doesn’t. You’ll learn the limits of their suspension of disbelief bubbles.
Count on that!
 |
| Evil avalanches... hmm... why, I could use that! |
Player feedback
Getting players to clearly state what they like and what they don’t can be a double edged sword. You don’t want to open up the door to nit picking and negative energy. Most players won’t want to give offence, and may pull their feedback punches, or be hesitant to offer criticism at all.
If the criticism goes to far, it can kill the vibe. As such, it’s better to ask what’s working and what they’d like to see more of, than what they’d like to see less of.
If you emphasize the positive, the rest will naturally sort itself out.
The Rule of Three
The Alexandrian (Of So You Want To Be A Gamemaster fame; it's good, I picked up a copy) puts forward the Rule of Three: one monster, one trap, and one item of interest per room. Or something like that. I can't find the original post, but he does also apply it to clues, which is a very good idea, as well. I’ve tried to implement it in my dungeon.
Unfortunately, I made my dungeon too big, and putting three things in each… after the first 100 or so rooms, that was just too much for the scope and scale I was aiming for. Arguably, the scale I wanted is nuts. Arguably, you only need maybe 10 rooms tops to go from level one to level two, and maybe 20-40 rooms per level after, depending on the monster challenge level and size of your player group.
So after running headlong into the brick reality wall, I’ve scaled back. Some of my rooms only have 1 thing. Others might have 4. I vary it for the sake of my own sanity and the limit of what I’m capable of without burning out.
Other posts in the series:
DM Journal 1: Jumping from AD&D to 5e
Populating the mega-dungeon part one: Mix, match and batch
No comments:
Post a Comment