Empty dungeons - all except the fun parts?

 As some of you might know, there's work going on to produce a 8th edition of Tunnels & Trolls. Naturally, it makes me ponder the qualities T&T have, it's quirks and sparkling facets. I remember how the Trollgod, Ken St Andre, wrote in the former editions about how to approach the game, and how it came to be. One thing I remember from older editions of the game is the suggestion, when designing dungeons, to put a lot of stuff in there. Nobody wants to mess around in a boring dungeon, was the thinking. It ties in to the great debate earlier this autumn about the empty dungeon and the pile of "worthless" treasure.I have talked about it before, and might do it again. Now I have some observations to share of what's boring or fun.

Writing a tent pole dungeon, or a megadungeon, it might make a lot of sense to have sections of the dungeon be quite empty, some to be the highways and some to be Saturday Night Specials. Looking at the Wilderlands, the setting published by Judges Guild, it makes sense. It is basically a big empty dungeon, is it not? Now imagine it all being a vast castle, or a big underground mine and it will look kind of the same. I mean, it's a world in of itself. But, let's for a moment limit the vision to something smaller, which is just one adventure, and not a whole world.

You know what Adventure is, right? Adventure is like real world, except the boring parts are cut out. At least that is a way to describe it I find funny. Approaching it a bit more serious, I find the dungeon design advice which suggest you cram in more stuff there, since nobody want to fool around in an empty dungeon probably belong to that school.

So, then the problem is to identify the "boring parts". I know that for many of us playing these games of adventure, we like to be something bigger and greater than we usually are. But, for some others it's not so focused on the bigger, better and greater part. I have found that for those people it's often a question of exploring a secondary world, that is interesting in itself, as a living real place. Personally I like that aspect. Once I played in a game with a very tantalizing setting, with lot of mysteries and it failed for me. I knew at once when my interest started to wane, because we focused on interpersonal conflicts, and I was more interested in the world we never got to explore.

My hypothesis is that this is related to some sense of "realism". Not in the meaning working like the real world, but working in a consistent way within that world. You hear of a mystery, and you know it's not just some random "oddballness", but there's a rhyme and reason for the thing to exist, and you can find it out.

Then, the boring parts are when you explore a fully realized secondary world, and there's nothing there! You expect there to be rich cultures which behave like they do because of their history. You expect to find artifacts which can be better understood by exploring the ancient history of the fallen empire in the world you are exploring. Empty dungeon rooms can then be something of a let down.

Now imagine someone who does not care much for the secondary world, but cares a lot about for a Saturday night feeling great as the greatest ranger of the North, or the mighty slayer of dragons. Empty dungeon rooms can be something of a let down, reminding you a little bit too much of the cubicle or office space you sat in hours before.

I know, of course, of the argument that proper old school play is as much about resource management as anything else. That being said, I don't think it's the only lesson to be learned from the "old ways" of doing things, and if my "boring parts" are your "fun parts" I actually think that aspect of roleplaying games can be brought forth in other areas, not necessarily related to moving about in space. But, that's a subject for some other day. Today I focused on the psychology of empty rooms, which I don't think was covered during the big brouhaha earlier this year.

How to get XP

Today I read a short note about a groovy house rule, where you got XP for inflicting and receiving hits. Only. (I wonder where that link is gone?) This got me thinking about way back when I was playing MERP/Rolemaster. In MERP/RM you get XP for each mile travelled, for spells cast and for maneuvers rolled for. It also had that pet hate of mine, XP for delivering the killing blow. In group that meant an insane rush when the monster stared to stumble and become stunned. Realistic maybe, but cowardly. It felt like you got XP for just about everything and it was quite a book keeping effort.

What can you give out XP for that makes sense? It will affect play, like XP for gold does. These are mine ideas for your classic S&S game:

1. XP for gold spent
2. XP for hits taken
3. XP for sites and wonders visited and explored
4. XP for new facts learned from NPCs

How about that? I'm still undecided about XP for spells invented or magic items enchanted. The latter I'd prefer to be the domain of NPCs and the former makes me think more of Ars Magica than S&S.

More thoughts about experience

I read these two posts about how different designers have handled the idea of experience point awards. On this blog I have expressed my great enthusiasm for the idea of gaining xp for gold. To be more precise I think the Arnesonian way to award for gold spent is even better, but still it's xp for gold. The posts by the Paladin made me think again of how to award the behaviour you want to promote in your game.

In Rolemaster you get XP for a bunch of things, a little like in The Fantasy Trip. Looking back at the rules now I realize we must have glossed over much of that when me and my friends played MERP/RM. You get XP for miles travelled, Spells cast, Saves, Damage taken, enemies killed and a few more. If someone doubts that rules for experience strongly influence style of play, let me tell you how weird that last one can get. We had more than one fight become quite a farce when at the end the opponent looked haggard enough to get killed in the next good blow. Suddenly everyone charged in, pushing friend and foe aside to get in that killing blow. It might be realistic but it sure wasn't fun. It was the first one to go.

You have probably all read about how old school play is more about exploring the unknown, right? How about that idea of XP per mile travelled? Is it feasible? Jeff Rients wrote about it, and his take was very interesting I think. Jeff's take is a little more sophisticated than just XP/mile. It have been sloshing around in my brain since I first read it, and I want to write something that uses that idea.

Another cool idea is that you probably learn more from your mistakes than from what you already know. In Tunnels & Trolls you get experience when doing Saving Rolls, failed or not. I always liked that, and have more than once seen people try wild things beacuse "The worst thing that could happen is I get some experience, right?". Me like. Imagine a game where you only get experience when you fail!

Now imagine this

* XP targets for points in the adventure which necessitate some curiosity and exploration or are somehow more majestic than usual.
* XP everytime you fail relative to the margin of failure (multiplied by level, maybe)
* A flat bonus for every crit done or received
* xp for gold, spent on hedonistic pursuits

I want to play that game!

Playing the Dungeon of Voorand - Falling down some stairs

Tonight's game was a bit shorter than usual, partly because I'm home alone with my daughter and she wasn't to keen on the idea of going to a game store and watch daddy play a game. I did manage to convince her and it was a game this week! I do think having a regular game make a whole lot of difference.

Last time we played they had found some very twisty passages, and broken down a wall to get to some monsters. Now they decided to go exploring a bit, and that caused them to remark on how the dungeon seemed to grow all the time. I felt really satisfied by that. They sat there and looked at their maps and I got to hear them say that there was obviously some stuff over here and how those investigations shaped their exploration. The Megadungeon really works! While I still think the parts of the dungeon they have explored are kind of to square, I think it might be a good idea to start out soft. I continuously develop the dungeon and I do indeed grow it as they go along for a slightly more "organic" feel. Apparently they now not only plan from expectations build from their mapping and exploration, they also have realized that this is not such a small place after all. Now they are thinking of going back and see if there's more stuff on level one!

So, they found a pool of water, with undecipherable mystic powers. Canteens filled they moved on and after some shenanigans managed to have one character fall down the stairs turned slide and then did a rescue operation to get a 900 lbs (at least!) centaur PC up from level four before he got eaten by a grue. Much fun was had. Croaking frogs caused the players to visibly turn paler. Good stuff. You did it, Dave (and Amityville Mike).

Now I have to go and actually map up some of that level four!