Archive for the ‘D&D’ Category


Illuminas Episode 1

August 17, 2018

We’re doing a short run of D&D and posting podcasts of the play.  It’s very casual, so this means jokes, what-sound-quality-we-could-get-from-our-various-headsets, and so on.

Because I am new and TOTALLY AWESOME with OBS, I lost the first session, so you get to start with the intro from the first session, and then we start with the second session.  Enjoy!


Dungeons Part Seven: Flow and Area Encounter Design

July 23, 2014

A much more indepth look at the ideas I spoke on in Running the Dungeon.


So remember when I said that dungeon design is like videogame level design IS game design?  In part one I linked a bunch of things from analyzing good dungeon set ups in a macro sense, or Metroidvania style game design.  Here we come full circle, except this time I’m looking at the flow of individual rooms, or areas, as they pertain to making a good combat encounter.  Here’s where mostly it comes down to the logic in stuff like MOBA or FPS game design.

Unlike those games, you’re not going to have playtesters run through it thousands of times, nor will you get to reuse most of your areas many times, which makes it a lot harder to come up with good, novel areas on a consistent basis.  Oh well! You don’t need perfection, you just need good fun.

Positioning as a choice

Boardgames and war games rely on positioning as a key point of strategy in play.  Tabletop roleplaying games… well, sometimes.  The problem is that many include maps or grids but ultimately don’t do a lot with positioning.   If the ideal form of play is to simply run up and hit each other without much movement during the actual battle, it’s functionally no different than a JRPG console game where the teams line up and hit each other until one side drops.

Tabletop games have attempted to add some of it with flanking rules or spell area effects, but it often only results in minor back and forth shifts during play and not a lot of heavy movement.  Because so few games give good support in the core mechanics, it falls upon the GM to set up areas where movement is encouraged.

The Crashpoint

What’s the goal in a combat game?  To beat the enemy.  So what’s the best place to be, tactically?  The place where you can dish out damage the quickest and receive the least damage.

In an empty room or area, with no features and no tactical factors whatsoever, the “best place to be” is the place where you can do damage to the enemy the quickest – which often ends up being the midway point where the two groups meet – the Crashpoint.

The Crashpoint is like the center square in Tic-Tac-Toe – it’s where all the interesting stuff of play happens, and, if you know where it is, you can build areas and rooms that are tactically interesting by putting stuff there to make it hard to get there, or to make other places more tactically valuable to be – and thereby, move or split the Crashpoint.

Remember, fun tactics sits in fun choices.  If there’s only one place that’s the tactically best place to be, what choice is there?  You want to make a few tactically interesting options, so players have to start thinking about what’s going to be best.

Movement Tax

So consider this – anytime characters or monsters might want to move somewhere else than a direct line to do damage, they’re paying a “movement tax”  (actually, it’s a time tax, as they’re losing actions doing something other than direct damage… but since we’re talking about moving a map and how to set up areas to affect this, we’ll stick with Movement Tax).

If you want folks to go somewhere other than the Crash Point, you have to either put enough hazards/dangers in the way, and/or advantageous positions in other locations to make the Movement Tax worth paying.   In other words, this sets up choice – players can try to go straight for it, or try to avoid danger, or try to get something that should be worth more than doing straight damage.

Area Encounter Design

Blockers and Funnels

Blockers and funnels are obstacles, walls, debris, rocks, trees, crates, whatever you want that basically stop movement and funnel movement into particular areas.  This changes where combats happen and change where the Crashpoints are.  These also tend to set up some fun tactics about ranged attacks and chokepoints for melee fighting.

It’s also worth noting what’s a Blocker or Funnel for one type of creature or character may not be for another – a half ruined wall might be a big obstacle for a normal character, but the giant spider just climbs up the side of it like nothing.    This is worth considering if you want to load the map to favor one group or another.

Also consider that blockers and funnels may be destructible depending on what’s going on.  A monster might knock them out of the way, an earthquake spell knocks down the trees, the bridges everyone is fighting on start collapsing.. etc.  When you put Blockers and Funnels in the way of the Crashpoints, you move where they go, just like how water flows around things.

Alternating Wide and Tight Areas

Generally, you’re not going to go wrong by playing around with alternating more open areas with only one or two hazards or obstacles, and tight areas.  Usually my rule of defining “wide” vs. “tight” is whether the party can all stand side-by-side and fight without having to do tricky maneuvering around each other (for grid based games, don’t forget this includes diagonal positioning).  Tight areas should often include alternate paths to flank each other.  You can take a big area and set up enough Blockers, Funnels, and Hazards until it’s effectively a tight area.

The big effect this has on play is a matter of things like how well groups can focus fire on a single target, how well players can quickly distribute healing, retreat at short notice, surround an enemy or use area effect spells.  It also strongly impacts the advantages of having good movement abilities, whether raw speed or skills to jump over small gaps, climb over things, fly, etc.


Hazards are a negative incentive- everyone generally avoids them, if they have a choice.  That said, putting Hazards next to Crashpoints or near places with advantages will cause players to have to start weighing their odds.  Be careful if the Hazard can move around, because it might completely change the set up of the encounter area.

Single Use Stunts / “Power ups”

Things that can be used to an advantage on a short term are positive incentives.  This could be a pile of logs to knock over on enemies below, a catapult to be shot, a lever to close a gate, etc.  If you can only reasonably use it once in a combat, it’s a “single use” advantage, and so, it needs to have a good amount of effect to be worth the Movement Tax.

Alternatively, you can make it a thing which can be reused at the cost of time – a catapult might be reloaded to be used again and again, but then the cost turns into time spent.  Again, consider what the benefit is compared to the amount of time the players could have been just using direct damage to the enemies.

Sandbox Encounter Considerations

Unlike an FPS map or a videogame encounter zone, combats can flow across areas, or move into spaces you didn’t expect.   This means your initial guesses on crashpoints or hazards might be completely off – the party isn’t going to care about the fiery pit in the middle of the room if they’re stuck in the hall when they’re getting attacked.   Again, this is the reason you don’t want a lot of empty rooms and halls without anything tactically interesting in them – the more the dungeon as a whole has interesting stuff in it, the more likely you are to have that intersect with your encounters for entertaining results.

Work vs. Payoff?

“Wow, this all seems like a LOT of work, to consider all these game design factors in making a dungeon!”

*Tired voice* “….yes, yes it is.”

I generally don’t do a lot of dungeon crawls for this reason – I set up short dungeons, maybe 12 areas/rooms or less, with more emphasis on Logistics and Tactical play, and not so much on Exploration.

Unless you plan on publishing a dungeon or having several groups run through it, you’re probably not going to get enough payoff for thinking this hard about it.  Of course, if you’re the kind of person who actually cares enough to want better dungeon design for your games, and you read this massive amount of words and thoughts I’ve thrown at it, you probably WILL use some of this to whatever level fits your needs.

If you find my blog entertaining and valuable, consider supporting me on Patreon.


Dungeons Part Six: Monsters, Hazards, and Stunting

July 22, 2014

Fun Fights

What’s not fun vs. What is

First, I will tell you what is not fun: repetition and no choices.  Doing the same thing over and over, without any meaningful way to affect anything.   This is why the card game “War” is not fun once you’re not a child anymore- you just flip cards and hope for the best – there’s no choices to make, no strategy, just luck.  Long, drawn out, luck.

In your encounters, if the best option for the players is to do the same thing over and over?  That’s not fun.  If the monsters and encounters are always in the same kind of environment, doing the same things?  That’s not fun.

Fun encounters are unique and memorable AND/OR tactically challenging with interesting choices to make.

The Tactical Dial and RPGs

Now, here’s an important thing to consider – most roleplaying games do not do high challenge tactical play very well.  Consider – most games which produce a high challenge make it easy to set up and play – you can usually be up and playing a game within a few minutes, maybe 10-15 minutes for the most complicated boardgames, if you know the rules.  Now consider how long it takes to make a character, in most games.

The sort of repeatable experiences that allow you to gain skills to play at high level tactics in other games, aren’t so easily put to play in RPGs.  Videogame RPGs either re-spawn characters, go to previous saves, or even in the most hardcore roguelike games – start you at the beginning with barely 3-4 choices to make a new character.

So with this in mind, be aware most roleplayers, even those interested in tactical play, aren’t usually interested in extreme challenges.  You often will do better with a lower challenge that has unique elements that make it seem worse than what it is.  Personally, I prefer to start with an under-powered set of challenges and turn it up a bit after I know the playgroup and how well they deal with challenges, otherwise you can simply overwhelm folks and they don’t really learn anything or get much from it.

Sandbox vs. Set Piece

So remember how I posted about Threat Structure?  This is an important consideration for how you design dungeons with your combats  in mind.

Set Piece Encounters

If the combats are going to be isolated locations, with monsters in one area not chasing players around the whole dungeon and helping out other monsters, you can build much simpler areas and you can control the combat encounter balance much better.  On the other hand, you have to come up with decent reasons why the monsters don’t chase the players if they retreat, and what happens if player characters run off the map area you prepared for a given encounter.   It often feels more “videogame-y” to do encounters this way, so you should be mindful to think of rationales to cover it up a bit, if you can.

Sandbox Encounters

If the combats can spill out and go anywhere, then you have a much different situation.  Monsters might snowball into a larger group than the party expects.  Players might lure monsters into an area more favorable to killing them.  Monsters might fight other monsters.  Etc.

This ends up mirroring some of the issues MMORPGs have seen in the last few years where players might lead a bunch of monsters, or an uber monster into an area that you don’t expect it to go.   Some of this naturally depends on running the monsters not as mindless AI bots, but even then there’s ways this can happen.  It also means players might inadvertently lead monsters to areas more favorable to the monsters, as well.  It’s more “realistic”, or at least, allows more options than videogames do, but it’s also more messy and you have to be willing to improvise and accept that things will be more swingy than what you’ve planned.

Monsters + Environment

So what makes a memorable encounter?  Something unique that happens.  Goblins are gobins.  Goblins attacking you by swooping down on hang gliders is another.  Goblins riding dinosaurs is yet another.  Goblins jumping down from trees onto the rickety raft you’re navigating with supplies down the river is yet another situation as well.  As you can see, the context makes a simple monster, into something much more interesting.

I once had a gelatinous cube chasing players in a library.  It’s slow, big and stupid.  Easy to outrun. Except when it started using it’s three tons of mass to knock down shelves upon shelves of books, trapping characters so it could devour them, slowly.  It wasn’t like it was thinking about this – it just took a straight line path towards food…

Towards the Monsters’ Advantage

It’s easy to think of many ways in which the environment might be in the monsters’ favor – defensible positions, darkness, water for swimming creatures, etc.

For any monster that has a form of movement the player characters do not – burrowing, climbing, wall walking, swimming, hovering, teleporting, etc., there’s an environment well suited for them.  Weird amorphous creatures, small swarms that can flood through tiny cracks, gaseous creatures and ethereal types are especially dangerous in this way.  Also don’t forget great size or strength is it’s own form of movement advantage – a monster that can casually push down trees like brushing through grass is strong enough that many obstacles… simply aren’t obstacles to it.

Consider whether the advantage is short term (an ambush, having the high ground, etc.) that can be easily lost, or if the advantage is lasting, like a swimming creature dragging you underwater, where the advantage is likely to impact every single round of combat.

Towards the Players’ Advantage

Environment favoring the players is something you have to think about a little differently than that favoring the monsters.

First, it works best if it provides choices and things to do.  Putting a monster in an area where it is inherently disadvantaged isn’t that much fun.  Putting the monster in an area where the characters can do something fun like use the environment, lead it to a place where it can’t fight back as well… that’s fun.  These are “Stunt Zones” – areas where stunts are likely.

But for this to work, you have to have players who are willing to think outside the box and try to do these things – some players are used to any ideas they have that aren’t listed on the character sheet being shut down, they will not try them ever.  It helps with new groups or players to point out some options, usually based on what kind of character you’re dealing with.  A warrior would know that luring the monster into the tunnel would prevent it from flying around and make it easier to hit.  The rogue character might immediately see the cart full of salt and know it could get thrown into the creature’s eyes for a blinding effect.  Etc.

Second, it makes epic battles more reasonable.  You can fight a terrible monster if the situation limits it’s abilities and brings it down to a more manageable fight.  This might be injuries or simply better conditions.  If you fight a dragon in a (relatively small for it’s size) tunnel, it can’t fly, it can’t turn around as well, and you have a better chance to win.  But you still get the excitement of fighting a dragon.

Expected vs. Foreign Environments

Fighting Ice elementals in a tundra, fighting fire elementals in a volcano… pretty classic fantasy logic, right?  There’s an elemental version of most things, and they’re keyed to a particular environment.  That’s easy enough to fit a monster to an environment – it’s expected.

But what happens when you’re fighting a fire elemental on a frozen lake and it’s melting the ice you need to stand on?   What happens when you have a fire elemental in a library?  How about an ice elemental in the middle of a monsoon?  Or when your party is waist deep in water?   Think of putting those monsters in foreign environments and consider the effects!  You can make a lot of things a lot more memorable this way.

Collateral Damage

So remember how I suggested putting “Breakables” as a section in the notes of any dungeon room?  Collateral damage is fun.  Not just for the players, but also when the monsters do it, too.  Did the party manage to avoid getting hit by the giant?  Great.  But did it take out half the support pillars to the room, starting a cave in?  Uh oh.

Every time someone misses, ask yourself what got hit instead?

I don’t recommend tracking every little thing by points, as much as using common sense applied to the laws of your game world and a little forethought for your encounters.    If you absolutely need to make it a mechanical thing, consider strength rolls and similar set ups.


The easiest way to spice up an encounter is to put a hazard in the area.  A key point for designing good hazards is that they have to have some clear indication that they are dangerous.   That is, an open pit is  clearly a hazard.  A rickety bridge “that looks pretty shaky and questionable” is also a hazard.  A pit of spikes with a magical illusion over it that looks perfectly safe isn’t a “fair hazard” as much as a “gotcha” style trap.

A hazard doesn’t have to favor one side or the other, although it can depending on the abilities of everyone involved (a pit doesn’t really faze flying creatures, for example).

Hazards can be something that causes damage, slows or stops movement, wrecks gear and supplies, and or sets up other long term problems.   An important consideration is if you foresee a hazard taking someone out of the combat – because even if it’s incapacitation, or being stuck spending the next 7 rounds trying to climb out of a hole, it’s effectively “out of the combat” just the same, and that’s a dangerous thing for your encounter planning – it can swing a combat one way or another very quickly.

Hazards should be placed either central to areas where players are likely to cross, or, at least, near things the players would likely want.  If you have a hazard in the corner where no one wants to go anyway, they’ll just avoid it and it becomes set decorations in the background and not actually anything interesting.

Chaotic Elements

A pit is a pit, and everyone knows not to go fall in the pit, right?  But a raging bull that is randomly moving about and goring or stomping people in the middle of the battle… that’s not so easy to avoid.

Some hazards are more fun if they’re chaotic – they can move around, grow/shrink, have changing effects.   That said, you have to be careful about these kinds of hazards.  Because they’re randomized, they might go really bad one way or another, and favor one side or another just by luck of the draw.Chaotic Hazards can have lesser effects, their randomness usually makes them memorable.  Be careful not to make them too mechanically complicated since you have to keep track of them.

Next: Flow and Encounter Area Design

If you find my blog entertaining and valuable, consider supporting me on Patreon.



Dungeons Part Five: Information Management

July 20, 2014

You don’t just design the dungeon for the players to play it, you also have to design it so you can RUN it in play.   This post is just about the practical tricks to managing your information.

What to Track?

Do Not Bury Your Information

One of the worst ways to organize your dungeon info is to have several blocks of text with important stuff buried in it.  You want information broken out, into separate sections so it is easy to navigate.  You can find adventure modules where a room has nearly a half page of description but buries stuff like stats and mechanical bits right in with the (longwinded) room description.

Do Not Scatter Your Information

The other terrible thing for handling information is to bury a chunk of information into it’s own section, elsewhere.  For example, if you have a magical effect that works on several rooms, you could put a single section describing this effect near the beginning or the end, but it’s probably better to have a shorthand of that description included WITH each of those rooms.  It’s just easier to not have to flip back and forth in your notes, or skip around.  Your notes are supposed to make it easy to run a game, so put everything you need, every place you need it.

Exploration, Logistics, Tactics

Depending on what your group wants, determines what you should bother recording.

Groups who have no interest in exploration don’t actually need a map, even.  You can just have a list of relevant locations and an approximation of how long it takes to get there.  Groups who care about logistics probably want to know things like sources of water, where to find tools and supplies, or things that can be used as such.  Groups who want tactics  might not care about an overall dungeon map, but want good maps for the fight areas…  So keep this in mind, as I describe stuff to track, you pick and choose what makes sense based on your groups’ needs, rather than do everything just to do it.


What are the odds of events in one room affecting another? Are monsters going to react to hearing sounds of fighting?  Or are they undead or constructs bound to an area?  Or is it too far too hear?   If monsters run from one area to another, will other monsters react in turn?  If a guard doesn’t show up at another station in a certain amount of time, when do they send out patrols to check on them or barricade themselves in assuming an attack is imminent?

If your rooms and it’s inhabitants might have chain reactions upon each other, you may want to track it (see Sounds, below).


If you’re playing a one shot or short run through a dungeon, you probably don’t need to worry too much about notes and obsessing on what effects the players have upon the area.  If the dungeon is a mega dungeon where the players will be playing for many game sessions, or a years-long campaign, you may want to track how things get changed and what the consequences are, in detail.

If your game is going to be long lasting, you may want to track Persistence (see Breakables and Notes, below).

Room Info

I use the word “room” but this can be any kind of area in your dungeon – a hall, stairs, a giant cave with an underground lake, etc.  A “room” is basically an area you need to have some kind of information to deal with about it.


Give each room a title.  “The Creepy Statue Room”, “The Sliding Hall Trap”, etc. work better than just “Room 42”.   To be sure, you can still use numbers as well, but the title will help you remember things so you don’t have to re-read your notes as often.


Features is the most important thing!  What are the exits? What hazards, threats, challenges or rewards does this room hold, if any?  If it doesn’t hold anything, you should ask if it needs to be here, and even if you do need the room, do not spend too much time giving it description.  You can look at this as being the “reason” the room exists at all from a game design standpoint, and determines if the room has engagement density.  This is a good place to write down critical mechanical bits, preferably with a bullet point breakout for ease of reference.

This is how I measure how “big” a dungeon is, not how many rooms, but how many rooms have something interesting to engage with.


Description is what the PCs see upon first sight.  It can either be a few sentences you can read out loud, or it can be short notes that mean something to you (“Storage room, looks like creepy shop from Gremlins movie”) that allow you describe or improvise the rest.  Notice that this is not going to include things that are hidden, require investigation/examination, stats, etc.

Unless I’m using a mapless dungeon (just a list of important areas), I don’t bother writing the basic room dimensions – that’s what the map is there for.  If there’s some kind of weird thing that wouldn’t display well on the map (an incline, the ceiling sloping in a weird way, etc)., then I would include it here, although if it’s enough to impact gameplay in an obvious way, then it goes to Features instead.


Traps, hidden doors, hidden treasure, etc.  These are the things which aren’t obvious without close and careful inspection.  If someone starts searching or using funky detection magic, you have it in the Secrets section to make it quick and easy to find.  It’s also worth noting if some special action has to be taken to find these things or what the difficulty numbers are if it involves some kind of skill roll.


Does the room have objects, decorations, markings or evidence of anything that tells something about the setting or the world around you?  Does the room communicate information?    This can be anything from giant claw marks that serve as forewarning there’s a large monster about, to tapestries that show you this was once the stronghold of the Elven King of the East.   Information is broken out separately because it nearly always requires a little bit of time to inspect and think about it, which may not be relevant if players are just running through.

If you already know your players and what their characters can do, you can specialize information to be specifically relevant to certain characters.  Give different characters extra information based on what they would know.


How well does sound carry between rooms?  Is there any nearby rooms where sound carries well?  Useful to check if other creatures can hear you, or if you can hear things going down with other creatures.  This is worth noting if there usually are creatures in these other areas, and especially important in Fortress, Mastermind, and Faction style Threat Structure dungeons.

“Conversations can be heard in the hall (2), shouting reaches the Garden (5) and the Stair Entry (23).”


A list of things that break easy – fragile objects, furniture, etc.  You don’t need a detailed laundry list, shorthand is fine (“alchemy lab on the table, bookshelves of ancient books”).  This is important to consider when players are tossing fireballs and lightning around the room or a minotaur is running around swinging wildly.  Just cross off the things as they get ruined…  “Table, Paintings, Urn of Hot Coals, Chairs, Shelves of Books”

Also note that a lot of breakables are also “takeables” – things players might have their characters pick up, or move to somewhere else… Also useful to cross off.

Note Space

If you plan on having this be a longer dungeon run where enough time will pass for significant adaptation within the dungeon, give yourself space to write notes on each room.  This becomes useful when you need to remember that one area is full of rotting carcasses stinking up the area and drawing scavenger monsters or another place has been barricaded, etc.


The Flooded Chamber


  • The room is flooded up to 3 feet.  It counts as rough terrain.  Shorter characters may need to swim.
  • The water is murky, anything in the water has Concealment to things above/out of the water.
  • Fighting things in the water has Disadvantage unless the weapons are daggers, short swords, or spears.
  • There’s a crocodile that will ambush the party, getting the first round by surprise.


This part of the abandoned mine is flooded with 3 feet of water, and you can see water trickling down the walls.  The east and west tunnels are also partially flooded, but you can see the very top of a downward sloping Northern tunnel which is completely flooded.   A strong breeze comes from the northern doorway.  The water is murky and fetid, and a rusted wheelbarrow is floating nearby.


Mining/Dwarf characters only: This flooding must be relatively recent, only within the last couple of years as the wood supports haven’t rotted out yet.  Since you can see water trickling down from above, you wonder if a small pond has formed above or a stream has been diverted somehow…

Sounds: N/A (Nothing is nearby to react to sounds that happen here.)

Secrets: N/A (There’s nothing really hidden here, it’s a flooded tunnel)

Breakables: N/A (there’s the rusty wheelbarrow… but yeah, nothing really)

NOTES: Normally I’d leave out anything with “N/A”, but I’m including it here for you to see the sort of layout for a room I might play with.  This is mostly a mild terrain hazard with an ambush type creature, not much else.  As you can see, the Features lists a few critical things to pay attention to.

If I had a lot flooded areas, I would consider either putting the relevant bits at the beginning of each room description under Features OR I’d have it printed on each page, so I don’t have to flip around looking for anything..  Alternatively, you could use a single index card for every flooded area and just keep it available.

Information Wrangling


There’s a ton of map options these days – drawing it out on graph paper, using a dry-erase mat, pre-printed dungeon tiles/maps, and dungeon mapping software.  Regardless of what you’re using, I suggest trying to put notes directly on your maps, if you can.  The less you have to flip between your map and your descriptions of areas and rooms, the better it is for you.

The trick, of course, is finding which bits are most relevant and can fit within your chosen medium.

Divvy up by Sections

While you could theoretically simply list 100 rooms in order, it’s easier to navigate these things if you actually break them up into sections.  Those different sections might be stored as parts of a binder with dividers between them, or it might be different files in your computer.   This makes it easier to navigate overall rather than having to shuffle through the whole dungeon.  This also works well if you’re using some of the design ideas from “Metroidvania” style videogames – where you already end up dealing with larger sections connected by a few possible paths.

Using Index Cards

If you don’t have to have too much info to list, an index card system can work great.  I like to write the room number in the top right corner, with a big, black marker.  Put all your index cards in a holder, or box, in order.  Then, as you go through the dungeon, you can check your map, pull out the card the players are exploring plus the connected ones as well.  If you have monsters, give them their own cards and paperclip them to the room they’re in – and if they move rooms, you just move the clip accordingly.

The drawback is that you don’t have a ton of space to record information and if you’re not organized, you can turn it into a complete mess.  Also, unless you go out of your way with cardstock and printing and cutting, you’ll be putting these together by hand, which might be a ton of extra work.

Using Software

There’s a ton of software out there these days, though I have to admit I can’t give a lot of info for you there – I’m mostly into hand drawing maps and scrawling out the notes by hand.  I can imagine a lot of value being in a map tool or presentation software where you simply hyperlink the image of the map and the individual rooms to take you straight to a file or description of that room.

My basic experience with gaming and software is that screen space is a premium and you always underestimate how long it will take between clicking, opening up files, scrolling to the right location in the file, and then dragging windows around to have everything you need visible at the same time.  I usually will use a combination of a file open on a screen and written/printed notes as you can spread out the notes in front of you for quick reference.

The other concern is if you need to be online to access your notes and what happens if you lose connectivity, and also if you have players sending you data, if you have to reformat it or re-enter it to work with whatever other system you have going on.  These all seem like mild hurdles, but these just add up to more work you have to do that isn’t directly focused on playing.

Next: Monsters, Hazards, and Stunting

If you find my blog entertaining and valuable, consider supporting me on Patreon.



Dungeons Part Four: Threat Structure

July 19, 2014

So, important confession time: the order of these posts is about “takeaway value” and modularity for you folks reading, rather than the order in which I use these ideas to make a dungeon.   Pretty much everyone can see the value in better design flow from playing stuff like Metroidvania games, and everyone has probably played a dungeon crawl that worked in a way very different than what they wanted in terms of Exploration/Logistics/Tactics, so those ideas are easy to pick up and plug into your own dungeon design.   The specifics of running a dungeon only make sense in light of those two ideas, and although this is the fourth article, it’s actually the first conceptual step I take before I draw any map or look up any monsters:

Threat Structure

Threat Structure is an idea of how the dungeon overall should be populated, set up, and react to the player characters.  It’s a very different experience between poking around and fighting off bits of wildlife in a tunnel system vs. wandering through a giant clockwork dimension created by a mad wizard who can reshape it a will.    Not just in colorful description, but also the way the monsters react – do they run?  Do they set up traps? Do they cooperate and mob you?  This is the game design part that’s worth considering.


Many dungeons are “critter” dungeons – they’re full of random monsters that either live in a natural habitat zone or have moved into some place that has been abandoned.  Critter dungeons might have a few small groups of intelligent creatures, but mostly the dungeon is things with animal-level intelligence.  You can get a good variety of threats in this kind of dungeon.

Critter threats are often predators or things fighting back out of fear.  You get stuff like alpha predators, pack hunters, ambush predators, poisonous things, and swarms.    Monsters don’t cooperate, so it’s easy to keep the encounters from snowballing into mob rushes.  A lot of the creatures can be driven off, which makes some fights easier, but it can also mean the players might have to deal with a monster that keeps coming back to try and pick them off.


A Lair is a little different than a critter dungeon, in that there’s one dominant monster or a species.  There may be a lot of other types who live on the side or are otherwise not interacting with the main creature(s), but most of that ecology is shaped by that central focus.  This might be a theme like if you have a poisonous dragon, that most of the creatures who live here have become poisonous as well – by absorbing the miasma it gives off…

Lair threats are an alpha predator or predators that shape the whole ecosystem.  Other monsters avoid these things.  These monsters are experts in most of the terrain, have hunt zones they know very well, and will violently protect their territory.  If the animals have good senses like smell or hearing, the party’s location might be easily tracked at all times, leading to some very scary games of cat-and-mouse.


A Mastermind dungeon involves an intelligent being of great power that actively sets up the dungeon as a place of defense.  They may or may not fix everything up, but they’re definitely using and manipulating the monsters within for their own safety and exploitative needs.  This might include breeding or magical enhancement to improve them.

Thematically, a mastermind dungeon might be known and feared (“A Vampire lives in those catacombs!”) or it might be something the players only discover after they’re in the dungeon.  It can be quite horrifying to realize what you thought was random critter ecology was actually engineered by someone on purpose.

Because there is a Mastermind running the dungeon, you can be assured they will take action as soon as they feel there’s a problem, to either get rid of the intruders, lead them off the right track, or otherwise improve their defenses.  Masterminds tend to make nasty traps, magic, or use of environment with their monsters, and you may have a few powerful lieutenant monsters that work to patrol the dungeon and modify the defenses as intruders attack.


A Fortress dungeon is an area that is dominated by one large group of intelligent creatures, that work together in an organized fashion.  This might be your classic Fortress of Orcs, or it could be a colony of giant ants.  Either way, they have a large organized social structure, work well together, and will adapt quickly if problems develop.    In my opinion, this is one of the most dangerous threat structures, if only because it’s so easy to get mobbed, and the creatures will adapt.

This is a kind of dungeon where the value of information scarcity flips over to the players – the party are the ones trying to stealth their way in, and getting discovered will lead to a hard fight or likely loss.   Unless the monsters have moved into a cave system or ruins of another space, it’s quite likely that the dungeon will be relatively well laid out, and thus, not as confusing or maze like.

You don’t get a lot of monster variety or hazards in this kind of dungeons, which usually makes it less likely to be used.  The D&D Against the Giants type modules worked because the issues of being human sized in giant-zones meant their normal furniture, etc. created the hazards and complications rather than collapsed tunnels and ruined bridges.


Faction dungeons are have several intelligent monster groups which are working at odds with each other.  This may be a cold war tension between them or out and out violence.  These are great for doing dungeon politics type games – players can take sides, set up groups to fight each other, etc.

Like the Fortress type dungeons you have groups who are organized, and there is a possibility of getting mobbed, but because the groups are afraid of getting overwhelmed by other groups, they’ll often play defensively – only committing some of their forces as to never leave things like their food supplies or treasure, unprotected.  Adaptability can be quite high, and while there may be traps, most are probably deterrents or “alarms” rather than  anything else.

A tricky thing to consider is this: if you have all these groups who are raiding each other, trying to stay alive with whatever resources they can get, what is their first assumptions about intruders/newcomers?  What is that assumption like if they see you fighting their enemies?  What is that assumption if you’re fighting their allies?  What if you come across their bodies from a skirmish they had with someone else, but a witness sees you and assumes you did it?   Are their racial or historical issues affecting it too? (“They hate Dwarves.”)  This shifting role of views and attitudes can turn this sort of thing into a very interesting space for rolelplaying and political moves.

Tying it all together

This is the actual process I use, in this order.

1.  What the Players Want (length of game, interest in a single dungeon, Exploration/Logistics/Tactics ratio)

2.  Concept/Theme+ Threat Structure 

3.  Draw the map and give the actual dungeon layout using fun play tricks

4. Specifics of Monsters, Traps, Hazards, Puzzles, etc.

Steps 1 & 2 go quickly for me – usually this is a 5-10 minute process since I know my players, have a good idea of how long they’d like to commit, and then just need a cool idea for a dungeon.

Steps 3 and 4 I prep just enough for 1-2 sessions at first and that takes 1-2 hours for crunchy games like D&D 3E or 4E.  Since I usually run a 2-4 hour session game, I know how much engagement density the players will push through, and can prep accordingly.  After the first session or two, that prep time drops to 30-45 minutes a session.  If something like Tunnels and Trolls, then we’re talking 10-30 minutes prep at most.

Prep vs. Payoff Balance

One issue is that as you play higher level games, the players get access to all kinds of movement options (burrowing, phasing through objects, teleporting, etc.) that can let them leapfrog a lot of areas in a dungeon.   This means you’re going to have to prep a lot more dungeon as the amount of prep time you do provides less and less guaranteed engagement density.

This becomes killer if your game system also has a narrow range for balancing encounters – you have to prep a lot more with more detail, but you also may have the party jumping ahead of where they should be or missing expected resources or magical items because they skipped ahead (or, they might have an easier time escaping or luring a fight to somewhere you don’t expect because of these abilities.)  This can be one reason you see GM burnout- you’re doing more and more work to get sorta the same play balance, but it’s just getting harder and harder to catch up.

Next: Information Management (Aka, how do I organize all of this?)

If you find my blog entertaining and valuable, consider supporting me on Patreon.


Dungeons Part Three: Running a Dungeon

July 18, 2014

So, now we’ve covered some basic theory about the design, and laid out the fact different groups want very different kinds of challenge from a dungeon delving game… let’s go into more specific applications to play.  (if this looks like a lot… well, it is. Like I said, dungeon design is level design is game design.  Doing it well requires a lot of forethought and there is a reason the videogame industry PAYS people, full time to do this kind of stuff…)

On the Grid, To the Table

Depth vs. Novelty

Aside from constructing your dungeons to meet your players’ particulars about Exploration/Logistics/Tactics, you also need to think realistically about whether your group wants a longer, megadungeon or a short dungeon they can clear quickly, and, how long that should go.  People really like having benchmarks to go by and a sense of accomplishment.

One of the problems is that a lot of old school dungeon building advice assumes weekly games, long sessions, over years of play… and ends up teaching people to “put the cool stuff” deeper in the dungeon.  (It’s also why I think the modules aimed at higher level play were generally pretty popular – the cool stuff kicks in at the beginning much more often).

Prep only what you need so you don’t end up wasting a ton of time on something that’s not going to show up in play.

Engagement Density

How fast will the players encounter challenges, puzzles, or rewards in the dungeon?  This isn’t so much how far apart are they spaced physically, as much as it’s a question of action time at the game table – “Oh, they should get through this room and into the next with 10 minutes of play.  That fight should take 30 minutes.”

This is a highly variable thing, but you can see that density is much higher if the dungeon is laid out simply, if the challenges/puzzles/rewards are tightly clustered, if there’s not a lot of obstacles from point A to point B, if there’s not a lot of traps or secret doors or other obstacles slowing movement or forcing the players to be extra cautious.

One of the old school pieces of advice is “Most rooms should be empty” which, may be more realistic, but it’s not particularly fun to have most of the rooms empty – it means a lot of wandering around to find the fun, and also, if the game features traps, ambushes, or cool rewards hidden away, a lot of time spent searching and cautiously entering every room.  Empty rooms are generally not fun.  It also means you have to either spend more time coming up with creative descriptions of non-interesting areas, OR give it a barebones boring description as well…And, you’re competing with every other kind of game your players could be playing right now – so you want pretty high engagement density.  (Check out Spacing The Threats below for a bit on the strategic issues with this, too.)

Obvious Exits and Highlighted Secrets

When a videogame is doing it’s job, you have a good idea of where to go, or what to do next.   When a videogame is doing poor design, you’re lost, you’re stuck, your not even sure what you should be trying to do.  Videogames have quickly recognized that players need adequate information to make meaningful choices, and poorly communicating that makes it feel like you’re being cheated rather than challenged.

This is “obvious exits” – big colorful paths pointing the way, a giant gate, a glowing door, or more subtle, lights right at the entrance, etc.  In roleplaying, be sure to point out the things that are obvious and important to the characters – make “obvious exits”, whether that’s literal exits or things worth interacting with.

The other trick videogames do is for many games, there’s often tiny clues or giveaways that something is a secret area worth poking at.  A statue out of place among similar statues, a place where all the flowers are colored differently for no apparent reason, etc.

Why prep a bunch of secret things if no one ever finds it?  Unlike a videogame, you’re not going to have thousands of players running through your dungeon, nor will people be able to play alone and poke at the dungeon, so you actually want to give better odds of finding stuff for your group just to make it worthwhile.  These highlights do not have to tell the group HOW to get into/at the secret, just that it’s worth investigating.

Dungeon Pitfalls: Red Herrings

Lots of dungeons and dungeon advice seems to have Red Herrings – things that look important, but turn out to have no secret at all.   This is a terrible thing to do.  You end up wasting your players’ time, and it teaches them NOT to look or investigate on things that seem weird, but to pass them up for things they KNOW are worth their time.    It’s like the Empty Room of features.

From the Grid to the Players


While it’s easy to see the dungeon as mazes + monsters, it’s also fun to consider how the dungeon can be a piece of world building for your game.  As the players wander through an area, give them descriptions based on their characters’ understanding of what they’re seeing.  Fill your dungeons with history – the Dwarf recognizes the carvings of a lost Dwarven Kingdom, a human sees old shields with insignias from an army that was defeated in her mother’s lifetime, etc.  Give more details to players whose characters have history or knowledge skills as would be appropriate.

If you can, make these relevant to actual conflicts/characters they meet now, not just random filler.  Maybe they find out the friendly wizard in town, his family used to live in this keep before it fell into ruins.  Maybe the Cult of the Red Savior is actually a terrible misunderstanding of an Elvish mural from a famous play…

Groups that love lore and history will eat this up.  This pushes on some players’ love of Exploration, but it bores people who don’t really go for setting and world building stuff.

Dungeon Politics

Not all of the monsters are working together.  They might even be in the same army/cult/whatever but have internal rivalries.  Where there are intelligent creatures in the dungeon, you can assume many of them either have alliances, rivalries, or out and out hatred for each other, and when the PCs enter the mix, all these groups will respond to what happens.   Smart players can make allies or get monsters to take each other out.    There might be creatures who need to be rescued or protected – in which case you have a heroic situation int he making.  You can set up all the usual issues of politics, needs, and pressure among the monsters and just make sure it gets communicated to the players as you play.

Groups that love social roleplaying and deception schemes love this kind of thing.   Players who don’t care and simply want to kick in doors won’t care.

Leaving a Mark

Dungeon delving is disruptive… things get damaged, destroyed, entire monster groups get driven out or wiped out.    If this dungeon is going to be a focus of play for many sessions, take notes of this.  Note how the players change the setting and how the creatures react.  Be sure to remind the players as they return through areas, all the little (or not so little) marks they’ve left:

“You still see the arrow shaft near the top of the door where you fought the Ghost Knight.”

“The stench of the rotting giant lizard is nearly completely gone, scavengers have picked it over pretty well.”

“It’s easy to find the secret door again, you just look for the charred blast marks on the stone from the fireball fight a few weeks ago…”

While it’s easy to just have superficial things, also make and expect objects for the players to break or use to change the possible ways to MOVE in the dungeon itself.  Maybe the players used magic to form a tunnel between two rooms that didn’t exist before, or they toppled a giant statue over a chasm to serve as a bridge.

These little things are just FUN, and it gives the players something they don’t get from videogames – a chance to realize the dungeon isn’t an unchanging, automated area to run through.

Adapting Threats

This is a dial – on one end, the creatures in the dungeon do not change or adapt in response to the players.  This is pretty much like a videogame at this end.  On the other end, the dungeon dwellers set up traps, move, cave in areas or build barricades, set up complex ambushes, etc.    Now, the dial doesn’t just affect how dangerous the dungeon is, but it also affects the engagement density…

See, one of the benefits to a longer dungeon delve is familiarity with areas you’ve already gone through and relative safety to run in or out of those areas.  If the areas are repopulating with new creatures, or the other dungeon dwellers are already moving in and changing things, it means previous “cleared” areas are not actually cleared at all.  (I’ll go into some options of what this can look like in the next post.)

It’s realistic and dynamic, and that part is fun, but it also means the players might feel like they’re getting nowhere in beating the dungeon.   The time it takes to get through areas you’ve run through before stops being fun and becomes a chore if the threats are too dense or it happens all the time.

Talk to your group!  Some folks really like the idea of a living world and having to adapt to meet it, other folks feel like it makes play feel like an unrewarding struggle.


Logic Puzzles vs. Context Puzzles

Puzzles are hard to do in tabletop play for two reasons – puzzle games are normally a solitary activity.  You can take all the time you want to mull over it, put down the videogame or walk away from the puzzle book and think about it while you go about your day and come back and then solve a puzzle.   When you’ve got a group of people at the table, everyone’s time is on the line and you can’t quite do this the same way.   This is the reason most puzzles in tabletop games are side options – they open an extra area, or give you some extra bonus, but they’re not the core of play.

You end up with two types of puzzles – logic vs. context puzzles.  A logic puzzle focuses on elimination or procedure to create the puzzle – things like the fox, the hen, and the corn across the river kind of things.  You know what your end goal is, you’re just not sure what order to do things in.  Or process of elimination type puzzles, which again, you know there’s one correct answer, you just have to figure out all the ones that aren’t it.

The one problem with logic puzzles is that your group is either skilled with them or not.  If they are, they solve these in short order and the puzzle becomes a minor chore rather than a fun thing.  If they aren’t it requires more work, and then comes the question of how much work is still fun vs. crossing over the line where they just decide to ignore it.

Context puzzles depend on context outside of the game – stuff like riddles, knowledge of greek mythology, etc.  These never work that well because not only does it depend on the players having that context, it also depends on the players thinking in a completely different context than the world the game is taking place in – so they might know the answer but not think of it from that alone.  I see people post about “the players didn’t get it! It was SO OBVIOUS.” and it’s like… no, actually, context puzzles are never really obvious.

Spacing The Threats

One point of Engagement Density is monsters.  How tightly packed are the monsters?  If there’s a fight in one room, why don’t they all run and mob the party right away?  This is the issue of spacing threats, and I believe, one of the reasons old school dungeon advice often recommends a lot of empty rooms – to give the party a better chance at survival.  That said, I still think the empty room technique is bad for game play.

If the monsters are not cooperative with each other, many will probably stick to certain safe areas, or only come out some time after things have quieted down, looking for carrion or things to scavenge.  Intelligent monsters might hear the commotion and decide the best thing to do is hide or fortify defenses until they know what’s going on.

If the monsters are cooperating with each other, that’s a much harder set up.  You can have them with lax and poorly considered communication situations (outposts far out in the dungeon outside of hearing distance), drunk or lazy or absent guards, or perhaps other problems preventing them from reaching each other (like other monsters between them).   Even well organized groups may have internal rivalries that get in the way – “Intruders are attacking the east tunnels?  Let them!  If Captain Grimfanger dies, I get command!”

If you are dealing with an organized group of monsters, who do work together well, your threat is multiplied GREATLY.  Assume any encounters will be with many of the nearby groups as well, and figure out how long it will take for them to figure out there is danger, grab their gear, and get down there.  In older D&D, where a round was 1 full minute, that was usually only a few rounds at best.  In newer D&D and many other games, a round of combat is 10 seconds, 6 seconds, or even less.  It’s quite probable that a combat will be over before the reinforcements arrive… buying the party a little bit of time to set up.

Strategic Space: Chokepoints and Flanking

When you design your dungeon, if your players like tactical challenges, you have to consider a variety of space in which to move and fight.  Realistically… dungeons were cramped, small and not particularly great spaces to have fights in.   Realistically, you don’t get wizards or dragons either, so screw realism.  Whereas overall dungeon design benefits from learning from Metroidvania videogame design, most Tactical play design benefits specifically from looking at the level design philosophies in First Person Shooters.

Usually, two types of set ups work well for interesting tactical play, along with gearing fight sets specifically to whatever stunting/tactical bits your particular game system supports:

Open space plus obstacles

A larger room where the whole party can fight.  This is usually going to be 30-40 feet on the smallest end, and up to 100 feet on the large end (with anything bigger than that being so large as to being a “open field” as far as tactics are concerned.

This space will do well with a few obstacles in it that can be used as cover, things to get around, climb on, etc.   This can be support pillars, furniture, book shelves, fallen debris and supports, pits and cave ins, etc.  All of the junk serves to provide places of defense, choke points and things to flank around.  Ranged attackers must deal with cover, melee attackers need to move around these things.  Clever use of powers and magic might alter the terrain some, and monsters may be able to ignore or easily deal with some of these barriers – a swarm of bugs just flows through/over it, a giant monster might casually topple anything while coming after you…

Tunnels and Flank positions

The small cramped areas are fine, as long as there is plenty of paths to flank each other.  It gives the party multiple avenues from which to protect from attacks, and avenues in which to launch them.  It rewards cautious players for covering the sides or rear areas, and it rewards the clever players for finding ways to attack the enemy from the side or behind.  Don’t forget this can include vertical movement – climbing up onto something and jumping down is also a flanking move.

You can adjust a lot of difficulty based on how well the monsters make use of this.  Things that can climb on walls, burrow through the dungeon, are amorphous or outright ethereal are absolutely terrifying threats in tunnel fights.  Think of the xenomorph from Alien and you’ve got a good idea of how bad it can get.  This becomes worse if the creatures not only are good at setting up flanking and ambushes, but regularly use retreating tactics to wear a party down.

Also remember that winning the fight can be separate from beating the opposition.

Fun Traps vs. Crap Traps

The “game” part of any roleplaying game depends on this: what choices do you have to make, and why is it fun to make those choices?

In many dungeon crawls, traps are shit.   The choices you make are not really choices.   It’s either “woops, roll a random die to see how badly you get maimed” or it’s a choice of “Spend a tedious amount of time, searching everything, for traps, all the time, or suffer.”  Those aren’t fun choices.  (Now mind you, if you were playing very old school D&D where everyone gets 10-20 PCs, what happens is a trap takes out 1-2 of your guys, THEN you have a choice about dealing with it with the remaining party.)

Fun traps are mostly puzzle traps.  They’re elaborate deals that take several turns to kick off, and you have to figure out how to get out or disable them while they’re in action.  This requires a lot of forethought into making sure the goals/options are obvious, but the procedures in doing so are more complicated.  For the usual “dangerous dungeon feel”, I prefer Hazards…


A rickety bridge, a partially collapsed wall, a room half flooded…  Hazards aren’t traps in the sense that someone set them up and hid them, they’re obvious things that are a pain in the rear to navigate, or things that are obviously dangerous.   The fun in hazards isn’t information scarcity – you see them, you see they’re trouble, but it’s in the Logistics of getting past them, and how you can use them as choke points or ways of hurting the monsters.

Hazards also require less justification.  You don’t need to explain things like “Why the hell would someone build this falling block trap HERE?  How the hell do they reset it?” etc.  Hazards are just the natural ruin of the place and it makes rather mundane skills like climbing, jumping, balancing, repairing/jury rigging things, using poles, hammers, spikes, ropes, etc. a fun thing to add into your game.

Next: How to build your dungeon starting with Threat Structure as your theme.

If you find my blog entertaining and valuable, consider supporting me on Patreon.


Dungeons Part Two: What Players Want

July 17, 2014

One of the strengths of dungeon or map-based tabletop games is that it provides you with a nice set of prepared material to run play with.  The players go somewhere, and stuff happens based on that – you’re never having to consider issues like story pacing or scene cutting in the same way for games that are not location based.

As I said in Dungeons Part One, just because everyone wants a “dungeon crawl” still doesn’t mean they want the same kind of game.  The focus or balance of Exploration, Logistics and Tactics means you not only need to run a dungeon differently, but the kind of material you should prep vs. leave out is also very different.  And the answer is not just “prep as much as possible”, because you have to also make the information something you can navigate and use easily – plus the reality is why spend hours prepping material you’re not going to use?

Start from the goal: find out what your players want from this game, then figure out what information you’ll need in play based on that.

What the Players Want


  • Fights should be: balanced to meet the player characters / might be unmatched to the party
  • Fights should be: avoided / sought out
  • Fights are: rare / regular


  • Threats are well balanced to the party
  • Threats might be too powerful for the party to deal with right away
  • Some threats may be too dangerous, overall


  • Supplies are not really an issue, they’re background color to play
  • Supplies are a minor issue, as long as you bought enough food, that’s fine
  • Supplies are a significant issue – track food and torches, etc.


  • Player characters should try to explore everything / prioritize and pick what to explore
  • Secret doors, treasure, and traps will be: obvious / depending on dice rolls/ require explicit declarations of inspecting/investigating/searching
  • Players are expected to draw a detailed map / the GM will provide/show a map as play goes on / players do not need to worry about making specific navigation choices during play


  • Assumed competence – the GM assumes the characters are cautious, searching, etc.
  • General narration – if the players say their searching a room, the GM assumes it is a good and relatively through job
  • Specific narration – the players must describe exactly how they’re searching/interacting with any object for it to be true.


  • There will/will not be anything that can kill/incapacitate you instantly, by surprise
  • There will/will not be any poisoned/cursed/trapped objects
  • Traps/hazards will be absent / rare / common and/or absolutely lethal
  • No mercy: the walls, floor, ceiling, doors and treasure chests all might want to eat you.


  • Players should/should not try to negotiate with intelligent monsters, creatures, or NPCs.
  • The party of PCs should always work together/sometimes/might betray each other utterly.
  • Players are/are not expected to roleplay the lives of characters outside of adventuring

As a Group

Now, you could sit down with this full list and run your whole group through it, though I suspect unless they’re theory-heads and excited to do a long haul dungeon crawl, it’s not going to actually get them excited but rather kill some of their enthusiasm and not provide enough value for the amount of time it takes.  The important thing to do is to start by sussing out what excites people from the Exploration/Logistics/Tactics side and then try to narrow down with some of these ideas.

When it comes down to “Ok, everyone, let’s play a dungeon crawl” conversation as a commitment, then lay out some of these ideas as you plan on going with (with some room for modification) but primarily as a way of communicating the expectations of this to folks.

“Hey, talking to everyone, no one really likes traps in games, so in this game, they’re only going to show up as big puzzle ‘death traps’ to solve when they do.  I know Quinn likes tactical combat, and Jono likes the strategy of sneaking around, so we’ll have a bit of both – there’ll be fights but there’s also going to be fights to run from or avoid.” etc.

You may notice that some games or adventure modules are designed in certain ways or modules set up that hits specific combinations on that Exploration/Logistics/Tactics ratio, and these serve as ways to get players on the same page quickly and easily – “Tomb of Horrors” already preps everyone to be in a deathtrap dungeon mentality, while Torchbearer is a game about Logistics management.  You can also see people make manifestos or movements as ways to formalize these preferences – Fourthcore, E6, “Rulings not Rules” etc.

Wants -> Play Estimates -> Prep Needs

If you know what your players want in their game, you can start making good estimates on how much play will come from what kind of preparation.   A combat focused game might simply require 3 combat encounters to prep and then you’ve got a full session from that.  Another game might involve 2-4 traps spread across 8 rooms and some interesting descriptions and you know the players will spend t a lot of time searching, poking and prodding things.

Part of that will also be you figuring out how much of your prep work deals with mechanics (writing down monster stats, drawing maps for detailed positioning, etc.) and how much of the prep is more about creative spark and inspiration (memorable descriptions, personalities, etc.)

All of this means you can become very efficient with your prep – prepping just the right kind of material when you create a dungeon, knowing how much you need to prepare in advance vs. deal with later vs. improvise on the spot, and what kind of resources you can use as inspiration/places to steal ideas from.   This also means if your game falls apart or goes on hiatus, you lost 1 session of prep, and not a month of prep work languishing in a notebook to probably be forgotten when you next run the game.

You’re not just designing the dungeon for the players to play, you’re also designing the dungeon for you to run, and these are both important.

Next up: Running a Dungeon

If you find my blog entertaining and valuable, consider supporting me on Patreon.