It's Sunday where I am.

Dungeonfuckers is the game I'm writing about gender and sex and dungeons. It's kind of D&D as done by David Cronenberg. There's a more-or-less complete and playable version of the game here: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/116449…..uckers.pdf

The game is reliably fun to play, at least for the handful of playtests I've run. There's a whole heap of work that still needs to go on with the game, and it may get some major revisions, but it basically works.

What I'd like to focus on in this round of critique is on how the Dungeon Master creates a dungeon, and then plays that dungeon in play. Especially, I'd like to focus on how to communicate what I think is a functional approach to this that I use when I run the game, but that doesn't neccesarily come across in the text.

Here's how I'd like it to work:

The Dungeon Master creates a dungeon. Dungeons are big interconnected systems incorporating multiple organisms. The game treats the dungeon as a single entity, with wants and needs, but it's really the expression of a complex system. You don't make a map for the dungeon, you choose from a discrete set of lists that tell you what the dungeon wants, how the dungeon gets that, as well as several cosmetic things about the dungeon. One of the common ways that a dungeon gets what it wants is through monsters, but it could also be things like twisting corridors, traps, darkness, and so on.

When the players' characters penetrate the dungeon, the Dungeon Master should play their dungeon just like a character, describing what the dungeon looks like, and how it reacts to the intrusion of the characters. When the Dungon Master sees an opportunity for the Dungeon to get what it wants, they choose one of the ways that the dungeon gets what it wants, and describes that thing happening. That could be an attack by monsters, or else a confusing twist in the tunnels ahead, or anything else. The Dungeon Master has free reign to describe the topography of the dungeon, as suits what the dungeon wants.

Does that make sense? Is that a sensible approach? I think maybe I need to explore more broadly the agenda of the Dungeon Master, which is basically "build something fascinating, and then show it off (with integrity) in play."

Post edited 1:18 am – August 23, 2010 by Simon C

Thanks Dan, that's very useful feedback.

Here's my thinking on dungeons as organisms: All multicellular organisms are in effect colonies of discrete creatures each following their own needs, and contributing to the existance of the whole. More obviously, things like siphonophores are composed of multiple discrete animals with their own agendas, that cooperate to mutual benefit. In each case, we understand them as a single entity only metaphorically. Our perception of things as discrete bodies, as discrete identities, is socially constructed – metaphorical. In that sense, the distinction between literal and metaphorical in that section is just one of perception.

That's kind of irrelevant to the text though, which I agree is ambiguous and confusing. I'm kind of in two minds about the whole organic processes metaphor thing. I've found it useful in constructing interesting dungeons, but I'm not sure if it would be more helpful than it is confusing.

The bit about how you know if the dungeon has succeeded or if the players have is kind of easy to miss, so I don't blame you for not seeing it. “How the dungeon gets what it wants” is a comprehensive list of what's in the dungeon. The dungeon has finite resources for achieving its ends. Monsters have a specified number occurring in each instance. Natural obstacles occurr once, and if overcome, the dungeon can't use them again. The DM also has a “make the world seem real” agenda, which prescribes that some information should be difficult to discover.

To address your example (which is excellent):

The game requires a relentless attention to details. Why did the dungeon kidnap someone? In a recent playtest I ran, a tribe of Pink Men in the dungeon kidnapped a person to feed to their pool of goo. They were hungry for new genetic material in order to expand and multiply. The dungeon was growing. It wanted new genetic material. It gets what it wants by luring people in, hindering escape, and attacking them with monsters. Its resources were a tribe of 6 Pink Men, a deep hole in the earth for an entrance, and five or so “spitters” scattered around the dungeon. As the players' characters explored the dungeon, I revealed this stuff in a way that would a) show off what's interesting about the monsters, b) make the dungeon seem real, and c) help the dungeon get what it wants.

So the Pink Men ambushed the characters. I could describe crevices and cramped tunnels for them to hide in. When the characters tried to chase the Pink Men, they found their way blocked by spitters.

The characters overcame the spitters, and found their way to the pool.

As for the fate of the woman who'd been kidnapped, my agenda was a) show off what's interesting about the monsters, b) make the world seem real. They found an amber bracelet around the wrist of one of the Pink Men. She'd been turned into one of them.

Apparently my maths is too sucky, and the forum ate my post.

Here's my answer again, more briefly:

I agree about the fate of the girl. It was ok in this case, but if the characters had been more invested in the outcome, it would have been crappy to "just decide". It needs to be a stakes question. But how?

"How the Dungeon Gets What it Wants" should be like threat moves from Apocalypse World:

Monsters

In the Dungeon:

• Attack someone
• Capture Someone
• Reveal Itself
• Flee or Hide

Out of the Dungeon

• Someone goes missing
• Strange noises are heard
• People are attacked

Twisting Tunnels

In the Dungeon

• Misdirect
• Deliver into danger
• Reveal an exit
• Delay

The Dungeon Master chooses a move from the list based on a) making the world seem real, b) revealing the thing they've made, c) getting the dungeon what it wants

Is that clearer? The chief difficulty is still in how describing the layout of the dungeon works in with these. When I do it, I just describe the dungeon as I need to to make the other moves come true, like I describe niches for the Pink Men to hide in, or narrow corridors to be blocked by the spitters. Does that sound easy to do?

Cheers,

Simon

Thanks Dan, I'm finding this conversation really useful.

I'm kinda loath to have too mechanistic a process for deciding things like "does the girl get turned" and such. I suspect that this kind of thing isn't going to be a major aspect of play in any case. It might be sufficient to have an instruction like "Decide, and then write down, the circumstances in which the characters will succeed at what they want. For example "If they go there today, and make it to the Pink Men's pool the first time they enter the dungeon, they'll find her alive. After that, it's too late."

You write it down to make sure you stick to what you decided, but you don't show it to the players. It's fine to make it so they can never succeed at what they're trying, but remember "make the world seem real" and "reveal what you made".

Here's an example of what a Dungeon Master move would look like in play:

The PCs go into the dungeon. They're trying to find the source of the weird excretions which are poisoning the cattle. The dungeon wants to keep them out, so as soon as they step inside the dungeon, I make a move to help the dungeon get what it wants. I choose "Misdirect" from the "Twisting Tunnels" list of moves, but I don't tell the players that. Instead, I say "There are five corridors coming off this main chamber, some of them large and vaulted, and some of them just tiny shafts, barely wide enough to crawl through. There's no way to tell which way will lead you deeper in." The players can then describe what their characters are doing to overcome this. Maybe they look for tracks on the dungeon floor (that's the "discover secrets" move), maybe they split up and try them all (eventually they'll get tired and hungry, and they'll be "working through the pain"), maybe they'll think of something else.

I'm not thinking so much "guess the solution" as that the DM makes a promise to themselves that, given these circumstances, the characters will get their goal, and failing those circumstances, they won't. The DM is still bound by "make the world seem real" and "reveal what you made" in both setting those circumstances and in deciding whether they've been met, but formally writing them down makes it a less arbitrary decision.

"Work through the pain" needs to be rewritten to better suit the broader uses it gets put to. It's too narrow right now, hence you not thinking of it in that situation,

Yeah, if the dungeon is trying to keep people out, "Reveal Itself" probably isn't a move that's going to help the dungeon get what it wants. Once the characters are deeper in though, you might decide that in the interests of making the world seem real, you have to have something reveal itself now

"Discover Secrets" is more about resolving conflicts in the fiction. For example, when the Pink Men were waiting in ambush for the party, a good "Discover Secrets" roll revealed their presence to the characters. The DM might certainly choose to reveal aspects of the monsters to the players through these rolls, or, more likely, they'll just hint at the monster with "Reveal Itself", and then the characters discover more with a "Discover Secrets" roll. "Reveal Itself" could be something as small as "There's a wet green slime on these rocks" or "You hear a muted howling from deeper in the dungeon".

I think you've helped me crystallise my thinking on this now.

My next question is about how to achieve the same thing in the villages, which make up the other half of play. I think I need to work through moves for the dungeon properly first though.

Thanks very much for your help, Dan.