Dwimmermount Report Session

4/8/2018 Dwimmermount Remix Session Report 1 - Crippling Self-Doubt | Dwimmermount (Labyrinth Lord) | RPGGeek
Username Board Games RPGs Video Games Events Login

Password
SEARCH All Go Adv. Search
Sign in
Register Browse Forums GeekLists Bazaar Misc Help
The Hotness
Games|People|Company
Legacy of
Dragonholt
The Fantasy Trip:
Legacy Edition
Pathfinder Playtest: Rules Subscriptions Bookmarks Search Account Moderators
Rulebook
Warhammer Recommend Dwimmermount (Labyrinth Lord)» Forums » Sessions 23 Posts
Fantasy Roleplay
(4th Edition) 16 Subject: Dwimmermount Remix Session Report 1 - Crippling
The Death Knight's Self-Doubt
Squire: A 5E Solo
New Thread Printer Friendly Subscribe Bookmark Thread Rolls
Gamebook
The Secrets of Cats Your Tags:Add tags
Popular Tags:[View All]
D20 Girls Magazine
(Vol 4, No 1 -
Winter 2014) Bryce Lynch A) Entering prereleased books in to the database ain't now work Ben Rogers! Shucks, it's
(bryce0lynch)
Marienburg: Sold great fun! Want to take turn while I go back to the sweaty job of writing this remix and
down the River session reports?
In The Labyrinth B) Session Report. My Remix is Suck.
Pathfinder Playtest:
Bestiary Instead of usual weekly game The Pretty Girl, Pokeboy and Little Girl all agreed to play in
Polaris: Chivalric my remixed level 1 of Dwimmermount. They hated it. After talking about it after I decided
Tragedy at Utmost that they would have hated the original more ... they agreed. They could have been playing
North nice but I don't think so.
Book 1: The War-
I was proud of my rewrite ... " a work of genius!" In reality I believe all I did was turn
Torn Kingdom
"expansive minimalist room descriptions" in to "terse room descriptions."
Heart of Ice
Dungeon Crawl The Pretty Girl likes 3e and is confused by basic. The kids hate "1e" as they call it. No one
Classics Role likes to map.
Playing Game They made a loop from 1 to 16-20, 10, 6, 3, 1, 2, 61, 62, 63.
Project Ninja Panda
Taco They liked the Mol-Min, mostly because I do a good campy "Surface Dwellers! Destroy
them!" Little girl specifically stated after that orcs are boring. And that at 13 years-old. They
Monster Manual couldn't figure out what the statues of the old gods in room 1 wanted them to do. The
(D&D 5e)
bodies in 16 were boring. Pokeboy liked flipping switches in 17/the training room, but that
The GameMaster's was it. 18 was boring, 20 was lame, even though there were sleeping monsters that they
https://rpggeek.com/thread/925034/dwimmermount-remix-session-report-1-crippling-self 1/23
Apprentice decided to not attack. They seemed to enjoy the library in 19, mostly because of the detail Hot on Amazon
Monkey: The of the book, map, and scroll. They heard voices in 14 but didn't go in. 10 was boring. 6 was
Roleplaying Game boring. "Oh boy, more bodies." They slept all the Mol-Min in 3 and beheaded them all. 2 was
boring. Little girl hugged the pillar in 61 (because I did it in a Tower of Gygax game at
Tales from the Loop GenCon that she played with me) but she was a human so nothing happened, although they
The Dark of Hot took rubbings of the pillar. The Pretty Girl really liked room 62 because they found the
Springs Island secret door under the dais. The ended up in room 63 where they slept half the Mol-Min and
Vampire: The the other three killed them.
Masquerade 5th
Edition Core Book The Pretty Girl says that the problem is that there are too many empty rooms. She counts
hallways and doors as empty rooms. She wants every room to have something interesting in
Pathfinder Playtest:
Doomsday Dawn
it ... something to interact with, I think. She loved Tower of Gygax (and lived for 6 hours)
because of the interactivity of EVERY room, I think. She specifically commented that the Cephalofair Games
The Sprawl: Mission place seemed to have no history. Gloomhaven Board Game
Files
The Adventures of They liked the Mol-Min. I think they would have liked the Lab Rats. The bogloids are too $135.67 $140.00
Indiana Jones plain as written, I think. (94)
Lichemaster
We talked about the treasure after. They loved ALL of the magic items and they loved the
GURPS Martial Arts jeweled pin of the elf chick I put in to the rat room. They all agreed they would have kept it
(4th Edition) for their character to wear. From this I believe that I need to work a little harder on the
Supernatural Role mundane treasure, but am on the right track, and that the magic treasure is excellent.
Playing Game (Although I am unhappy with the tuba.) The descriptions given to the book, map, and scroll
Lure of the Liche in the library were all well liked.
Lord
The rooms need more/better things in them and basing them off of the original doesn't work
Night's Dark
in the manner in which I did them. The monster rooms need more variety/dressing in them
Masters
(like the bogloids building the defensive wall, I think?) The empty rooms MUST have things
Dark Sun Boxed Set to interact with. The pretty girl is right: empty hallways and normal doors counts count as Z-Man Games Cacao
Cyberpunk 2020 'empty rooms.' They are boring. The real rooms have to break up that monotony.
Melee
I read Justin Alexanders example of his take on the rat room. It's not clear I can come up $27.99 $34.99
Wizard with that degree of interactivity either on the fly or in designing. I don't think I yet
Mercenaries, Spies UNDERSTAND interactivity to the degree I UNDERSTAND magic items. This causes the (21)
& Private Eyes rooms to suck. I'll go a little light on myself: I was trying to key of the map key that was
already there. You know, the one I called boring 17 or so times in my review. The pillar in
Tollenkar's Lair
61 or the statue in 11. The pillar has nothing going on, nor does the statue. As a player you
Death Test have to TRY HARD to get anything out of either encounter.
Gamma World
Roleplaying Game How does this sound: You shouldn't have to TRY HARD to have an adventure; you should be
able to trip over it. You have to TRY HARD to succeed in the room ... or maybe just try?
Book 1: The Legion
What is interactivity? What is discovering adventure?
of Shadow
Mercenaries Spies & Level 1 has to hit. It has to hit hard and has to hit quickly. The players have to WANT to go
Private Eyes Special in to room after room. A megadungeon needs a hook for level 1. Not gold. Not power.
Offer Funforge Pocket Madness
Something else to motivate exploration ... but I'm not sure what that is.
Z-Town Solo Board Game
Adventure RPG Of course, I'm also now questioning my ability to run my Monday night game for the adult
Deluxe gang. Nothing like some self-loathing to make life fun for a DM. $7.99 $19.99
Player's Handbook (3)
(D&D 5e) The Dream Patrol Report:
========================
Lords of Nal Hutta
Assertion: "Empty rooms build tension" is wrong. Those are bad DM's. Halls and normal
Blades in the Dark doors count as empty rooms, so real rooms should always be fun. You should NOT have to
Alice's Nightmare in work to find the adventure. You should NOT have to be bored in order to find the adventure.
Wonderland Be bored does NOT make the fun parts more fun.
Curse of Strahd
Assertion: Every single room has to have an interesting description. There are no empty
Cthulhu rooms. Abandoned armories have things in them. Caves are full of moss, strange rock
Confidential Core shapes, dripping water, tracks in the ground. I think I'm going to reject this assertion. I
Rulebook believe these descriptions are actually a side-affect to the next point.
Ghosts of Dathomir Asmodee Otys Board
Tomb of Assertion: In a homemade adventure I don't know what is going to happen. I am Games
Annihilation discovering things as the players are and am genuinely excited to do so. This comes across.
I run an awesome homemade adventures with almost no prep. I don't do a good job running $25.00 $49.99
Dawn of Rebellion a module. In a module I have the answer in front of me. The ghostly chess players can't be
Kids on Bikes interacted with. I am bored because there is nothing to work with. I already know the (1)
outcome of the room when the players go in to it. Same with an empty room.
Ads by Amazon
What is it that enables this in a dungeon? In a town it is people?
Monsters are people. How often should monsters attack? The tables say "almost every time"
They are wrong. How wrong? Can you talk to the orcs/Mol-Min on level 1? To the
boglings/kobolds? Can you talk to these sorts of intelligent monsters all the time? Almost all
the time? Is "attacking" the most boring thing that can happen with a monster encounter?
Should the players ever be fighting intelligent monsters? Scope: in a dungeon like this?
This is the original key to room in Dwimmermunt, and Jason Alexanders reworking from
several months ago, from a thread on TheRpgSite:
Originally Posted by Dwimmermount

The wooden door to this room is partially gnawed through, as it is the nest for 9 giant rats.
In addition to the rats, the room itself contains broken pieces of wood, straw, string, and
other random detritus that these vermin have collected and brought here. Amidst this
rubbish can be found 2000 cp, a jeweled pin (800 gp), a gold necklace (200 gp), and an
expensive comb (30gp).
Jasons take:
This room contains broken pieces of wood, straw, string, and other random detritus that 9
giant rats have collected and brought here. In the center of the room -- in a space cleared of
rubbish -- are twenty skulls arranged in a circle. Each skull has been filled with exactly 100
copper pieces.
When anyone enters the room, a number of rats equal to the number of people entering the
room will circle counter-clockwise around the circle of skulls, approach the entrants, rise up
on the hind legs, and stretch out their paws as if waiting to receive something. Each of the
rats has the holy symbol of a Thulian god branded onto its back.
If the rats are given a coin, they will place it in one of the skulls. (But there will still only be
100 coins in each skull.) If they are given any other valuables, they will scurry away and
hide them in the piles of refuse. If anyone attempts to cross the room without giving them a
coin or something else of value, the rats will swarm and attack.
WHY are these different? Why is the interactivity in Jasons 'good' and the interactivity of
searching two dead dwarf bodies (as they appear so often in otherwise empty rooms) "bad"?
What's the diff? Action vs. passivity? Bizarre shit going on? Some combination of the two?
The Pretty Girl wants something to think about when it's not her turn. To keep herself
engaged. (history? puzzle rooms?) Pokeboy and Little Girl are in power fantasy mode and
want to be cool.
The Pretty Girls claims to like to map. She also claims to hate mapping. Assertion: there is
no "putting your time in" in order to have fun. If mapping is not fun then there should not
be mapping. The DM should draw it or provide one, or something like that. Torturing the
players is not cool. What does this do to 'the unknown?' Provide some sort of map but keep
The Unknown somehow?
Posted Mon Feb 4, 2013 11:14 am

9 QuickReply QuickQuote Reply Quote
The Harnish
(MJ Harnish) bryce0lynch wrote:
Torturing the players is not cool. What does this do to 'the unknown?' Provide some sort of map but
keep The Unknown somehow?
Why not just ditch mapping altogether? Who cares if they know precisely where they are
(the players clearly don't) - asking them to retrace their steps isn't any fun or meaningful
either. Ditching the mapping also would help with the "too many empty rooms" because it
allows you just to skip down the hallway to the exciting stuff with 10 seconds of narration -
"The last couple rooms all contained little more than a few gnawed bones and a lot of dust".
Room by room exploration for most people is torture in a movie, TV show, book, or video
game and so expecting it to be any other way in a tabletop RPG is probably not realistic.
With the vast majority of players, especially anyone exposed to mass media in the past
couple decades, the slow grind is not fun.
Posted Mon Feb 4, 2013 11:41 am

Neil Carr What system is being used? It sounds like an old school system.
(echoota)
I know Dwimmermount has issues right now, so the draft your using isn't complete so it's
hard to go off the content. Other random thoughts...
Time is really important in old school. The GM has to keep track of time very closely because
random monster checks are a major component of play. Part of the tension of play is that
the party's resources start to dwindle when they enter the dungeon. Hit points can be
depleted, torches get used up, along with food/water, and any other consumables.
The environment is designed to suck up resources from the party and so they are kind of
playing a game of push your luck where they go down and see how far they can get and
what they can grab before it is time to leave.
Combat isn't emphasized nearly as much in old school because it is a risky drain on
resources. Talking to intelligent monsters is an important aspect because you can get
information from them, make deals or even alliances.
Another element on the GM side is to see the entire dungeon as one big encounter. Rather
than look at rooms as isolated events which have no bearing on each other, it's important to
view the whole area as interconnected. If the party is having a discussion with one
intelligent monster in one room and there is another not too far away they ought to hear it
and react to the conversation, maybe even join in.
Monsters also make noise and are going about their own business so telling the players
about distant noises can also add layers of interest to the setting.
Mapping is engaging when it is seen as important. It's player notes of the world, rather than
an objective representation of the world. Players map because knowing the way out is
essential, and for a lot of dungeons there are mysteries to be solved only by getting an idea
of the layout of the whole area. Players also want to note where there are good fallback
positions that are more secure if rest is needed in the dungeon, because those wandering
monster rolls will just keep coming.
Posted Mon Feb 4, 2013 1:45 pm

He went overloading on
testing and coding and his Moved to the "RPG Design" forum.
name was
(Stelio)

Eric Jome
(cosine) MJ Harnish wrote:
Why not just ditch mapping altogether?
Rather than ditch all together, consider a relationship based map instead of a geographically
accurate map.
Scene A is next to scene B is down the hall from scene C - it doesn't have to be grids on
paper, but it's useful (mostly for the GM) to have some idea of where things are in
relationship to one another.
Will guards in the next area over here fighting in this area? How long will it take for
someone to go from the well of souls room to the high altar room? That kind of thing.
Maps aren't bad, but they are tools intended to be useful. If you aren't getting much use out
of it, either dump it or skip it. If they don't want to draw their own maps, don't draw it for
them.

Eric Jome
(cosine) echoota wrote:
What system is being used?
Yes. Bryce, I think we could help a lot more if we had some more context. Reading your post
is very stream of consciousness and difficult to follow or understand. What game are you
playing? With who? When? Where? What is your experience with other games? What is their
experience with other games? What are you trying to accomplish here? Just have fun with a
bit of RPG between your family and friends?
If there's only one piece of advice to consider, then think of this;
As the GM, you are the host. A good host provides their guests with an entertaining time.
That means tailoring their experience to suit them. Don't just throw down an adventure and
run it with no thought to what they want out of the game. Some people like tactical
planning, other people like exciting story, some people want
Know your guests. Change what you are doing to suit them. Even if that means completely
dumping the rules or the setting.

Eric Jome
(cosine) Quote:
Instead of usual weekly game The Pretty Girl, Pokeboy and Little Girl all agreed to play in my remixed
level 1 of Dwimmermount. They hated it. After talking about it after I decided that they would have
hated the original more ... they agreed.
Success! Triumph! It is getting better! Incremental progress is the hallmark of genius. Keep
up the hard work.
Quote:
The Pretty Girl likes 3e and is confused by basic.
Ah! You're playing Basic D&D then? Good. I think I know some stuff about that.
Quote:
Little girl hugged the pillar in 61 (because I did it in a Tower of Gygax game at GenCon that she played
with me) but she was a human so nothing happened, although they took rubbings of the pillar.
This would have been a great moment to change it on the fly to make this action a success.
It is important that players feel like they are making progress. This means, sometimes, that
you break the rules or change the situation to give them that. If she's 90% of the way to the
"right" answer, then let whatever answer she gave be right. Because having things happen
is what makes the game cool. Nothing happening is boring.
Quote:
The Pretty Girl says that the problem is that there are too many empty rooms.
Every room should have something in it. But it doesn't have to be a deep thing. It can be an
expository, interesting thing. Just make sure you're spending as much real time in the room
as the in game value of the room warrants. Don't let them squander an hour of real time
poking the brick walls of an empty room.
Even though, on paper, that advice is the opposite of what the founders of Basic would have
you believe is how they played the game.
Quote:
She specifically commented that the place seemed to have no history.
It is non-life-threatening moments that we create a lived in, breathing, vital world.
Quote:
From this I believe that I need to work a little harder on the mundane treasure...
Give it history! Give it context! Give it exciting and interesting features. I used to write
paragraphs about silver ewers and crushed golden candelabra.
Quote:
The rooms need more/better things in them and basing them off of the original doesn't work in the
manner in which I did them.
What's "the original"?
Quote:
I read Justin Alexanders example of his take on the rat room.
Is this somewhere you can share? Got a link to this?
Quote:
I don't think I yet UNDERSTAND interactivity to the degree I UNDERSTAND magic items.
Interactivity just means that the actions of the characters need to have an impact on the in
game environment that the players can see and appreciate. They kill the orcs. They find the
secret door. They should not be frustrated and clueless, wandering aimlessly and bored. The
shortest route to interactivity is a fight. But a riddle to puzzle over, a weird series of tunnels
to explore, or a merchant to negotiate with can all be interactive... It means they want to be
doing things, not frittering the time away.
Quote:
How does this sound: You shouldn't have to TRY HARD to have an adventure; you should be able to trip
over it. You have to TRY HARD to succeed in the room ... or maybe just try? What is interactivity? What
is discovering adventure?
As a GM you have to work like hell. As a player, you're right, you shouldn't have to try hard.
Quote:
The players have to WANT to go in to room after room.
We're encouraged to do this by having rewarding successes - opening a door is like opening
a present.
Quote:
Something else to motivate exploration ... but I'm not sure what that is.
Successes motivate adventure. Give them different kinds of successes. Rescue someone.
Discover some truth. Find a treasure. Defeat a monster. Put the clues together. Impress a
love interest. If there's no gain or loss, there's no motivation.
Quote:
Of course, I'm also now questioning my ability to run my Monday night game for the adult gang.
Nothing like some self-loathing to make life fun for a DM.
You're on the cusp of brilliance! Don't give up now.

Eric Jome
(cosine)
Quote:
Assertion: "Empty rooms build tension" is wrong.
Not quite wrong. It's not "empty rooms" but "useless rooms" - don't have rooms that don't
do anything. If you have such spaces, you need to convey to the players what those rooms
are for; is it a possible resting spot? Convey that with trappings of a campsite. Is it local
color? Convey that with some revelation of the history.
Everything is useful. Nothing is pointless.
Quote:
Assertion: Every single room has to have an interesting description.
Yes it does if it is important. You'd reject this at your peril. Dead space is deadly dull.
Quote:
Assertion: In a homemade adventure I don't know what is going to happen. I am discovering things as
the players are and am genuinely excited to do so. This comes across. I run an awesome homemade
adventures with almost no prep. I don't do a good job running a module. In a module I have the
answer in front of me.
There is absolutely no reason you cannot in the moment dump whatever crap is written into
an adventure to do something different that is more fun. Don't let a module rule you. It is to
help you, not control you.
Quote:
I already know the outcome of the room when the players go in to it.
Do you? Will they run? Ignore it? Bargain? Fight? Find the loot or miss it?
The story in the old school is what happened. You can't know the future. So you can't know
the outcome.
Quote:
How often should monsters attack?
Almost all monsters should almost always be foul things that need to be put out of our
misery. That's why they are monsters. It's fine to solve the problems by talking as often as
you can, but at the end of the day, heroes kill orcs, not negotiate with them.
Right up until they aren't monsters anymore. When they're NPCs, you can talk to them all
day.
Quote:
Can you talk to these sorts of intelligent monsters all the time?
Sure. Why would they listen? It is completely valid for the players to say "give us all your
treasure or we'll kill you wall" to them. Or "would you like to work for us? We'll pay you to
carry our treasure. But if we catch you stealing, we'll kill you all."
Quote:
Is "attacking" the most boring thing that can happen with a monster encounter?
Not the most boring, but the least creative. It's better to offer the players creative solutions
to fights. Bribe the ogre to slay the goblins... then take him out yourself by luring him into a
pool of oil you set fire to! That's old school play.
Quote:
Should the players ever be fighting intelligent monsters?
Every monster should be intelligent. Even unintelligent slimes.
Quote:
WHY are these different?
Jason's gave the party a clever situation with which to engage. Right away it makes a player
go "what is going on here?" and "how do I react to this fantastic situation?" You are engaged
by it.
If I say "there are two dead bodies in the room. a quick search of them reveals nothing of
interest." ... guess what? That's boring! Nothing interesting happened. I was not engaged by
the story. I did not have my curiousity piqued or my danger sense tingled.
Quote:
Action vs. passivity?
Precisely!
Quote:
Bizarre shit going on?
That is, in my view, what's wrong with the example you gave. It's just some whacked out
weird stuff with no meaning or purpose. It's interesting, but is likely to be ultimately
frustrating and pointless.
Find a theme. Get on it. Stay with it. Don't just put in weird crap all the time.
Quote:
If mapping is not fun then there should not be mapping.
It's only useful if you need it. Like, say, you get to the end of the dungeon and a dragon is
there and you've got to flee. You say "I run away!" and the GM says "Which way?" - if you
have that map, it'll make sure you get out. No map? Hope you have a good memory.
Quote:
The DM should draw it or provide one, or something like that.
Be generous with help, but I wouldn't map for them. That's their business to do or not do as
they wish.

The Harnish
(MJ Harnish) cosine wrote:
MJ Harnish wrote:
Why not just ditch mapping altogether?
Rather than ditch all together, consider a relationship based map instead of a geographically accurate
map.
Scene A is next to scene B is down the hall from scene C - it doesn't have to be grids on paper, but it's
useful (mostly for the GM) to have some idea of where things are in relationship to one another.
Will guards in the next area over here fighting in this area? How long will it take for someone to go from
the well of souls room to the high altar room? That kind of thing.
Maps aren't bad, but they are tools intended to be useful. If you aren't getting much use out of it,
either dump it or skip it. If they don't want to draw their own maps, don't draw it for them.
This is an excellent idea. I use relationship maps all the time for, well relationships, and for
scene connections but hadn't ever tried using them for physical spaces as well. This is
something I'll need to try.
Posted Tue Feb 5, 2013 6:03 am

Bryce Lynch I appreciate the comments. They have helped my thinking quite a bit. I'm not done yet;
(bryce0lynch)
meaning I don't understand yet.
This is related to the Dwimmermount "product." It's an old school megadungeon that was
funded through a kickstarter. It was very successful, raising about $50k, and the designer
runs the most popular blog in the OSR. Many talented people in the OSR thinks he
pontificates too much and isn't very creative. Two months ago he stopped talking to the
publisher, Autarch, and dropped off the face of the planet without a word. This is after
significant delays had already been encountered. Not a peep to anyone since. The publisher
has his first draft notes which many backers have a right to see under the kickstarter
rewards. [thread=11179477]I reviewed the first draft[/thread]. It was boring. I set out to
remix it in to something more interesting and then ran a playtest of my remix, the notes of
which are in the first post.
It uses Labyrinth Lord, a BASIC D&D clone. BASIC is my preferred system that I've been
playing for 30 years, although I don't really use most of the rules in a hardcore way. I don't
typically run modules but rather steal ideas from them.
Mapping:
I switched to this technique on Monday:
Rather than me draw a map on graph or paper of a battle map, I went ahead and turned to
an old technique.
The DM draws a map on posterboard before play and covers it with newsprint. The players
use an x-acto knife to cut away the newsprint as they march along. There's a mini on the
map to show where they are but the map isn't really to scale. I usually leave off secret
passages, etc.
This style moves things along quickly; they keep cutting till they come to something. It
avoids all of the mapping questions. It does remove the 'uncertainty' from the players
mapping; maybe there's some way to modify this technique to get that back?
I saw this style of mapping when I was nine years old the very first time I ever saw the
game D&D. It was at The Game Preserve when it was on the hill in Broad Ripple. I was with
my older sister; I think she was there to buy some pot.
Oh, and most of those rooms are empty. Reptile men came out of that pool of water. in the
lower right and they found a body to loot in that cavern in the middle.
I appreciate the newer ideas about mapping. But, Sorry gang, it's Old School and maps are
required.
Time
I concur it's important. I use a Turn Tracker from Faster Monkey Games. I'm thinking of
maybe blowing this up to Giant Wall Size and hanging it behind me. " That should illustrate
the time pressure quite well. Errr ... as long as I'm not a dick about it.
Combat
I'm not sure I'm running "encountering monsters" correctly. Combat should be deadly and
the players should recognize it as such. Unfortunately they've been spoiled by 2E, 3.5, and
4e. Or rather, their expectations about the lethality in D&D are different because the
lethality of BASIC is significantly different. I believe my new Monday group got the picture in
the last session ... maybe.
More interesting is the Monster Reaction Roll. On average the monsters will attack. A decent
Charisma will change that to Not Attack on Sight while a great Charisma changes that to the
monsters being friendly a lot. I can keep the Monster Reaction table in order to reinforce
that CHR is not a dump stat. I could also dump the table and instead have a lot (most? a
majority?) of monsters not attack on sight. I might tempt the players by then doing things
like having the monsters count all of their gold in plain sight of the players, or finger a really
nice piece of their jewelry, etc. They already know that money=xp, so they would be
motivated to attack the peaceful monsters. Still not sure about what to do here.
I'll respond to the other posts in just a bit.
Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 12:07 pm

10 1.50
QuickReply QuickQuote Reply Quote
The Harnish The newspaper idea is pretty cool - not something I'd ever use but it's a pretty creative
(MJ Harnish)
solution to the problem and deserves a
Slightly OT: Maliszewski's blog is a mixed bag - I like reading his perspective at things, but,
yes, there is definitely a lot of pontificating and much of what I read about the original
Dwimmermount made me yawn.
More OT: The Dwimmermount problems are a perfect example of why Kickstarter should be
thought of a "Kickfinisher" instead - funding a project that isn't even close to being finished
is a risky proposition, and Autarch's plans to run yet another kickstarter to fund the
production of some of the rewards of the yet unfulfilled Dwimmermount one borders on
being ludicrous. At the very least Autarch should learn the lesson that you don't pay a
contractor up front for a job; you pay upon receipt.

5 0.25
Bryce Lynch OT: Yeah, the lawyer for the contract chimed in on therpgsite. Autarch had their act
(bryce0lynch)
together, from what I've read. They just made one mistake: the IP/money.

Bryce Lynch Knowing your guests:

(bryce0lynch)
The steam of conscious thing was very much related to my thoughts immediately after a
playtest. Everyone knew it was a remix and that we were playtesting it. I think that's where
the problems emerged. I ran the thing 'by the book', using more rules than I usually would (
I think that's reflected in the write-up questions and in my follow-up 'hear a noise' post) and
also running the rooms pretty damn close to how they were rewritten. It's almost like I got
tunnel-vision and didn't run the game the way I normally would but just ran what was on
the page. I _think_ that's because I was in 'playtest' mode, if that makes sense. MUST.
RUN. AS. WRITTEN. TO. DO. PROPER. PLAYTEST. I think we can all agree that is NOT how
you run a game, but I got in to that mode. Eric, I think in particular a lot of your
comments/questions/suggestions reveal this. I wasn't being the DM I usually am, I was
instead just using what was on the page.
My interesting room thought of the day is: The Fantastic. That's what is exemplified in
Jason's rats. That's what brings the feelings of it being fresh & new, just the way it was the
first time you ever played. That's what D&D is to me and what the nostalgia crowd is looking
for, IMO. Not kicking the door and killing the orcs and taking the treasure. They want the
Fantastic and the mystery of the unknown that it generates. The wonder.
That's easy to do.
How much of it should there be and what's the role of an 'empty' room? Should you have to
work to find a place to rest? "We're down to 1 HP each and still haven't found a place to
rest!" creates some tension. What about a truly empty dust-filled room. Does it have any
reason to exist in quantity? Dwimmermount thinks so.
The Pretty Girl hates wasting game time on a meaningless room. It has to be ful of
monsters, or something Fantastic (and meaningful. Not Fantastic and not meaningfull.)
She's bored by this. I suspect many people are. If the rooms reveals history or gives clues
then it's not boring and gives her something to think about when it's not 'her turn.' Eric's
comments regarding wacked out rooms that are ultimately meaningless are relevant here.
The empty rooms I refer to have nothing meaningful about them. Truly dist-filled or normal
rooms that reveal nothing. How many should there be? How much time should the players
waste on them?
TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME

DM's should gloss over those TRULY empty rooms eh? I thought old school was all about
time/resource management? Don't those begin to contradict? You can't DM fiat it to the
players as they have found nothing when searching AND track time. Or do you bore them
with details of an empty room and let them waste time resource? Or is ever room
meaningful and/or fantastic? This, I think, is the key issue to understanding rooms. [And I
don't yet, but this seems key.]
*) Boring empty rooms with bored players but realistic time (danger! use of the word
realistic in D&D usually means you're doing something wrong!)
*) Every room meaningful and fantastic, but no build up/intermission provided by empty
rooms. [Pretty Girl thinks that doors and corridors count as empty rooms. That may be a
solution.]
*) Gloss over the empty rooms via DM fiat. Which means time/resources are meaningless.
More Combat
Orcs are there for killing! The players are heroes and that's what heroes do!! I don't think so
Eric. Old school is a bit different. XP is more rewarding through getting treasure and combat
is super deadly. In that sense combat is another resource management technique.
Interacting socially with the monsters WILL create more fun. But maybe you meant
something else in your comments?
Mapping
I'm pretty sure that the DM being generous with mapping help slows the game down? A
focus on minutia?

7 1.25
Neil Carr That Turn Tracker is really cool!

(echoota)
With combat, I'm not sure how LL frames it but the original Moldvay Basic had an ability
score check of d20 vs. ability score with +/-4 modifier at DMs discretion. Using that might
help bridge the gap between editions and help players feel they can do some stunting of
some sort.
Another way of doing the ability score check with less mental processing on your part would
be to roll different amounts of six siders and try and roll the ability score or below:
2d6 Easy
3d6 Challenging
4d6 Hard
5d6 Very Hard
6d6 Near Impossible
Another thing that can both make fighting more nuanced and get a sense of how deadly it
can be is to use retainers. When you have a squad or so of red shirts in the part it can allow
players to dream up more involved and coordinated combat tactics.
In addition the players can feel a sense of loss if retainers die, or a temporary setback if the
retainers run in the middle of a fight. Charisma likewise becomes more valuable to help keep
the retainers where they need to be.

5 0.25
Neil Carr I suspect part of the issue is that your using the Dwimmermount draft. It's an undercooked
(echoota)
dish and while you can add some spices to it you're still serving it undercooked.
The empty rooms however I suspect are part of the press-your-luck component of the
game. It is creating distance and time that players will have to contend with. Each step
further into the dungeon is essentially doubling their resource expenditure because they will
need to walk (or run) back out.
One of the problems I've always had with megadungeons is that they can be a little to
random in their design. Back in the day when we played there tended to be some rational
layout to dungeons, and so in uncovering them with the map you were getting a larger
picture of what the complex was designed for. You might come across a whole series of
locked doors in a row, presumably cell doors. Later you find what looks like a guard room
and can piece together that the ring of keys belongs to those doors. Further, if this is where
they keep their prisoners they you could guess that where the leader resided would probably
be on the far side of the blank graph paper, because what leader is going to have his
chambers next to the stinky prisoners? Stuff like that.
So if you have a layout where every room and hallway has an actual purpose for the original
builders, then it becomes less boring because there is a larger context for players to chew
on with every new structure in the place.
If eyes are glazing over though and you're stuck, just use the old DM trick of just making
something weird and mysterious up. Then let the players debate with each other what it
means, finally pick one of the theories that was debated as the "correct" one and then make
up some more stuff later that fits with that theory. Players will love that they guess right
and will have been engaged with the little element.
Maybe you can use the empty rooms as a plot hook at some point in the dungeon. The
empty rooms are actually some kid of code or guide for a map that they come across. That
way you can answer the player's gripe of "why are there all of these dumb empty room!
Why would anyone build these things?" and then they finally figure out that the layout of the
dungeon was a key to some cool chamber full of treasure, or perhaps the secret code to
open up a sealed vault that is supposed to remain sealed.

5 0.25
Eric Jome
(cosine) bryce0lynch wrote:
DM's should gloss over those TRULY empty rooms eh? I thought old school was all about time/resource
management? Don't those begin to contradict? You can't DM fiat it to the players as they have found
nothing when searching AND track time. Or do you bore them with details of an empty room and let
them waste time resource? Or is ever room meaningful and/or fantastic? This, I think, is the key issue
to understanding rooms. [And I don't yet, but this seems key.]
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I may not be all OSR and stuff, but I'm pretty old school. I've even
gamed with people who had their names on the books inspiring the movement. I'd like to
think I'm not completely ignorant of the old schools workings.
If players say "We search the room" what do you do? You move them up in game time 1
turn (official D&D 10 minute turn I mean) and tell them they found nothing of interest. Total
elapsed real time? Less than 3 seconds. Notice I didn't say you rolled dice. Or fake rolled
dice. You're sending the players a message here - this room really was empty, they can
move on. Fake rolling is a trick you pull if you want to try to get them to waste more time...
why?
Because that secret door can be found with no rolling at all! In less than 1 turn of searching!
That's the heart of the simulation aspect of the old school. You write into the description a
reality - the secret door is triggered by a small lever behind an old brick on the right hand
wall. Why write this? So that the players can say to the GM "We press every brick on the
wall in this room!" and you don't even roll and you say "After about 6 rounds, you find a
hidden lever behind a brick!"
Rolling in the old school is what you do when you don't know how to solve it by talking. Time
in the game world is important, not real time. Real time you keep the game moving along
briskly...
But!
Know that real old school play must live in the hearts of the players! They have to want to
solve their problems by creatively talking about and working with the descriptions given.
New school players want to roll a die and move on to the next thing... that's not old school!
I've run whole sessions where hardly a die bounced on the table. Great game play of the old
school often had players NOT ROLL A DIE and yet kill everything in the dungeon and get all
the loot. Just by describing elaborate plans and spending in game time.
Quote:
[Pretty Girl thinks that doors and corridors count as empty rooms. That may be a solution.]
You may not be able to make this person 100% happy 100% of the time. She will likely
have to suffer through the occasional pointless room.
Quote:
No! In game time is spent. Real world time is not.
Quote:
Orcs are there for killing! The players are heroes and that's what heroes do!! I don't think so Eric.
Well, you're wrong. Orcs are evil creatures that can neither be trusted nor allied with. They
can be beaten into submission, extorted, or outwitted. But there is no level of "I have
awesome Charisma" that turns the orcs into friends and good people.
Mechanically, the orcs are obstacles. If you are letting them solve this obstacle by
converting the orcs to friendly, you aren't playing it right. You should have put non-evil
humans there if you want that.
Quote:
XP is more rewarding through getting treasure and combat is super deadly. In that sense combat is
another resource management technique.
This is totally true. Exactly right. And nothing I've said about orcs is contradicted by your
statement.
Quote:
Interacting socially with the monsters WILL create more fun.
The gamist nature of all old school play hinges on monsters as challenging obstacles. Some
monsters, as a component of the challenge they represent, have limited ways in which you
can successfully interact with them.
The narrativist nature of all old school play hinges on the established tropes of the situation.
Orcs are evil. There is no moral quandry about killing them. They cannot be redeemed, only
bent to a slightly less evil purpose that they'll inevitably corrupt by being a party to it.
The simulationist nature of all old school play hinges on the idea that intelligent monsters
behave and react in intelligent ways. You can talk to the orcs if you speak their language...
but see the first two elements. If you can use a show of force to get them to give you their
treasure, great, but you the GM are breaking with some aspect of gamist elements. If you
are having an orc just decide to be friends and not a foul betraying black hearted thug, you
the GM are breaking with some aspect of the narrativist elements.
But sure. Talk to them. I'd recommend intimidation and swindling. Orcs aren't very bright
after all...
Quote:
I'm pretty sure that the DM being generous with mapping help slows the game down? A focus on
minutia?
What?
Generous with mapping means that I tell the players they don't have to map and I don't
draw them a map either. They tell me where they want to go and I march them there on my
map. I describe it to them - "You backtrack left and right and into the room with the kegs.
Now what?"
We started doing this years ago when having a map for a boring 10 room complex was
pointless. We could simply memorize it. And characters wouldn't become lost in it. So, we
just played it that way... much faster.
The rule of thumb is, if the players can vaguely describe it, then they get there. If they
can't, you stop them at some point along the path and begin "exploring" there again.

4 2.00
The Harnish
(MJ Harnish) bryce0lynch wrote:
You've lost me here. Are you playing in real time? If not, what stops you from saying "you
spend an hour exploring deserted corridors before..." See, time continues to flow and
resources are used up. There's nothing meaningless. I'm also not getting what you mean by
"DM fiat." If the rooms are empty, where's the fiat (i.e., the loss of choice)?
Also - I think it's highly debatable what "old school" play entailed. I grew up in the 1970s
and started playing B/X and AD&D but tracking torch life was never part of our play nor any
of the other groups I played within the 1980s. We also abandoned wandering monster tables
pretty early on. I'd take any claims of "this is the way people played" with a huge grain of
salt. Your #1 goal with any game is to have fun, not to emulate how Gary and his friends
played.

4 0.25
The Harnish
(MJ Harnish) echoota wrote:
One of the problems I've always had with megadungeons is that they can be a little to random in their
design. Back in the day when we played there tended to be some rational layout to dungeons, and so in
uncovering them with the map you were getting a larger picture of what the complex was designed for.
There is nothing rational about The Temple of Elemental Evil layout - while some maps make
a "face" sort of, the layout and placement of monsters is utter nonsense (harpies and
ghouls, living in harmony) and virtually every square is filled.

Eric Jome
(cosine) MJ Harnish wrote:
Your #1 goal with any game is to have fun, not to emulate how Gary and his friends played.
Can't agree with this more. Find what works for you. What worked for them may not be
what worked for you.

Neil Carr
(echoota) MJ Harnish wrote:
echoota wrote:
One of the problems I've always had with megadungeons is that they can be a little to random
in their design. Back in the day when we played there tended to be some rational layout to
dungeons, and so in uncovering them with the map you were getting a larger picture of what
the complex was designed for.
There is nothing rational about The Temple of Elemental Evil layout - while some maps make a "face"
sort of, the layout and placement of monsters is utter nonsense (harpies and ghouls, living in harmony)
and virtually every square is filled.
Well, I should append that a lot of my old school play as a kid was with an adult that made
coherent adventure sites. My friends and I did play through plenty of the classic modules
and I have to say all of them paled in comparison to the homebrew stuff that was designed
to make sense in a larger world.

Neil Carr Maybe showing your players the Old School Primer might help to bridge the gap.
(echoota)

6 0.30
The Harnish
(MJ Harnish) echoota wrote:
Well, I should append that a lot of my old school play as a kid was with an adult that made coherent
adventure sites. My friends and I did play through plenty of the classic modules and I have to say all of
them paled in comparison to the homebrew stuff that was designed to make sense in a larger world.
I think this is the case with many old-school people, but the rosy-tinted glasses of nostalgia
have biased their ability to appreciate how utterly nonsensical a lot of the original
adventures (and especially the maps) were. I love all those original modules (I've spent
years recollecting them) from my youth but many of them have ridiculous elements in them:
Tomb of Horrors is filled with "gotcha" tricks that are just plain mean spirited, the ToEE is
filled with Gygaxian Naturalism, the Ghost Tower of Inverness is just plain weird, and the list
goes on and on... I loved all that stuff but I doubt Gary was actually very much fun to play
with - a lot of the stuff he wrote over the years has made me cringe and it only takes one
look at Cyborg Commando to know that he was neither a creative genius, nor a game design
wizard.
Last edited Fri Feb 8, 2013 9:45 am (Total Number of Edits: 1)

5 Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 7:25 pm
Rod Batten
(gmonk) I think some of my fun just died.
If I didn't appreciate nonsense, my appreciation of imagination would be diminished.
Posted Fri Feb 8, 2013 2:22 am

Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.

Dwimmermount Report Session

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dwimmermount Report Session

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4/8/2018 Dwimmermount Remix Session Report 1 - Crippling Self-Doubt | Dwimmermount (Labyrinth Lord) | RPGGeek

Username Board Games RPGs Video Games Events Login

Originally Posted by Dwimmermount

Posted Mon Feb 4, 2013 11:14 am

Posted Mon Feb 4, 2013 11:41 am

Posted Mon Feb 4, 2013 1:45 pm

Posted Mon Feb 4, 2013 2:44 pm

Why not just ditch mapping altogether?

Posted Mon Feb 4, 2013 4:16 pm

What system is being used?

If there's only one piece of advice to consider, then think of this;

Posted Mon Feb 4, 2013 4:27 pm

The Pretty Girl likes 3e and is confused by basic.

She specifically commented that the place seemed to have no history.

It is non-life-threatening moments that we create a lived in, breathing, vital world.

What's "the original"?

I read Justin Alexanders example of his take on the rat room.

Is this somewhere you can share? Got a link to this?

The players have to WANT to go in to room after room.

You're on the cusp of brilliance! Don't give up now.

Posted Mon Feb 4, 2013 4:46 pm

Assertion: "Empty rooms build tension" is wrong.

Everything is useful. Nothing is pointless.

Assertion: Every single room has to have an interesting description.

How often should monsters attack?

Should the players ever be fighting intelligent monsters?

Every monster should be intelligent. Even unintelligent slimes.

WHY are these different?

Action vs. passivity?

Bizarre shit going on?

If mapping is not fun then there should not be mapping.

The DM should draw it or provide one, or something like that.

Posted Mon Feb 4, 2013 5:07 pm

Why not just ditch mapping altogether?

Posted Tue Feb 5, 2013 6:03 am

I'll respond to the other posts in just a bit.

Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 12:07 pm

Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 12:45 pm

Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 1:20 pm

Bryce Lynch Knowing your guests:

That's easy to do.

TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME

Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 2:02 pm

Neil Carr That Turn Tracker is really cool!

Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 2:07 pm

QuickReply QuickQuote Reply Quote

Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 2:37 pm

Interacting socially with the monsters WILL create more fun.

Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 4:01 pm

Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 5:04 pm

Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 5:09 pm

Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 5:52 pm

Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 6:55 pm

Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 7:00 pm

Last edited Fri Feb 8, 2013 9:45 am (Total Number of Edits: 1)

If I didn't appreciate nonsense, my appreciation of imagination would be diminished.

Posted Fri Feb 8, 2013 2:22 am

You might also like