The Unseen Servant forums

I'm finding my life just isn't complete now that I'm no longer running a game on these boards, so I've been finding myself thinking of what I would like my next game to be. I will be using the free Labyrinth Lord OGL equivalent of Moldvay's Basic for the rule set, and after (re-)familiarizing myself with the Basic D&D rules again, and learning that the Basic characters are really meant to dungeon crawl, I'm also pretty confident that I will be running a mega-dungeon. I previously owned one, and added another half dozen published mega-dungeons to my collection in the last week or so (realizing only after-the-fact that two of those I selected are already being run on the boards here). Just as an FYI, I have only vague familiarity with two of them, and next to no experience with the other five.

Some quick notes about my next game:

1. Considering the edition being used, I expect it to be deadly! Players will be encouraged to play intelligently!
2. Unless specifically stated in the published materials otherwise, monster reactions will be determined randomly. Knowing multiple languages, and having a higher charisma will very likely be beneficial!
3. I do not expect players to dedicate time to developing character backgrounds. I half expect the dungeon to grind through beginning players, so crafting a back story to a character with a potential short life expectancy is not necessarily the best use of time.
4. My current leaning is that I will be constantly accepting new players into the game, and anyone interested can play. As this will be the only game I will be running for the foreseeable future, I am prepared to run as many players and as many groups through the dungeon as needed, including running players through it solo if desired.
5. I am fine with players running multiple characters simultaneously, even in the same adventuring group. I might even encourage it.
6. I expect to post updates the game daily, but the pace of each adventuring party will be determined by the players involved. Some groups will move daily (or several times daily), while others may only move weekly..., or slower.
7. Mapping. While battle maps will be provided during encounters, it will be the players responsibility to map (or not) while generally exploring. (The 'mapper' is an official player role in the rules after all). Characters can (and potentially will) get lost!
8. Keep in mind, maps of a mega-dungeon will potentially be prized possessions, and there may be eager buyers looking to purchase copies of them (which will be worth experience points).
9. Time. I do expect to track time pretty carefully. Light sources will burn out, and characters will be expected to rest.
10. Prepare to equip your character appropriately. If your character runs out of food, or light sources, or doesn't have any rope, or a ten-foot pole...
11. Expect the game to be played largely by the book, with very few house rules. Even if the rules as written seem illogical (e.g. combat order), I am hoping this game develops a true, old-school game.
12. Speaking of the game "formally starting," I am not close to launching yet. The launch of what I've described above may be weeks away, or potentially months away.

I have created a poll with a list of the mega-dungeons I own to gauge people's interest in participating in a particular dungeon, including a 'custom creation' option, as there is also a slim, outside chance I will be creating the dungeon to be used instead of running one of the pre-published ones. I'm definitely planning on creating a mega-dungeon of my own at some point, but know that using it (as "it" doesn't even exist except for in the form of an idea) will majorly delay my ability to launch any time soon.

Also, if you haven't already done so (or it has been a while), I encourage anyone considering taking part in this upcoming game to read -- really read -- Matthew Finch's excellent 'Quick Primer For Old School Gaming' PDF. It is short, and free. It is something I will need to re-read myself before the game formally begins since my DM experience is primarily with AD&D, not Basic D&D, and I will want to break myself of my later edition habits since the two, in many ways, are very different.

So, while I wasn't exactly looking to create an official recruitment post tonight, I feel like this has kind of turned into one. Feel free to express formal interest or ask any questions (and vote in the poll!) and we'll see where this goes.

---

Edit:

1. Removed 'Tomb of the Iron God' as a poll option.
2. Officially decided the game will be run using the LL ruleset (not S&W).
3. I also wanted to mention that, due to the potentially high mortality rate, and potential revolving door of new players, I will not be using private forums for each player.
4. Added Caverns of Thracia to poll options (people should be able to update their votes, if desired).

I'm in. I'd prefer LL, if I had my druthers, over S&W.

I was in a Rappan Athuk play-by-post that ended all too soon. I'd love to return, and if possible, bring my S&W character along. Also happy to convert him to LL. I like the ability score range in LL better anyway.

PS: How is Tomb of the Iron God a megadungeon?

This sounds amazing. I'm in!

I voted on the poll, but would be happy with any of the options.

ken-do-nim wrote:I was in a Rappan Athuk play-by-post that ended all too soon. I'd love to return

Please vote for it. Is that the only dungeon you're interested in?

and if possible, bring my S&W character along. Also happy to convert him to LL. I like the ability score range in LL better anyway.

I typically do not like to import characters created using unknown generation methods, but I might be willing to consider it.

PS: How is Tomb of the Iron God a megadungeon?

I'm guessing, because it's being questioned, it's not. I purchased it at the same time as I purchased a few of the others on the list, and don't really don't know anything about it... except that it was highly reviewed, and supposedly pretty cool.

I will probably remove it as an option in the poll (if I can). Not because it's not worth running, but because I'm really interested in running something that, by design, is meant to be playable for a very, very long time.

I would definitely be interested, and playing multiple characters sounds like a plus to me though I understand if you would not want it to start in that mode. S&W has the most appeal to me though I prefer the ability score modifiers for LL and I love both systems. Stonehell, Barrowmaze, Dwimmermount- all sound great. I have not heard of some of the others but I would be interested in whatever is chosen.

I'd like to play! LL please.
I don't know anything about the poll choices, so I'll humbly offer a write in. Please feel free to ignore this vote:




Module description and map thumbnail, for the DM's eyes only: Thanks.

I would play in that.......

I would love to play in any game you DM, of course... And I find that playing a deadly one would be a nice change from your normal ones.

A non-stop, old school, death-around-every-corner dungeon crawl? Sounds like my cup of tea. And I don't even drink tea.

Since you seem interested in maintaining multiple adventuring parties: might I suggest during the recruitment process that you determine each player's posting rate capabilities, and group their characters accordingly? That way, the weekly posters can advance weekly, and the daily posters can advance daily. Presuming, of course, that you yourself are interested in and capable of such a rate.

I'd be interested in playing. My votes are up.

Alethan wrote:I'm in. I'd prefer LL, if I had my druthers, over S&W.

Noted. I actually only included S&W because, I believe, at least one of the dungeons I purchased was written for it, but after actually looking at them, I will definitely be using LL. More on this in a bit...

Pulpatoon wrote:This sounds amazing. I'm in!

I voted on the poll, but would be happy with any of the options.

Cool.

coil23 wrote:I would definitely be interested, and playing multiple characters sounds like a plus to me though I understand if you would not want it to start in that mode.

I am perfectly fine with players running multiple characters. In fact, I would even encourage it, but will leave that decision to the individual player.

coil23 wrote:S&W has the most appeal to me though I prefer the ability score modifiers for LL and I love both systems.

I probably should have before including it as an option, but I don't think I've ever really looked at the S&W rules until earlier this morning. While the two are mechanically very similar, S&W at a quick glance, is definitely more bloated. Since I was planning on running Moldvay's Basic, which LL was designed to replicate, that decision was pretty simple.

My goal for this game is to keep it very simple and rules light. To me, LL most closely fits that bill.

OGRE MAGE wrote:I would play in that.......

Nice.

onlyme wrote:I would love to play in any game you DM, of course... And I find that playing a deadly one would be a nice change from your normal ones.

Hahaha. I actually had TPKs in mind when making the decision to run a mega-dungeon. Believe me, I expect there to be plenty of character death in this game, but it will be like a revolving door, with deceased characters being replaced, and new players being introduced, pretty much all the time.

Xaxyx wrote:A non-stop, old school, death-around-every-corner dungeon crawl? Sounds like my cup of tea. And I don't even drink tea.

Awesome!

Xaxyx wrote:Since you seem interested in maintaining multiple adventuring parties: might I suggest during the recruitment process that you determine each player's posting rate capabilities, and group their characters accordingly?

I had a hard time sleeping last night because I had a lot of logistical things running through my mind, and this was absolutely one idea that I knew I had to incorporate.

sulldawga wrote:I'd be interested in playing. My votes are up.

You'll be in.

Inferno wrote: I'd like to play! LL please.
I don't know anything about the poll choices, so I'll humbly offer a write in.

An excellent choice. I will add it as an option in the poll, and will certainly consider it. Thanks for the submission.

Thanks! My vote is cast.

Will you be using the Labyrinth Lord Advanced Rules, or the Core Rules?

Xaxyx wrote:Will you be using the Labyrinth Lord Advanced Rules, or the Core Rules?

Core.

In looking to run it like Moldvay's Basic.

onlyme wrote:I would love to play in any game you DM, of course... And I find that playing a deadly one would be a nice change from your normal ones.

Hahahaha...

I voted for Rappan Athuk and Mines of Khunmar which I think are full of awesome, but I'd be happy with Dwimmermount, Barrowmaze, and Stonehell too. I'm very familiar with Caverns of Thracia, and I wish I could forget everything and play through it My favorite adventure of all time, though I can tell you from having run it myself that you need to bump up the amount of treasure found considerably. Castle of the Mad Archmage I've played through a decent amount of, though it's huge so no real worries. Tomb of the Iron God, btw is more of a standard get you up to 3rd level adventure. I'd say it is smaller than Horror on the Hill, for example.

I also wouldn't overlook the build-it-as-you-go approach, staying one step ahead of us as we explore. It can work really, really well in play-by-post.

My biggest concern:

> Mapping. While battle maps will be provided during encounters, it will be the players responsibility to map (or not) while generally exploring. (The 'mapper' is an official player role in the rules after all). Characters can (and potentially will) get lost!

In my experience, pbp games work best when the DM maps.

ken-do-nim wrote:I voted for Rappan Athuk and Mines of Khunmar which I think are full of awesome, but I'd be happy with Dwimmermount, Barrowmaze, and Stonehell too.

The dungeon I would be closest to being ready to run relatively soon would be Dwimmermount. The first dungeon I purchase from those I listed was Castle of the Mad Archmage, but aside from reading a bit of its background, and looked at the maps for the first level to see where all the entrances/exits are, my familiarity with it is limited. The rest, literally, I have next to no knowledge of. Including Thracia.

ken-do-nim wrote:I'm very familiar with Caverns of Thracia, and I wish I could forget everything and play through it My favorite adventure of all time, though I can tell you from having run it myself that you need to bump up the amount of treasure found considerably.

This scares me. As previous players of mine will attest, I have probably been a bit stingy when it comes to treasure -- especially of the magical variety. I have been trying to improve on this, but in a Basic game, where a majority of the experience points earned by a character will be depended upon the haul they're able to recover... that adventure, regardless of how awesome it is, might not be the best option for me to run.

ken-do-nim wrote:I also wouldn't overlook the build-it-as-you-go approach, staying one step ahead of us as we explore. It can work really, really well in play-by-post.

If I go the custom route, this would definitely be the case. I wouldn't hold up the game while I create and key maps for 10+ levels when only the first will be needed to get started.

ken-do-nim wrote:My biggest concern:

> Mapping. While battle maps will be provided during encounters, it will be the players responsibility to map (or not) while generally exploring. (The 'mapper' is an official player role in the rules after all). Characters can (and potentially will) get lost!

In my experience, pbp games work best when the DM maps.

It is a fair concern, and I probably even agree with you. That said, part of what excites me most about running a mega-dungeon is the possibility of characters getting lost. I don't mean that in a "I hope characters get lost and die down there" kind of way, but in a "this is a scary-assed place we're entering so we better keep track of where we're going" way. It adds an element of danger. (But can see how it can become a cluster f- if/when the group ever does become lost.)

This is how I was planning to handle mapping:

I started to dabble with Roll20, the virtual tabletop, a couple months ago, probably around the same time I took this interest in mega-dungeons. As the DM, my plan for this game is to upload the maps from the PDFs I won into Roll20 and essentially "run" the game on Roll20 in the background. As the characters declare their targets or their movements, I will (re-)position their tokens in Roll20 for them, and ultimately take screen shots of the scene at the conclusion of each round and post it into the game forums here.

Perhaps one solution would be to invite the declared mappers into my Roll20 game and allow them to use the tools there to create the maps there?

I could load the map to the GM layer, which the player wouldn't have access to or vision of, and, after drawing the entrance for them on the map layer, allow the mappers to continue to draw the map from that point based on my descriptions.

It would still be incumbent upon the mapper to then use this map their building to, in their update, declare exactly what steps the group will take as they attempt to move. (e.g. We take the second right, then the first left, etc...).

---

I have always just allowed things like "we return to the room with the well" to just happen, instead of requiring a specific course of movement, and I was kind of hoping to avoid that in this game. That said, I do agree it might be too tricky or complicated in a play-by-post game...

I will think on this, but welcome additional thoughts.

I'm definitely in.