[Dungeon Opera (Was: Dungeon Noir)] Scenario Design

[Jon Scott Miller]

Hello. This is a follow-up to a previous post on my narrativist (?) dungeon game. Before I was calling it "Dungeon Noir," now it's "Dungeon Opera" (you know--like "Space Opera").

I have put off play-testing the game several times because the design seemed incoherent. On the one hand, I seemed to want to create a D&D Heartbreaker; on the other hand, I seemed to want to create a truly original and straightforwardly narrativist fantasy rpg. I have decided to go for the Heartbreaker; there's emotional baggage from years of semi-functional D&D play that needs working through, so here I go.

I am still having a heck of a time figuring out how to come up with scenarios for the game. The basic idea is that the scenarios should consist of info on NPCs (including monsters) who have certain Goals and Relationships, which cause them to interact with the PCs' Goals and Relationships in dynamic and unpredictable ways. So far, so good--my playbook here is right out of Sorcerer, and there's a lot of advice and insight available if this is the kind of play you're after. What I'm having trouble with is figuring out how to make site-based scenarios (you know, like the dungeon crawls and wilderness adventures of yore) that have these dynamic properties. Am I trying to mix oil and water here, or is there a way forward?

By the way, I have deliberately omitted info about the rules of the game, because I'm not sure it's that relevant to my question. The game is a lot like older versions of D&D, with a few semi-major exceptions: all characters have Goals, Relationships, a Back Story, and Humanity (which is deliberately made to stand in the stead of the old "Alignment" idea--in terms of the metaphysics of the setting); characters of all classes have Special Abilities that they spend Action Points to use (there are no skills or class abilities, just these Special Abilities that enable a character to automatically do Something Cool related to his niche); there are D&D-style Ability Scores, but their use is very open-ended--they can be used like Saving Throws in Tunnels & Trolls, which basically means if a player can think of a cool way to use an Ability, then the GM should let him try it, as long as it's semi-plausible.

Regards,
Jon

[Jarrod]

Hmm... well with the idea of a Humanity score comes a hierachy of What It Means To Be Human. Assuming elves and orcs have a "humanity" score of their own, you want to replace the term with something more concrete and less specific, like "morality."

Following precedents with morality scores, you could draw up a scenario generation formula akin to DitV: the outlying knowledge of the scenario, what tasks with which you have been commissioned or elected to undertake, and what would happen if no one were to interfere. Assuming evil characters are permitted, it also allows an inverse scenario where you have to interfere in order to muck up an otherwise pleasant afternoon. Might be fun for Killing Folk and Taking Their Stuff.

If you really wanna hammer home the heartbreak, why not make a type of narrative bid / debate system involving Monsters and Their Stuff as some kind of stats in and of themselves?

Just a thought. Hope to see more!
-J.

[talysman]

I am still having a heck of a time figuring out how to come up with scenarios for the game. The basic idea is that the scenarios should consist of info on NPCs (including monsters) who have certain Goals and Relationships, which cause them to interact with the PCs' Goals and Relationships in dynamic and unpredictable ways. So far, so good--my playbook here is right out of Sorcerer, and there's a lot of advice and insight available if this is the kind of play you're after. What I'm having trouble with is figuring out how to make site-based scenarios (you know, like the dungeon crawls and wilderness adventures of yore) that have these dynamic properties. Am I trying to mix oil and water here, or is there a way forward?

You've got a dungeon. You've got these monsters that live in it: goblins, orcs, trolls, what have you. Each group has its own goals and relationships: the goblins fear the orcs and serve them as slaves, if caught, but some are attempting to eke out an existence in a little-used part of the dungeon; the trolls live in another part and prey on any weak creature that wanders into their tunnels, maybe allowing one or two to live for a couple days for entertainment, if they've had a good meal recently; the orcs know there are more goblins *somewhere*, but haven't found their lair, since the shortest path to the general area where they are usually spotted runs close to the troll area; the orcs are between the other two and the way out, because they suppliment their food and supplies by raiding human travelers on an outside road.

So you've got some relationships that partially define the dungeon: orcs close to an entrance near a human road, troll area further in, perilously close to a no-man's land, with goblin warrens on the other side. Figure out needs next: what do the goblins eat and where do they get it? Where do they dump their filth? Any parasites or scavengers in that area? Where does each group get water? Are the waters inhabitted?

Also define relationships of groups within each species. How do goblins interact? Do they keep children with them, or do they separate them into another chamber, with the women, with male sleeping area guarding the nursery? Does the leader of the orcs sleep with the others? Do they divvy up all extra weapons immediately, or does the chieftain stockpile them in a separate room, with guards controlling access?

In other words, each relationship and need can be defined *spatially*, which creates the need for specific areas. The relationship map becomes your dungeon.

[Callan S.]

I think it may be oil and water. A dungeon - you have five foot tunnels, you have walls, you have pits, etc. It's just dead in terms of problematic moral issues - its like writing a relationship map full of emotionally tortured heroes and...adding a statue to the map. It can't add to the map, because it can hold no relationship itself. However, it could be added by some hero devoting himself to the statue for whatever reason.

What you might be useful is really imagine each monster, in terms of personality and what they are devoted to. Look through what they care about and find the things that could be the instillations of a dungeon. Scribble them on a sheet of paper to form the map - actually if you do this, these items will be a sort of relationship map as well as your dungeon map.

[Jon Scott Miller]

Hmm... well with the idea of a Humanity score comes a hierachy of What It Means To Be Human. Assuming elves and orcs have a "humanity" score of their own, you want to replace the term with something more concrete and less specific, like "morality."

I hadn't thought of that--perhaps because the setting I was envisioning for the playtest was to have only humans as PCs. But the monsters and semi-humans would also have the "Humanity" stat. Yes, I should probably go with "Morality" or something similar.

Following precedents with morality scores, you could draw up a scenario generation formula akin to DitV: the outlying knowledge of the scenario, what tasks with which you have been commissioned or elected to undertake, and what would happen if no one were to interfere. Assuming evil characters are permitted, it also allows an inverse scenario where you have to interfere in order to muck up an otherwise pleasant afternoon. Might be fun for Killing Folk and Taking Their Stuff.

I am ashamed to admit I have never read or played Dogs in the Vineyard (mainly because my budget for games has gone from small to zero). That kind of structured setting-cum-scenario might be just the thing.

If you really wanna hammer home the heartbreak, why not make a type of narrative bid / debate system involving Monsters and Their Stuff as some kind of stats in and of themselves?

I'm unclear as to how such a system would work. Do you mean that the players would bid tokens or something to determine the stakes and/or the means of resolving them?

I think that part of the problem is that I'm still unclear as to what the game is supposed to do. Are monsters or villains and their treasure supposed to be of central importance or just bits of color? I think I kepp leaning toward the latter in terms of my design goals but towards the former in terms of the actual execution...

Regards,
Jon
 

[Jon Scott Miller]

In other words, each relationship and need can be defined *spatially*, which creates the need for specific areas. The relationship map becomes your dungeon.

That's the idea that's been kicking around in my head. But then I'm unsure if that sort of thing can be meshed with PC Goals, Relationships, and Back Story. Maybe the key is just designing the Dungeon after the PCs have already been created--to make sure its "narrative ecology" hooks into them in the right ways. (Right now, there's only one semi-finished PC, as I'm still looking for other players.)

Regards,
Jon

[Jon Scott Miller]

I think it may be oil and water. A dungeon - you have five foot tunnels, you have walls, you have pits, etc. It's just dead in terms of problematic moral issues - its like writing a relationship map full of emotionally tortured heroes and...adding a statue to the map. It can't add to the map, because it can hold no relationship itself. However, it could be added by some hero devoting himself to the statue for whatever reason.

What you might be useful is really imagine each monster, in terms of personality and what they are devoted to. Look through what they care about and find the things that could be the instillations of a dungeon. Scribble them on a sheet of paper to form the map - actually if you do this, these items will be a sort of relationship map as well as your dungeon map.

Yeah, I think it has to start with the monsters/NPCs. Actually, what I have now is an R-Map with a bunch of NPCs from a fantasy city and a couple of semi-humans from nearby ruins. I suppose the next step would be to think in terms of possible "dungeons" or other sites. So there would be the ancient ruins which the semi-humans live in, the HQ's of the rival street gangs, and the palace of the Theocrat.

I was actually kind of thinking in terms of this model anyway (just could not pin it down adequately): there are a certain number of key Locations in a Scenario, and each NPC or monster is associated with at least one of them. Each Location has a dungeon-style floorplan and the usual sorts of trappings. But it is by no means clear how the PCs are going to interact with the inhabitants of each Location at the start of play, nor the order in which they will interact with the Locations, nor even if they will in fact get to them all. Maybe this is the kind of "sweet spot" I have been looking for. I guess the next step is the tedious job of drawing and stocking the Locations for my first playtest run.

The remaining unresolved issue is how to hook the PCs into the lives of the NPCs/Monsters. One option is to give the players a brief description of the major NPCs or Monsters and to simply demand that they come up with an explanation for how their PC's Goals etc. hook into them. The player is forced to get his character involved, but the manner of the involvement is up to him.

Not sure, but I may simply be re-treading the ground that has already been covered well by Ron in his Sorcerer's Soul. There's a delicate sort of Tao of narrativist scenario design that I just can't get my head around.

Regards,
Jon

[Callan S.]

rough ideas

The remaining unresolved issue is how to hook the PCs into the lives of the NPCs/Monsters. One option is to give the players a brief description of the major NPCs or Monsters and to simply demand that they come up with an explanation for how their PC's Goals etc. hook into them. The player is forced to get his character involved, but the manner of the involvement is up to him.

Some ideas are that the player designs one or two boss monsters as part of char gen - building up monsters with issues gives him points to spend on his char. They might be thematically linked rather than just fiscally, too "I got close quarter fighting when Blak the orc attacked my home town and killed half the people there!"

I guess the next step is the tedious job of drawing and stocking the Locations for my first playtest run.

Meh, that doesn't sound fun. Can't you search yourself for a monster issue "Blak wants to ressurect his dead bride" and work outwards from it. Not in terms of practicality - your not looking for what bits and pieces of crap you need for a ressurection. No, your looking at the extent Blak will go too - there are of course the helpless villagers ready to have their souls taken, alongside the other clan of orcs tied down for soul taking too, and there's a slythian soul crystal, taken in a bloody mascacre of the peaceful monks who previously had it...and so on. When you run out of ideas, you have the other monsters plans come in - Crib the evil and his secret room where he has a shard taker sword, because during the height of the ritual he'll crack part of the charged crystal off with the sword, so Dr Doom like he can return to his people use its power to grab control. And so on, keep thinking of the lengths each monster will go to and how they conflict with each other.

I'm droning on a bit, not very coherant ideas. Any good?

[Jon Scott Miller]

rough ideas
Some ideas are that the player designs one or two boss monsters as part of char gen - building up monsters with issues gives him points to spend on his char. They might be thematically linked rather than just fiscally, too "I got close quarter fighting when Blak the orc attacked my home town and killed half the people there!"

I like that idea. I actually have that as an option in setting creation, except that players can also design NPCs that have relationships with other player characters.

Meh, that doesn't sound fun. Can't you search yourself for a monster issue "Blak wants to ressurect his dead bride" and work outwards from it.

I like your suggestions. Part of the problem is probably that I am not very good at coming up with this back story stuff. Not even when I'm at my best, and certainly not now, when I'm finishing up a PhD and recovering from a debilitating illness. But your suggestions are definitely pushing in the right direction...

Anyway, thanks for the help.

Regards,
Jon

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Jon,

One of my favorite things about the traditional dungeon is that it is a Place, and that place will have resources. Think about what people fight over the the real world: territory, oil, power, wealth, and food. In a dungeon, you have the same needs, but they're in a small space.

One way to set up scenarios for a game that you want driven by story in a dungeon is to make a map of the dungeon, and write what resources are in which area. This can be typical dungeony stuff: gold in one place, free bats to eat in another, a magic healing fountain in another room. Then make up a list of major inhabitants. Each of them needs a resource from someone else, and someone needs their resource where they live. Suddenly, you have a rich group of creatures, all with solid needs tied into each other.

Not to toot my horn here, but I think the GM advice in Donjon might be the best I've written. It's not narrativist, but it has my taint. If any of it helps, I'll be happy.

[stefoid]

So are your dungeons natural caverns that are inhabitted by an ecosystem that includes various sentient monsters, or is it more of an evil lair of an arch-mage who has gathered these monsters around him?

If all the monsters are lackeys then they will behave differently - not supposed to eat each other and so on.

[sean2099]

I know this may sound a little bit silly but have you thought about thinking of the "site" as a character.  Let's take a look at the cave filled with orcs, trolls, and goblins.  Now, it seems to me that the cave could be a mother-figure for the above mentioned creatures.  In addition, it has been around for a while and probably in an out of the way location. 

So, (going with analogy), you have this weathered old lady who wants to alone and she has some kids taking care of her (vice versa to an extent as well).  She doesn't like strangers but if they flatter her and respect her enough, perhaps they will given some of reward or recogntion from it.  Make too much noise, break off stalagites, etc (disrespect her) and you could have avalanches, attacks from the kids, have an inconvient breeze blow out your torches, etc.

At this point, perhaps it is easier to tie this place into the motivations of the players, using the analogy of the old lady and cave in this particular case.

Hope this helps,

Sean

[Jon Scott Miller]

Not to toot my horn here, but I think the GM advice in Donjon might be the best I've written. It's not narrativist, but it has my taint. If any of it helps, I'll be happy.

The chapter on running the game was a fascinating read. Scenarios in Donjon are different from the way I wanted scenarios to work in Dungeon Opera, though. In Donjon, the GM determines the goals of the scenario (including a main goal and several subsidiary goals), and he also determines the general structure of the scenario, by creating a series of chapter which must be played in the order specified. I was envisioning a game in which the players authored their characters' goals, and in which the general order of events was not decided in advance.

It may be that in order to make such a game work the GM must design the scenario after the player characters have been created. Each player character's goal might then lead to the creation of one or more dungeon-type locations.

A potentially fatal difficulty: dungeon-exploration is a traditionally team-based endeavor. (There's no "I" or "U" in "Donjon.") Any hope of getting several PCs, each with a different goal, to explore the same dungeons? Not a chance. The GM would have to link the resolution of the PCs' goals together in an implausible way (it turns out the same goblins who kidnapped Aleph's sister also killed Zed's father! and have the only scroll with the Spell of Senility Rebuffed, the object of Omicron's long search...).

If this is correct, then the only way of getting traditional team-based dungeon exploration with a player-authored goal would be to have all of the PCs pursuing a single group goal (perhaps in addition to personal goals, which could be handled as side-treks).

I feel like I have to either ditch the attachment to party-based dungeon based exploration or else let the GM set up the goal for everyone in a take-it-or-leace-it fashion.

Jon

[Jon Scott Miller]

So are your dungeons natural caverns that are inhabitted by an ecosystem that includes various sentient monsters, or is it more of an evil lair of an arch-mage who has gathered these monsters around him?

If all the monsters are lackeys then they will behave differently - not supposed to eat each other and so on.

Well, I was hoping for a bit of both, actually.

But I think I need to clarify, modify, and/or focus what this game is supposed to be about. It should be broad enough to accomodate both of the kinds of dungeons you mentioned. But maybe designing this thing would be a lot simpler if I focused the game-play as much as possible. I'm thinking of a game that supports sustained (campaign-length) exploration of and interaction with a single dungeon, like in old-school D&D or Tunnels & Trolls. Maybe I should simply declare in advance that all PCs are adventurers by definition, and their main goal is to get rich or powerful through a life of looting dangerous places. Period. (Well, semicolon; maybe it's also ok if they want to destroy the evil inhabitants of a dungeon to help out humanity or whatever.) Now they can have various secondary goals--like spreading their religion, getting revenge, or whatever--but at the end of the day they're going to want to go back to the effin' dungeon so they can kill the baddies and get their goodies, or die trying.

I'm going to put aside for the moment the issue of whether this is really a narrativist game (maybe it's just sim with a lot of focus on characterization) and just try to get clear on what's supposed to happen in the game. The PCs want adventure, but, invariably, once they get to the dungeon, they'll get more than they bargain for. There are going to be a variety of open-ended situations where they will decide whom to fight, whom to befriend, whom to temporarily cooperate with, whom to avoid, and so on. There isn't going to be one right way or one preferred way of dealing with whatver is in the dungeon. The only goal set in stone is to get rich or powerful, not to stop the lich-king or whatever. The players decide if they want to stop the lich-king, or if they want to ally with him or sell goodies from the upper world to him or travel the world in 80 days with him. The only sure thing is that once the PCs get to the dungeon (or once they start exploring the "wilderness") they will meet lots of interesting NPCs or monsters with their own peculiar goals, relationships, needs, and back story, who will engage the PCs in interesting ways.   

Now there is one score to keep track of the PCs' actions from a moral point of view and that is Alignment (or Morality). And this to me is a big part of the game. Because the really interesting bit is the PCs' moral development or regression. Some Actual Play may help illustrate what I am after.

I played in an AD&D game over the holidays in which some of the PCs and NPCs started doing stuff that was morally reprehensible but made a sort of distorted sense within the logic of the game. And that was what interested me most about the whole game (though the DM and other player didn't really seem to care). At what point did this PC or NPC cease to be sympathetic and start to be a brutal scumbag? Of course this is not a black and white or once and for all issue. One prominent NPC kept on going back and forth from being a lovable rogue to being a dangerous liability who had to be eliminated. And this hinged on our uncertainty (and maybe the DM's) about whether this character was going to turn out basically sympathetic or really just out for himself and willing to screw over everyone and anyone to get what he wanted. And so I want to play a game that is about not whether the PCs can kill the lich king but about what do we think of these characters once they get to where they're going (wherever that may be).

Before I was thinking that each PC could have his or her own goals and the game could still work the way I wanted. But now I think that to emulate that old-school play in the right way there has to be a strong presumption that the PCs are thirsty for "adventure" and that they will automatically explore whatever adventurous environment the GM has prepared for them. For purposed of Dungeon Opera this is either a large dungeon of some kind or a wilderness area that is mapped out with prominent locations and inhabitants, like a giant outdoor dungeon.

A more open-ended fantasy narrativist idea could also work, but that is a different game which would not be focused on the exploration of a dungeon-type space.

Jon

[Simon C]

This is just a random idea, but have you thought about using something akin to the scene framing rules from "Contenders"? So, players call for a "Dungeon" Scene, and can set up the stakes however they like it.  The other players can put their own characters into the same dungeon if they choose, perhaps in order to accrue resources (in-game or 'meta') to further their own goals? You can intersperse this with "Inn" scenes, "Wilderness" scenes, and whatever else you need.  Each type of scene provides a certain kind of resource, required for completing a goal, and the players can write their characters to those scenes however they choose. These scenes can be set in recurring locations, or in entirely new locations, as required by the players.

So, Brakk the Mighty wants to ressurect his dead grandfather.  First, he declares an "Inn" scene, where he will accrue "rumour" points, which can buy him a "dungeon" scene later.  Melhendra the Mysterious is still tired from her last adventure, so she puts herself in the scene, hoping to accrue "carousing" points, which can buy off her fatigue and injury.  So Brakk and Melhendra meet in the inn, and a scene ensues.

Later, Brakk spends his "rumour" points to buy a "dungeon" scene.  He says it's the "Caves of Chaos" where shards of other realities are mined from the rocks.  It's rumoured that anything can be found within its dark halls.  If he beats the dunbeon, he can find a way to ressurect his grandfather.  Koli the Trickster is working on his own quest, but he is yet a novice.  He inserts himself into the scene to accrue "experience" points, which he can use to imporve skills and the like.  Brakk turns a corner in the Caves of Chaos, and meets his old ally, Koli.  They continue their adventure together.

So, basically, every type of scene has a "primary" reward, which is gained by the originator of the scene, and a "secondary" reward, which is gained by the extra characters in the scene.  Both kinds of reward are required to achieve a goal, ensuring that characters have

This might be quite a serious deviation from your original goal with the game, but this sounds like a workable system to me.