Negadungeons

Steerpike · July 20, 2014, 02:43:09 PM

I'm curious about what you guys think of the idea of the Negadungeon, discussed here and here.

I think both of those accounts slightly misread the concept of the negadungeon, though. Most negadungeons I've read (i.e. Raggi's stuff) aren't actually totally reward-free. It's just that the probability of everyone getting out alive and unmutilated and/or sane is very low, and the treasure offered is disproportionately meagre compared to the risks.

What's interesting about the negadungeon is that it requires an element of deception. An entire campaign of negadungeons and no "standard" dungeons might be quite difficult to sustain, just as you wouldn't stock an entire dungeon with cursed items and no "standard" magic items (well, unless you're designing a negadungeon...). Like the cursed item the negadungeon operates a bit like a pitcher plant - wave what looks like a reward in the players' faces, and then mercilessly punish them for "falling for it."

So what do you guys think? Are negadungeons just an exercise in DM schadenfreude, or could they be fun for certain groups?

(Incidentlly, the closest I've come to running actual honest-to-god negadungeons are during Ravenloft jaunts in my Planescape game, such as this one, which left one PC with a horrific graft, another permanently bonded to a symbiotic mind-altering flesh-corset, another insomniac for a week, and a third temporarily insane... I think all they took away from the place were some cursed books and a weird orphan boy with the hindquarters of a goat. Maybe a few potions.)

Kindling · July 20, 2014, 03:01:02 PM

While I've hugely enjoyed reading the esteemed Mr. Raggi's work I haven't put any of it to the test by actually running or playing it, so essentially my answer is "I don't know."

I can say, however, that as a player I am usually having the most fun when things are going horribly wrong. This may be due to a formative encounter with CoC early on in my RPG-playing career... dynamiting the entire location was the only solution in the end.

Lmns Crn · July 20, 2014, 04:10:06 PM

I have some mixed feelings about this idea. I'm simultaneously intrigued and repulsed by the idea of negadungeons (which I suppose is exactly the point, really).

My one big conviction on the subject is that I don't particularly care for the bait-and-switch. I don't like it when a game is pitched to players as one thing, and then turns out to be another thing. That's a general stance of mine and not one limited to the idea of negadungeons. It's related to the idea that a particular player might really be excited about Game A but not care for Game B, so if I as a GM want to give that player an enjoyable experience, I should be honest about the fact that I want to run Game B, and not lie and say I'm running Game A.

I feel like the Silent Hill/Dark Souls/Lovecraftian/whatever tone can be really fun, and an awesome way to run an adventure, but you need honest buy-in from the players from the start. Maybe that's in the form of "Hey, let's play a game about madness and desperation and futile struggle against inevitable doom!", or maybe that's making it clear that the Crypt of the Warlocks of Necrodoom is seriously bad news and if the players choose to go there they go with the knowledge that it's probably a mistake, or whatever. But I feel like if you have to trick players into one of these negadungeon scenarios, you've likely created a situation where people are not going to be digging it.

sparkletwist · July 20, 2014, 05:01:24 PM

Personally, I've had interest in playing Fiasco lately so I can't say the idea of a game where everything is likely to go to hell isn't intriguing... but, yes, it just has to be advertised as that from the beginning.

It's more fun when the madness happens with the full and eager support of the players anyway. :grin:

Steerpike · July 20, 2014, 05:19:19 PM

I totally knew that you'd say that sparkletwist. :P

Here's my take on it... surprise is an important element of the negadungeon (or, at least, it can be). To return to the cursed item comparison, you don't tell a player they've picked up a cursed item. They put the item on or attempt to use it and then discover it's cursed. Unless you're playing a one-shot where you know you're "supposed" to get killed, then knowing in advance that a place is a negadungeon or has negadungeonesque elements might "spoil" the effect, that sinking feeling of "aww hell... what have we got ourselves into?" Knowing far in advance that you're sending your character into a negadungeon means that at best you can be surprised by particulars (like, the specific ways in which you're going to get screwed over), but not by the actual deathtrap nature of the place.

At the same time, just inflicting a negadungeon on players without their permission is sort of bad form and kind of a mean-spirited thing to do.

So what I'd say is: in a non-one-shot game, consult with players in advance as to what kind of campaign they want, and whether they're OK with the possibility of running into a negadungeon. That way they don't know anything more than their characters do going into a given dungeon, but they're aware that this may (or may not) be an absolutely awful idea. This could create a lot of suspense and preserves the surprise factor, without devolving into sadistic trollishness on the DM's part.

Again with the cursed item comparison: you may want to check beforehand with players as to whether they're cool with the possibility of acquiring cursed items. But the fun of a cursed item lies in part with its capacity for deception - that first time a player attempts to deposit something in their new Bag of Holding only to find that it's sprouted teeth and is now eating their arm...

Thoughts?

Kindling · July 20, 2014, 05:37:22 PM

I guess maybe the playstyle of the rest of the campaign is kind of important. Like, if your players are used to just kicking down the door and going in magic missiles blazing with a high chance of success, then they'll probably walk into the negadungeon and just straight up die. Whereas if the rest of your campaign has a relatively high lethality anyway, then they might just be cautious enough to survive the first few rooms and realise "oh ye gods we're in a negadungeon aren't we?" and adjust their methods accordingly.

sparkletwist · July 20, 2014, 06:19:10 PM

I will say that I ran a dungeon crawl once that, at the time, I thought was just a badly designed dungeon, but I guess it unintentionally was something resembling a negadungeon as described here. There was little treasure and actually interacting with anything in the dungeon was pretty much a bad idea. As soon as the players realized this, they just left and never came back. Maybe I didn't push things hard enough or push the sunk cost fallacy or the players were just too rational to buy into it, I don't know, but the point is that "surprise" as such has a real downside too-- without players being invested in it and on board, even if they don't overtly bristle at the idea, they might just react rationally and the whole experience can be the kind of play session that makes you shrug your shoulders and say "well, they can't all be awesome."

Steerpike · July 20, 2014, 07:07:25 PM

That's true. I think if you have players who aren't down for the idea in principle then whether or not they're aware that negadungeon is a negadungeon they're probably not going to have any fun.

One way to modify the negadungeon to make it slightly more palatable, perhaps, would be to offer a slight chance at a truly obscene reward in a dungeon otherwise bereft of treasure but filled with malignancies. This is different from just a high level dungeon that might have a more "normal" distribution of challenges and treasures. So, for example, you might have a hideous negadungeon chock-full of sadistic traps, curses, save-or-die monsters, and all the other tropes of the negadungeon, with no rewards for defeating or circumventing them... except for the flawless gemstone at the bottom bound with the spirit of a demon prince and worth 1,000,000 gold pieces, that some absurdly wealthy cultist-nobleman has hired you to retrieve. 99% of the dungeon is a thankless hellhole that exists only to brutalize you but if you survive the rewards are tremendous. Such a negadungeon could even function as a campaign tentpole: other adventures might function as side-ventures to help equip characters with items and experience, but the real goal is to reach the bottom level of this unfathomably vicious place. The PCs might return multiple times, slowly clearing out sections, learning the place's diabolic logic.

Llum · July 20, 2014, 07:37:20 PM

The idea of a Nega dungeon appeals to me, the challenge and fun of terrible endings. However I think the comments about a bait + switch are valid. With everyone going into it aware that it is a Nega dungeon takes something away form it though, the knowledge that it can't possibly turn out alright is an aspect that I think is integral to it.

That being said, I think that dungeons that are Nega-esque, but have a chance of some large reward at the end are a good compromise.

sparkletwist · July 20, 2014, 08:41:06 PM

It seems like a certain aspect of the "appeal" (if I can use that word) of a negadungeon is the horrific pointlessness of it all. If you have an actual big treasure that you're questing for, doesn't it become less of that and more just... a really hard dungeon with a big treasure at the end of it? Such a thing is much more standard in the world of dungeon crawls, I think. :)

Llum · July 20, 2014, 09:39:19 PM

Quote from: sparkletwist
It seems like a certain aspect of the "appeal" (if I can use that word) of a negadungeon is the horrific pointlessness of it all. If you have an actual big treasure that you're questing for, doesn't it become less of that and more just... a really hard dungeon with a big treasure at the end of it? Such a thing is much more standard in the world of dungeon crawls, I think. :)

While this is true, I still think going in knowing that it's a nega dungeon takes something away from it. Knowing you're going to fail 100% and having that even 0.1% of hope I think is a significant effect. After some though, for having non one-shot nega dungeons, I think the best bet would be having a campaign where there is a possibility of nega dungeons, so you're never really sure until the end. Maybe that just goes against the point of it too.

Steerpike · July 20, 2014, 09:48:43 PM

Quote from: sparkletwista really hard dungeon with a big treasure at the end of it? Such a thing is much more standard in the world of dungeon crawls, I think

True. Such a dungeon wouldn't really be a "pure" negadungeon, perhaps. Even really hard dungeons usually have some rewards scattered throughout, though. The idea of having a singular, nearly-impossible-to-acquire treasure of fabulous value and then a merciless gauntlet of horrors that adventurers must run to get it - and virtually no secondary rewards - is a bit rarer, I think.

Xathan · July 20, 2014, 10:28:38 PM

I've had some negadungeons in some of my games before, though I never knew the term. I like using them only in a particular purpose - namely, that while their is no stats rewards for doing so (no magic items, no massive piles of gold, and huge risks of death), their is typically a major story reward. The best example I can think of that wouldn't involve me hijacking the thread with a long rambling story involved getting the phylactery of a major Lich. He designed the place to be a complete and utter deathtrap - only vaguely accessible so he could get out if he ever did die - and he kept all his powerful items stored elsewhere to prevent his phylactery hidey-hole from being too tempting.

The party lost two members getting though that place, and one more sacrificed herself to save the others from the failsafe they triggered by removing the phylactery, and came out no richer than before...but mission was accomplished.

In other words, i agree with Steerpike on the "massive reward at the end," but instead of a massive stat/riches reward, I prefer going with massive story reward. That also overcomes the problem Sparkletwist mentioned - they have no reason to walk away, because the reward is large enough at the end - even though it's not a typical dungeon crawl reward.

Kindling · July 21, 2014, 06:09:33 AM

As far as my readings of Raggi's adventures go, I wouldn't say that they actually guarantee failure. Rather, they have a different definition of success. Death, dismemberment and insanity aren't actually guaranteed... they're just extremely likely. I mean, if you wanted to play a dungeon with absolutely guaranteed failure you'd never roll the dice, you'd just describe to the players how they meet their ends.

I think the players' approach to exploring the negadungeon is key to how certain failure is. Like I said above, if they're just bashing in doors and hoping for the best, failure is probably guaranteed. But if they're treating the place like "fantasy Vietnam," clearing the place inch-by-inch, etc., then they'll probably still find the negadungeon very challenging, but they have a much better chance of survival. And in a way survival IS success in this context.

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

Negadungeons

Steerpike

Kindling

Lmns Crn

sparkletwist

Steerpike

Kindling

sparkletwist

Steerpike

Llum

sparkletwist

Llum

Steerpike

Xathan

Kindling