Sterile Dungeons

In a thread at Original D&D Discussion about running Tegel Manor Geoffrey McKinney made some comments on how good the map for thatadventure is. I recall liking the map but had forgotten why some folks think it’s special. I realized something I do myself and an awful lot of other folks likely do: we produce sterile dungeon maps. Big empty maps full of walls and door locations and numbers but mostly empty space.

I myself post a number of maps and map sections on this blog but I do them with an eye to other people making use of them for themselves so I don’t clutter the maps with a bunch of stuff I use when making maps as I use them in play.  I leave a lot of empty space for other DMs to fill in their own stuff, I even leave out the doors some of the time when posting maps here because those pesky doors are an adventure specific feature of many a dungeon adventure.  I think I and many other dungeon builders are shorting each other and everyone else. What I put on my maps for my own use but don’t usually put on maps I post here: traps and trap trigger areas, dungeon vegetation, floor properties, ceiling heights, treasure locations, grumpy smiley faces (meaning monster in this room), air quality, and clutter. When I was a kid I often used big 22”x17” sheets to map out my dungeons at 1” to 10’, an entire dungeon might have ended up all on the maps but as I became more sophisticated and wanted bigger dungeons I drifted towards the more conventional and sterile style of map and notes even if I tend to go beyond empty walls and number for my own use.

My dungeon maps get really cluttered and full as the dungeon is used in play. Footprints get put on the map, dead bodies and broken doors get noted, player navigation marks are noted. A lot of little things end up down on the map that become notable and even important with repeated play in the same dungeon, I end up noting circles of illumination sometimes that really help when describing things (why I don’t do that a heck of a lot more often beforehand I do not know).

I think I’m tired of sterile dungeon maps, we all should be. I’m going to have to put more on the maps I post here and I hope other folks do as well.

Ability Scores

The same standard 6 ability scores have been with D&D since it's inception and they have gone on to impact the entire RPG hobby, but why not change up ability scores and what they mean in a campaign? If a DM pays attention to how ability scores work within the rules of the game they are using those ability score themselves can be changed to provide a different game experience.

No ability scores at all. The most drastic means of addressing the situation is to simply not have any ability scores. In the original D&D rules ability score had little direct impact on most immediate actions so little actually some have wondered why they were bothered with at all. By ditching abilitry score entierly  all adventurers are equally capable at common adventuring tasks and no player is slave to bad luck and no one ends up subordinate to the early lucky rolls of another player. This method is used by some minimalist D&D variants out there “Searchers of the Unkown” being the one that come to mind first.  Characters abilities are tied to class, level, and player choice a character will emerge from play instead of being rigidly defined in a few small areas.  There is room for this method to be exploited by pushy and intelligent players that may cause it to break down for a wide open and extended campaign but in more tightly focused campaigns or limited duration ones the ability scores can be an unneeded layer of complexity.

Ability scores as modifiers.  I’ve use this technique in the past when playing Talislanta and for a little quick and simple multi-edition D&D dungeon crawling as mentioned in this post:  http://aeonsnaugauries.blogspot.com/2011/10/weekend-gaming.html

Ability score as modifier has two particular advantages over the standard score and modifier model in that they are unbound, and concise. Both advantages can also be a deterrent in their use however. Ability score as modifier is concise as there is no look up required to determine the effect of an ability on a relevant action if you have a +3 in Might you have a +3 bonus to all things might related.  An ability score as modifier is unbound you can technically go to infinity in either direction as there is no score floor or ceiling implied by this method; you don’t’ have to have a housecat with a strength of 3  (or 1). There is a problem in the ability score as modifier as it isn’t clear how relatively effective or weak any two characters really are in a game without really looking into the numbers (a +4 is cool if you are roll 1d20 and adding 4 but it’s even better if you are rolling 3d6 and adding) and some baselines have to still be established which can look odd compared to a ability score as modifier mechanic.

Changing the Names of ability Scores. Using the same core set of modifiers by changing the definitions of the ability scores.  Why Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma? I explored this option in a post a couple years ago in this post: http://aeonsnaugauries.blogspot.com/2009/10/whats-in-name-or-ability-scores-and.html . In brief the game may feel different by simply changing a few names and the expectations that go with them as a result while otherwise retaining existing modifiers. By example: if Strength is instead Size some the descriptions of things certainly shift while still playing out effectively the same numerically in uch of play but there will be occasional telling differences; big folk can use big weapons better, they can surely bash open door easier but what happens when high Size characters have to squeeze through a small hole?

Additional ability scores.  Why stick with just the ones your game came with? Even AD&D added Comeliness to the standard roster of ability scores for a time why not consider doing the same in your campaign?  Core tasks repeated again and again in the game might work better if tied to a new ability score; Perception as an ability score is a popular one that came up in Dragon magazine ages ago and is a popular candidate. Luck is a popular ability scores used by some D&D-a-likes that would fit in well as a modifier to the saving throw system or perhaps a complete alternative. If characters are going to spend a lot of time on horseback in a campaign and the DM feels there should be some difference between how well characters ride it might be worth adding Horsemanship as an ability score as opposed to adding on a skill system.  One could even delve deeper into some of the functionality of ability scores now and break them down further sure a high intelligence makes one a better magi-user but what if magic was tied to something else maybe Magical Affinity with minimum scores establishing spell access and/or magic item use instead of the intellect alone?   How about breaking up that Charisma score into Looks, Leadership, and Bargaining surely that’s going to lead to a wider range of play and more varied characters.

Fewer ability scores is an option as well one could reign in the number of ability scores to more generalize them to have more evocative relationships t common areas in a campaign. For example: Strength and Constitution get rolled up together in Vigor, Dexterity and Intelligence get wound up into Craft and Wisdom and Charisma are wound up into Spirit; maybe some of the modifiers are dropped, maybe they are just carried along, it’s up to the campaign of course. With such a scheme the strong (unless diseased or injured) are usually also healthy, the wise know the right thing to say and more readily influence others than could a rude oaf with a charming smile.

There is no need to leave ourselves tethered to the same standard six ability scores in our own campaigns, the rules as written are a starting point not the be all and end all of the possibilities in a campaign.

Exploring Damage and the Critical Hit

The critical hit is an old time house rule and favorite of many a fantasy RPG player but just what is the actual impact on combat over the course of the game and as such thousands of rounds? The following charts explore the impact of critical applied as simple multipliers to damage inflicted.

Chart 10a:  x2 critical hit on a 20. No confirmation roll required.

Damage Die	Armor Class
	9[10]	8[11]	7[12]	6[13]	5[14]	4[15]	3[16]	2[17]
d4 (2.5)	1.5	1.375	1.25	1.125	1.0	0.875	0.75	0.625
d6 (3.5)	2.1	1.925	1.75	1.575	1.4	1.225	1.05	0.875
d8 (4.5)	2.7	2.475	2.25	2.025	1.8	1.575	1.35	1.125
d10 (5.5)	3.3	3.025	2.75	2.475	2.2	1.925	1.65	1.375

The formula used above was  (ave damage * (chance to hit - 5%))+5% of (average damage x2)) 

for 1d6 weapon vs AC9 that's (3.5*.5)+(0.05*7)

 

Chart 10b: comparing likely damage in consideration of crits for x2 on a 20.

Damage Die	Average Likely Damage without Critical Hit	Average Likely Damage with Critical Hit	Damage as % of Standard Die Type Compared to same With Critical	Damage as % of 1d6 compared to Die Type With Critical Critical
d4	0.9375	1.0625	113%	81%
d6	1.3125	1.4875	113%	113%
d8	1.6875	1.9125	113%	146%
d10	2.0625	2.3375	113%	178%

The charts above show a d4 or 1d6 weapon scoring a critical hit that doubles the damage on a hit roll of 20 isn’t a very substantial gain in likely damage as both are likely to inflict less damage than a straight +1 damage bonus would (see chart 7b).

D8 and D10 weapons do a bit better with this situation coming close to but not beating a flat bonus of +1 to damage (as per chart 7b).  

Over the course of thousands of rounds of combat the critical hit has fairly minimal impact on combat compared to a flat damage bonus. In any given round using a x2 critical does create a bit of excitement as there is a 5% chance of inflicting above average damage on every hit but over the long run it just doesn’t do much at all. 

Introducing a confirmation roll as 3.x D&D would have the result of reducing the average likely damage from that shown in chart 10a resulting in critical hits being even of less significance and a much lesser improvement in damage with more time spent in game to calculate the damage (a time drag for no significant overall gain).

 Next let's check the results of doubling the dice roll while doubling a damage bonus

Chart 11a: likely damage by doubling of damage die + damage bonus

Damage roll	Armor Class
	9[10]	8[11]	7[12]	6[13]	5[14]	4[15]	3[16]	2[17]
d4	1.5	1.375	1.25	1.125	1.0	0.875	0.75	0.625
d4 +1	2.1	1.925	1.75	1.575	1.4	1.225	1.05	0.875
d4 +2	2.7	2.475	2.25	2.025	1.8	1.575	1.35	1.125
d4 +3	3.3	3.025	2.75	2.475	2.2	1.925	1.65	1.375
d4 +4	3.9	3.575	3.25	2.925	2.6	2.275	1.95	1.625
d6	2.1	1.925	1.75	1.575	1.4	1.225	1.05	0.875
d6 +1	2.7	2.475	2.25	2.025	1.8	1.575	1.35	1.125
d6 +2	3.3	3.025	2.75	2.475	2.2	1.925	1.65	1.375
d6 +3	3.9	3.575	3.25	2.925	2.6	2.275	1.95	1.625
d6 +4	4.5	4.125	3.75	3.375	3	2.625	2.25	1.875
d8	2.7	2.475	2.25	2.025	1.8	1.575	1.35	1.125
d8 +1	3.3	3.025	2.75	2.475	2.2	1.925	1.65	1.375
d8 +2	3.9	3.575	3.25	2.925	2.6	2.275	1.95	1.625
d8 +3	4.5	4.125	3.75	3.375	3	2.625	2.25	1.875
d8 +4	5.1	4.675	4.25	3.825	3.4	2.975	2.55	2.125
d10	3.3	3.025	2.75	2.475	2.2	1.925	1.65	1.375
d10 +1	3.9	3.575	3.25	2.925	2.6	2.275	1.95	1.625
d10 +2	4.5	4.125	3.75	3.375	3	2.625	2.25	1.875
d10 +3	5.1	4.675	4.25	3.825	3.4	2.975	2.55	2.125
d10 +4	5.7	5.225	4.75	4.275	3.8	3.325	2.85	2.375

Chart 11b: comparing average damage of doubling dice and damage bonus

Base Damage	Average Likely Damage Inflicted AC 9 to 2	Critical Damage As % Of standard 1d6
d4	1.0625	81%
d4 +1 1d6	1.4875	113%
d4+2 1d6+1 1d8	1.9125	146%
d4 +3 1d6+2 1d8+1 1d10	2.3375	178%
d4 +4 1d6+3 1d8+2 1d10+1	2.7625	210%
d6 +4 1d8+3 1d10+2	3.1875	243%
d8 +4 1d10+3	3.6125	275%
d10 +4	4.0375	308%

Chart 11a and chart 11b show multiplying the base die and the damage bonus provides a significant boost to damage inflicted. The weight given to bonuses when they are also multiplied is telling.

Note the same results as those shown on table 11a and 11b would be achieved by doubling the dice rolled or by doubling the score of rolling one die.