"Making a Classic D&D-style Dungeoncrawl Game" Topic

After seeing what's on offer amongst dungeoncrawl-style boardgames and none of them meeting my requirements, I'm designing my own DM-less co-operative dungeoncrawl game, halfway between classic d&d and a boardgame like Dungeon.

So far play-testing is going well, with an average game taking about an hour, with 1 1/2 to 2 hours for longer quests.

What I've discovered so far seems counter-inuitive to most boardgamers: simple tables, a rule-book with monsters, spells and treasure and recording character advancement with good old pencil and paper, works much better and far faster than when I introduced these same elements as cards, tokens, etc.
Pencil & paper made it much easier for players to see what powers, treasure and spells, etc they have, than an endless proliferation of tokens, stacks of cards, etc, that litter the play-surface.

So I'm streamlining the whole game back down to a paper & pencil, booklet & tables approach, with minimal card use.

I will be doing all the art myself, in classic 70's D&D style.

It's going to be open for players to modify as they please, come in supplements with different locations & missions, and a set of card characters and monsters, though I encourage players to use whatever miniatures they want and to make rules for them as desired – hopefully a tech-savvy freind will get a site& forum set up so players casn post their own monsters, classes, spells etc.

Does this sound like the kind of game people want to play, and should I continue to develop this, with an eye to an eventual crowdfunding cmapaign and then general release?

I am interested. I like cards (especially monster and treasure cards) but if the game system is good I'd be happy to make my own.

Thanks, warwell.
Yep, you could certainly add cards if you want to ( in fact, i've made hundreds of the things during playtesting) – and I think players modifying and playing games in the way they want to is half the fun.

Each basic supplement will consist of: a set of dungeon tiles, a booklet of adventures and new monsters & stuff, and cardstock figures – all of which can be mix n' matched with the other sets, making ready to play new adventures every time.

I hate counters in dungeon crawl games! I think you are right on tarhet.

Thanks, Only Warlock. I'll keep at it!

Sounds great,I would be interested.

I'm interested by this. Boardgames are nice, but miniatures are a big part of my enjoyment in the hobby, so for those of us who feel that way, have you considered including rules for figures? I've always thought that a good dungeoncrawl game could be had with just 2-3 standard sized rooms and a few corridor shapes. This would be easy to acquire for gamers who'd like a more three dimensional experience. I'd find it fun to then sniff around for a collection of dungeon explorers and their fiendish opponents in miniature…

Totally agree with your thoughts on pencil/paper by the way. Recent games may have got a little carried away with tokens, gizmos and doo-dads! Good luck with your project!

If it's got cardboard figures, you ought to be able to use the rules for them (unless he means flat counter figures).

I agree with Daryl on limited size--think of a barrow tomb or a Valley of the Kings tomb--but not some sprawling mess like KB50.

Thanks Daryl and CommanderCarnage!

Daryl, yes – this game is precisely intended for miniatures! It can be played without (as mentioned, i'm going to make up cardstock figures) but the basic idea is for it to be open so players can use whatever figures they want.
As such, I already have all the rules for miniatures movement and skirmish combat.

One main question I have for potential players is: what scale should I make the dungeon tiles/rooms for?
I'm guessing most people will want to play 28mm, though there's a growing 15mm dungeoncrawl scene and suitable minis.
Just to complicate matters, my preffered fantasy scale is 20mm, though so far i've been playtesting this in 28mm, as the commercially available dungeon tiles are in that scale.
Anyway, if anyone has an opnion on this, and what the commercial viability of each scale might be, let me know!

I'd think 28mm would far and away be the most commercially viable. Like you, though, I've always loved 20mm--it's too bad there are no real fantasy ranges in the scale!

I agree Daryl – 28mm is the most popular format. 15mm dungeoneering is, however, becoming ever more popular, so I'd really like to bring this out in both scales if such a feat is possible.

On the other point, as you say, there are hardly any 20mm fantasy manufacturers – mainly just Alliance in plastic, since Caesar seems to be winding down its fantasy line. However, Splintered Light do some great stuff in 20mm, and CP models and Elhiem both have a lot of 20mm/1/72 – some fantasy, but mainly horror and pulp, although a lot of that works for fantasy, too.
The main attraction of 20mm is of course the masses of cheap 1/72 historical stuff, plus you can use a lot of 15mm and old 25mm, and some 28mm fantasy ranges too – sitting between the 2 main scales, i find there's a lot you can use from both.

Anyway, I'm rambling off-topic now…I'd love to hear from others too, on what scale they prefer most and if anyone knows if it would be commercially possible (or crazy) to bring out a game with dungeon tiles for two different scales (most likely in different editions)…

D&D type stuff has a big history of 25-30mm, I think staying in that range would be best. Of course there may be an untested market for 15mm???

Personally I like rules, dice, miniatures and scenery if its possible. Tokens, cards etc overly complicate things. I must note though that I have ADHD and am easily confused so keep that in mind.

I do know I have been hearing complaints about how complex D&D4 is so maybe something simplified for quicker play would be the way to go.

go with 28mm.

The larger the figure scale, the more physical room the game takes up, on the tabletop. I think most folks will want larger dungeons to explore than 3-4 rooms only.

The 28-30mm market is flush with products, games, mini's, etc! There is less competition in the 20mm-1/72 scale, as well as the 15mm scale. With these smaller scales, you can make 'larger' dungeons fit onto your tabletop, so you can get more to explore in the same confined table-space.

The lack of figures in the 20mm realm, might improve if there were games to take advantage of that scale -- it might encourage companies to pour more resources into it, or not. It's a gamble.

If you go with 20mm scale, players can draw from the 15mm scale for smaller-sized creatures/races, while doing the same with the 25-30mm scales, pulling figures to represent larger races, such as Giants. Monster figures seem to command higher prices, especially when they are much larger in size (Dragons, Giants, etc.). By allowing/encouraging players to mix and match scales, they can also save money. This is an old-school technique, dating back to the 70's. I've been doing it for the last couple of years, and it is quite fun to re-purpose Human figures for Elves (in 1st Ed. AD&D, they were quite a bit shorter/smaller than Humans, which has been lost in current renditions of D&D), Hobgoblins (Gygax described them as looking/acting like Human armies, when they approach, leading the actual Humans to think they were allies arriving, only to be dismayed when they were close enough to see their true nature), and others. It's quite fun, creative, and challenging -- it is much more interesting than just ordering 'proper' Elves, Hobgoblins, Goblins, etc. ;-)

Just suggestions. Take them, leave them, whatever. Best of luck with the project! Cheers!

Sounds like right up my street. What sort of timeframe are you considering for release?

I would think you would want to go with 25/28mm since there is such a large base of prepaints in that scale.

If you release in electronic format the customers can print to their own scale.

If you release in printed format, you could print the tiles double sided with two scales, one on each side. Probably easier though to offer special orders for the other scale(s), either card packs or electronic versions.

What I said above about 2-3 rooms was probably unclear. I didn't mean a dungeon of 2-3 rooms--which is pretty small--but that perhaps your game could include (or give players instructions on how to build) a small number of standard sized rooms. The only areas that need to be on the table are the current room and nearby corridors; the rest of the dungeon could be mapped on paper or be "in the dark" (unexplored). Just thinking out loud and hoping this makes sense!

If you're not using miniatures, but leaving it open for others to use miniatures, the scale of the minis isn't the issue at all— the size of the base is. So if you provide for a reasonable base dimension, figs of any size will do.

25mm diameter bases seem fairly standard, regardless of mini size. You could go smaller, of course— 20mm diameter, for example— but larger minis wouldn't fit.

I assume the tiles are gridded, so the question is the size of the grid square. A 1-inch grid will support 25mm dia. bases (if a bit tight). So, assuming that a single figure occupies one square (not counting dragons and the like), then the array of the grids used will define the size of the tiles.

Honestly, the largest chamber grid you'd end up using probably wouldn't be more than 8x8 (a chessboard), which would be a huge chamber indeed on the tabletop with lots of maneuver room (64 squares, after all— even with a typical 6-member party facing two monsters each (12), that leaves 46 empty squares!!) So most of your rooms are going to be 6x6 or less, and corridors would like by either 3x or 2x in width.
So you'd have the largest tiles measuring 8' square, and the smallest 2' square. Or, you could make all the tiles 2"x2" without wall edges shown, and let the larger chambers be built from multiple tiles that just sit side by side. Need an 8x8 chamber? Place 16 2x2 tiles down in a big square.

If you covered a 3' x 3' table in tiles, that gives you an overall grid of 36x36, or 1,296 grid squares, and 648 2x2 tiles, max. Which would, of course, be ridiculously unnecessary. The main thing would simply be to create a system that prevents the dungeon from being built larger than a given length in any given direction (say 24", or 3 8x chambers in a straight row).

In any case, the figure scales could then be whatever the players prefer.

Hi guys,
and thanks indeed for all your helpful and insightful replies!
Sorry it's taken me this long to reply, I live in Norway so the time difference with the US is quite large. I also barely slept (again) as my three-year old keeps waking us up at night…

Anyway, I'll try and manage some specific, coherent replies and summaries of what's been said so far:

Seems like most people want to game dungeoncrawl in 25/28mm, which is what Ive been doing in playtests.

I think then, that the printed edition will have to be in this scale, with gridded dungeon tiles of 1 inch squares, which should still be suitable for 20mm gaming (my favourite for dungeoncrawls, for the reasons Sgt Slag outlines above).

As Cerulucifus suggests, the tiles could be available for download in other scales – I want this to be as player-friendly and open to homebrewing as possible, in the spirit of 70's style gaming (which is what me and my friends here in Oslo always do).

Daryl – no problem, I understood what you meant about having only a few tiles on table at one time, while the party explores a larger dungeon – one of my group generally GMs his games in this way.

Parzival – I agree, generally the rooms and chambers will be 3X3 to 6X6 squares max. My plan is to have each dungeon tile as 8X8, but consisting of several chambers, tunnels and layouts – each turn as the party explores a new area, players take their turn to lay out a new tile (blind, from a blank reverse side), with a detailed new dungeon area to explore.
As you said in your earlier thread, games like ravensloft have incredibly dull, underwhelming dungeon tiles. Nothing to see, nothing to do but fight the monster and weather whatever ill effect is blasted at the party (always something bad, usually irritating, never fun).
Each of my tiles will have individual detail and areas clearly deliniated to search or interact with – summoning circles, wizard's shelves, tombs, monsters' nests, fungus groves, etc.

So what this means is, of course, that details on the tile must be scaled roughly to the figures used – furniture, human skeletons, etc – it's fine if some are outsized or undersized, but if all were, it might look odd.

Mainly28s: timeframe! well, the rules basically work fine but need to be streamlined, some character generation added (i've done just premade characters so far), and most remaining card and token aspects need to be removed. That won't take too long.
But I need to make all new tiles with original artwork, not the dummies scratchbuilt from copywrighted stuff i've been playtesting with until now.
And if i'm going to make cardstock figures as well…that could add quite some time too.
I have to do all this myself, as I'm a typical penniless gamer, unless some kind soul would like to offer his art services for free…

('…' sound of echoing voice lost in the dungeon gloom)

So we're looking at at least a year until it's ready to come out, but perhaps it's not necessary to make too many figures…What do you fellows reckon?
Maybe just enough figures for one scenario, since after all, this is a game to be played with miniatures.

Anyway, that's all my sleep-deprived mind can manage right now!
Thanks again for all your positive comments and insights – I'll try and adapt the game to include as much of the concensus preferences here as possible, and all good ideas. I will keep you posted on developments – this week I'll be editing the rules and mocking up some all-original dungeon tiles.

Cheers,

Jamie

I've just remembered something…since I'm going to write up some basic character generation tomorrow, and rewrite character advancment, I'd like to know how you guys prefer to see character advancement done in a basic dungeoncrawl game.

Currently, advancement works by characters spending accumulated xp on individual advances – a 1 or 2 pt increase to a Stat like Strength or Magic, or buying a new feat such as Sneak.

Do you prefer this approach, which allows individual character tailoring, or do you prefer xp equating to simple character levels with set advancements by character class?

Personally I would prefer individual advances but I probably would be playing with my wife so set advancement would work better for her.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, warwell: people are going to be divided 50/50 on this, so I should probably just stick with my current system.
The individual advance system is still really easy and makes 'rewards' and advancement come pretty often, so even in a short session, players can feel their characters have achieved something and improved.

Far too cool! In 28mm, please!

Thanks Broadsword,
yep, it's looking like 28mm is the way to go…time for me to get back to painting dungeontiles. I hope you like the old-school pen and watercolour style!

Hey Twin,

As someone considering knocking up something similar…some thoughts.

1) Do you need to bother making/designing tiles? I don't think so. There are loads of brilliant options available to most gamers (as easy as using a Chessex gaming mat and a marker), so I wouldn't feel too pressured to release a dungeon with your game/rules.

2) If you're going to make it a full text game…definitely consider a PDF option which will allow easy international sales, higher profit margins, ease of change, and lower price and would not require a kickstarter at all (though a nice printed option is always lovely)

3) If you feel the need to make tiles, go 28mm…20mm and 15mm can play just fine on slightly exaggerated tiles…and I imagine 28mm is far and away the most common.

4) With regards to advance…I'm either or. I'm far too addicted to random stuff a bit out of the characters control, so I adore random-tables etc. (I like any game feature which gives a moment of pause to power gamers…). I'm sure you'll be fine with whatever advancement system you go with.

I'd love to see what you come up with.

Thanks for all the great comments and advice, TurnStyle.

Yes, I think both print and pdf versions of the rules is essential.

You're probably right in that I don't really need to design tiles…but I'd like to, given that I haven't found anything I really like available to buy ready made. There are loads of great pdf tiles, but I want something durable and that won't make my printer commit hara kiri!

But since I'm still in the middle of another long-term project, making the tiles will have to wait, so I'll concentrate on finishing off the new version of the rules first.

Cheers!

If you can make nice tiles, definitely go for it – just don't limit yourself to feeling compelled to have them as a required component to your game. I think we all love choice (and nowdays we're quite spoilt for it!) but I'd just make sure you don't tie your game to the tiles themselves.

A lot of folks have plenty o' dungeon already and might be turned off it becomes a "you must buy this all together in a big bundle" approach.

Keep us posted with what you do. Sounds fun.

Hi Turnstyle, sorry for my delay in replying…been (and still am) ill…
anyway:

I totally agree and think games should be as open for play as possible. The difficulty I've encountered in designing a GM-less dungeoncrawl game, is how to include narrative foucs and direction to a game without custom-made tiles.
I'm sure it's possible, it's just that by designing my own tiles, it's easier to bind together event card/table elements and tie them to elements on the tile – it greatly simplifies and speeds where to place monsters, how to search a room, how to interact with dungeon tile features, etc.
Without using my own tiles, I had to design tons of random tables to add that dimension…it was ok if I directed a game, but slower for newcomers…

But you are right, and openness and adaptability is the best ethos…so I guess I'll have to rethink some more game elements and try to strip them right down to basics, while still having enough 'bite' and story to pull the adventure along – any ideas are very welcome!

No no no,

I understand very well what you mean. Something I've struggled with a bit (having resorted to a card-deck/tables system…in the early phases at the moment). I personally love unique tiles etc. just pointing out that you'll have a slightly smaller customer base.

GM-less and rich or driving story is pretty tough. I'll probably end up using a WHQ style "objective room" kind of process…but it'll never be quite as intriguing as a properly created storyline run by a GM.

As long as your system is open to a GM (allowing both types of play) I'd say you're golden.

I even considered spending a long time compiling a gigantic "choose your own adventure" style book which would allow numerous adventures and would advance based on player decisions etc. That idea is pretty intriguing (though technically limiting).

What would your tiles be, btw? Nice heavy card, or just print-outs?

Hope you feel better!

Thanks Turnstyle!

Yep, I've considered doing some Fighting Fantasy-type numbered story elements for running encounters with npcs/monsters when the party chooses not to fight them, but as I'm sure you discovered, it's a bit complicated and players can quickly remember how each scenario plays out – as with the Lone Wolf and Cub boardgame, which included the 'choose you rown adventure' element.

I'm keeping it to short random entries on encounter cards instead.

For dungeon tiles (if I forge ahead on that crazed path) I'd go with heavy stock card, with the option to print out from a website, of course. I'd be more than happy for people to add their own on forums, or use whatever they find, if I can make that work by streamlinging the basic rules…you know how difficult that is!

Still, I think a few pages of encounter and search tables should suffice, printed on a Gm's screen type thing. But getting my current vast stacks of cards and tables down to that will take a little while!

I'd be very interested in this. I love 20-25mm, and have all the Caesar fantasy lines. I did get the Dark Alliance Orcs, but have to say I didn't like them as much as the Caesar ones.

The Adventurers are still available, and I think they are working on the fantasy series in general still, but should be able to report back on that in the near future.

If you are on Facebook, do please link up with me on my page SOME VIEWPOINT (and identify yourself as putting this game together) – I may then be able to help share / promote your crowdfunding campaign when it goes ahead.
All the best – Jerry
(Also doing social media for @miniknight – / Caesar Miniatures.)

Thanks, I really appreciate that, Jerry. I hope we can get in touch another way, as actually i'm not on facebook.

I love Caesar's fantasy line and 20mm in general. BTW, do you know if Caesar's elves will be availabel again soon? They seem to be out of stock pretty much everywhere, including on their own (or their partner's) webshop.

Cheers,

Jamie.

The only ones currently available are the 'Adventurers'
I think they will re-introduce the Fantasy line in due course, although I have no date at the moment.
You may find some at retailers like Hannants and Drum & Flag which would be old stock.
As soon as i get any news on this series, I'll pass it on – because it is those lines that drew me to Caesar in the first place.

Same for me – it was the fantasy line that drew me firs. Although I love Caesar's historical range too – and lots of them work well for fantasy, I really hope they relauch the range and expand it – a box of dungeon monsters would be excellent, as well as some civilians.

I've pretty much scoured the web for the last sets, and there's not much left exect at exorbitant costs for either or both figures and shipping.

When and if you get any news, please do let us know!

BTW, I will be designing my game mainly for 28mm (most people on this thread have also advised me this is the best approach), but I think the rules and tiles will still work fine for 20mm (which is what i'll be playing in).