Megadungeons In Four Dimensions

"Dwarves may opt only for the fighting class, and they may never progress beyond 6th level (Myrmidon). Their advantages are: 1) they have a high level of magic resistance, and they thus add four levels when rolling saving throws (a 6th level dwarf equals a 10th level human); 2) they are the only characters able to fully employ the +3 Magic War Hammer (explained in Volume II); 3) they note slanting passages, traps, shifting walls AND NEW CONSTRUCTION (emphasis mine) in underground settings ..."

- 1974 Dungeons & Dragons, Volume I, Men & Magic, page 7

I've been giving a great deal of thought, lately, to the design of a megadungeon. One of the purported features of a megadungeon is that it is a "living" dungeon: it is constantly changing, both in its inhabitants and construction. Adventurers come and go, and as they do, killed monsters are replaced by new ones, and conflict between the denizens continues. In addition, new areas are opened up, either through new construction, magic, or perhaps primal forces at work, warping the environment.

In OD&D, Dwarves have a unique and powerful ability: to detect new construction in underground settings. How far -- through time; the fourth dimension -- does that ability extend? Can dwarves estimate the relative age of the dungeon construction, and techniques employed? One of the beauties of unanswered questions like this, is that most of us felt free to come up with our own answers (god forbid we send that question to Sage Advice).

My interest in the Dwarvish ability to detect new construction is related to my megadungeon musing, since my dungeon design assumes a multi-staired and passaged nexus point, from which the dungeon flows in many different directions. One of the possible clues to the connections between areas is similarities in construction, which should help the players guess who the original designers were, and for what were those areas used. The related difficulty of using this feature, in my megadungeon, is in making it meaningful, recording it in some way on my own map, and providing related visual or descriptive clues to the players.


I have not yet arrived at a satisfactory solution to my mapping problem. Perhaps different wall colors on my map, or modifying the fill behind the walls to signify different construction? However, I am leaning towards using different Hirst Arts floor and wall tiles to signify different construction areas to the players.

Megadungeons In Four Dimensions

"Dwarves may opt only for the fighting class, and they may never progress beyond 6th level (Myrmidon). Their advantages are: 1) they have a high level of magic resistance, and they thus add four levels when rolling saving throws (a 6th level dwarf equals a 10th level human); 2) they are the only characters able to fully employ the +3 Magic War Hammer (explained in Volume II); 3) they note slanting passages, traps, shifting walls AND NEW CONSTRUCTION (emphasis mine) in underground settings ..."

- 1974 Dungeons & Dragons, Volume I, Men & Magic, page 7

I've been giving a great deal of thought, lately, to the design of a megadungeon. One of the purported features of a megadungeon is that it is a "living" dungeon: it is constantly changing, both in its inhabitants and construction. Adventurers come and go, and as they do, killed monsters are replaced by new ones, and conflict between the denizens continues. In addition, new areas are opened up, either through new construction, magic, or perhaps primal forces at work, warping the environment.

In OD&D, Dwarves have a unique and powerful ability: to detect new construction in underground settings. How far -- through time; the fourth dimension -- does that ability extend? Can dwarves estimate the relative age of the dungeon construction, and techniques employed? One of the beauties of unanswered questions like this, is that most of us felt free to come up with our own answers (god forbid we send that question to Sage Advice).

My interest in the Dwarvish ability to detect new construction is related to my megadungeon musing, since my dungeon design assumes a multi-staired and passaged nexus point, from which the dungeon flows in many different directions. One of the possible clues to the connections between areas is similarities in construction, which should help the players guess who the original designers were, and for what were those areas used. The related difficulty of using this feature, in my megadungeon, is in making it meaningful, recording it in some way on my own map, and providing related visual or descriptive clues to the players.


I have not yet arrived at a satisfactory solution to my mapping problem. Perhaps different wall colors on my map, or modifying the fill behind the walls to signify different construction? However, I am leaning towards using different Hirst Arts floor and wall tiles to signify different construction areas to the players.

In Which Jean Wells Loses It: Or, "You're Playing It Wrong!"

I notice no small measure of condescension being heaped upon those who waste their time investigating, and writing about, the history of "the hobby."

This is unfortunate, as looking back allows us to see how we got to where we are today, and helps inform our understanding of the development of the game.

As I look through old issues of The Dragon, I can't help but be reminded of the challenges that the designers faced, in trying to communicate their expectations of how Dungeons and Dragons was to be played.

Here's a fine example of that challenge, from the Sage Advice column, authored by Jean Wells. This is from The Dragon, Issue #37, May 1980.

The question is posed: "How does my 9th level Druid / 10th Level MU, with 18.83 Int, 18.90 Wis and 18.84 Cha, combine his two artifacts, the Apparatus of Kwalish and the Mighty Servant of Leuk-O, to create the ultimate weapon, and can I triple-class, adding Cleric levels to the mix?"

Jean Wells' response: "My first reaction [after reading this letter] was IIIIIEEEE!"

You can read the entire question, and response, by clicking on the excerpt.

My point in posting this is that, in order to understand why the game evolved the way it did, you need to understand what feedback was being provided to the game designers. As you read through the editorials, letters to the editor, and articles in The Dragon, themes begin to emerge, revealing why the game developed (and continues to develop) the way it does.

Some final words from Jean Wells, in the same Sage Advice column: "Readers are once again reminded that Sage Advice is designed to settle specific questions concerning rule definitions or interpretations. General questions about procedure in an adventure or campaign should be handled by the DM of that campaign...."

I don't believe some of the more outrageous questions or situations were the norm. But those were the sorts of things that the game designers were reacting to. Any wonder that the rules became increasingly complicated and detailed, and the actions of the DMs and players increasingly proscribed.

In Which Jean Wells Loses It: Or, "You're Playing It Wrong!"

I notice no small measure of condescension being heaped upon those who waste their time investigating, and writing about, the history of "the hobby."

This is unfortunate, as looking back allows us to see how we got to where we are today, and helps inform our understanding of the development of the game.

As I look through old issues of The Dragon, I can't help but be reminded of the challenges that the designers faced, in trying to communicate their expectations of how Dungeons and Dragons was to be played.

Here's a fine example of that challenge, from the Sage Advice column, authored by Jean Wells. This is from The Dragon, Issue #37, May 1980.

The question is posed: "How does my 9th level Druid / 10th Level MU, with 18.83 Int, 18.90 Wis and 18.84 Cha, combine his two artifacts, the Apparatus of Kwalish and the Mighty Servant of Leuk-O, to create the ultimate weapon, and can I triple-class, adding Cleric levels to the mix?"

Jean Wells' response: "My first reaction [after reading this letter] was IIIIIEEEE!"

You can read the entire question, and response, by clicking on the excerpt.

My point in posting this is that, in order to understand why the game evolved the way it did, you need to understand what feedback was being provided to the game designers. As you read through the editorials, letters to the editor, and articles in The Dragon, themes begin to emerge, revealing why the game developed (and continues to develop) the way it does.

Some final words from Jean Wells, in the same Sage Advice column: "Readers are once again reminded that Sage Advice is designed to settle specific questions concerning rule definitions or interpretations. General questions about procedure in an adventure or campaign should be handled by the DM of that campaign...."

I don't believe some of the more outrageous questions or situations were the norm. But those were the sorts of things that the game designers were reacting to. Any wonder that the rules became increasingly complicated and detailed, and the actions of the DMs and players increasingly proscribed.

Sage Advice from Jean Wells, or, My Eyes Just Melted

More questioning goodness from the "Sage Advice from Jean Wells" column, appearing in The Dragon magazine, Issue #32, December 1979.

Question: I have been playing Dungeons and Dragons for several months, to the point where I have challenged Asmodeus and won! Is Asmodeus in lemure state now, until he can regain his former status, or is Baalzebul in charge? Answer: Several months? What took you so long? No, you're in charge now. Good luck with that.

Question: I have a female character who has gotten herself pregnant. How should I handle this? Answer: "Time passes. You give the child up for adoption and continue adventuring." Any questions?

Question: I am having a romance with a god, but he won't have anything to do with me until I divorce my present husband. How do I go about divorcing my husband? Answer: I presume your question relates to your D&D game, and are referring to your in-game husband ...

Reality check, reality check. Testing, testing, 1-2-3.

I have to go lay down now.

Sage Advice from Jean Wells, or, My Eyes Just Melted

More questioning goodness from the "Sage Advice from Jean Wells" column, appearing in The Dragon magazine, Issue #32, December 1979.

Question: I have been playing Dungeons and Dragons for several months, to the point where I have challenged Asmodeus and won! Is Asmodeus in lemure state now, until he can regain his former status, or is Baalzebul in charge? Answer: Several months? What took you so long? No, you're in charge now. Good luck with that.

Question: I have a female character who has gotten herself pregnant. How should I handle this? Answer: "Time passes. You give the child up for adoption and continue adventuring." Any questions?

Question: I am having a romance with a god, but he won't have anything to do with me until I divorce my present husband. How do I go about divorcing my husband? Answer: I presume your question relates to your D&D game, and are referring to your in-game husband ...

Reality check, reality check. Testing, testing, 1-2-3.

I have to go lay down now.