Gygax's Dungeon Design

I wrote an essay the other day on the way Gygax designed his dungeons, specifically around the idea that many of his most famous dungeons are a break from the advice in OD&D. They are not randomly or otherwise quickly generated "funhouses" the several levels and a lot of efforts to thwart player navigation where random encounters produce most of the conflict. Instead, Gygax's most famous modules are "Fortresses" where he's made a naturalistic effort to create a learnable, coherent and themed space, where the primary obstacle is a powerful organized foe that can only be confronted with "Combat as War" tactics.

I am curious what other people think of this thesis so I'm sharing the blog here:

Gus L said:

I wrote an essay the other day on the way Gygax designed his dungeons, specifically around the idea that many of his most famous dungeons are a break from the advice in OD&D. They are not randomly or otherwise quickly generated "funhouses" the several levels and a lot of efforts to thwart player navigation where random encounters produce most of the conflict. Instead, Gygax's most famous modules are "Fortresses" where he's made a naturalistic effort to create a learnable, coherent and themed space, where the primary obstacle is a powerful organized foe that can only be confronted with "Combat as War" tactics.

I am curious what other people think of this thesis so I'm sharing the blog here:

GYGAX'S FORTRESS

Gary Gygax is probably the best known name in Role Playing Games -- still, nearly 15 years after his death. Considered Dungeons & Dragons’ ...

alldeadgenerations.blogspot.com

Click to expand...

Well, his published Dungeons were mostly designed for Tournament play: his home-game Castle Greyhawk formed the advice in the book, and that never really saw publication.

Parmandur said:

Well, his published Dungeons were mostly designed for Tournament play: his home-game Castle Greyhawk formed the advice in the book, and that never really saw publication.

Click to expand...

I mean neither the G series nor B2 are tournament modules - and mostly this is what I'm considering. Greyhawk (which I touch on in the prior post of the "stack" style of dungeon from OD&D's examples) is his early dungeon, but I suspect his own design evolved considerably over time.

The issue is somewhat compounded because it can be hard to know which adventures he wrote - Tomb of Horrors for example Gygax merely tuned up for tournament play.

Gus L said:

I mean neither the G series nor B2 are tournament modules - and mostly this is what I'm considering. Greyhawk (which I touch on in the prior post of the "stack" style of dungeon from OD&D's examples) is his early dungeon, but I suspect his own design evolved considerably over time.

The issue is somewhat compounded because it can be hard to know which adventures he wrote - Tomb of Horrors for example Gygax merely tuned up for tournament play.

Click to expand...

The G Series were a three part Tournament at Origins '78, that is what they were written for. B2 was not a tournament...but frankly could have been used for one.

Parmandur said:

The G Series were a three part Tournament at Origins '78, that is what they were written for. B2 was not a tournament...but frankly could have been used for one.

Click to expand...

Ah yes that is totally correct. Though G1 at least has a very different feel from the later tournament stuff. When I think Tournament modules I tend to think of stuff like Tamoachan and the A series. More aggressively structured and gimmicky.

I still don't think Gygax's design is entirely a result of the one-shot/tournament focus, though that might explain some more about how this style of adventure works and what they evolved to do. As I note with the "Gygaxian Fortress" name there is something in these adventures that breaks strongly from the purported design of Castle Greyhawk and very much creates a particular kind of scenario.

It might be interesting to take Gygax's adventures and look at how the "tournamentness" of them evolves over time? Especially by comparing the adventures to the rules and other notes regarding the style of tournament involved.

Gus L said:

Ah yes that is totally correct. though G1 at least has a very different feel from the later tournament stuff. When I think Tournament modules I tend to think of stuff like Tamoachan and the A series. More aggressive structured and gimmicky.

I still don't think Gygax's design is entirely a result of the one-shot/tournament focus, though that might explain some more about how this style of adventure works and what they evolved to do. As I note with the "Gygaxian Fortress" name something in these adventures that breaks strongly from the purported design of Castle Greyhawk and very much creates a particular kind of scenario.

It might be interesting to take Gygax's adventures and look at how the "tournamentness" of them evolves over time? Especially by comparing the adventures to the rules and other notes regarding the style of tournament involved.

Click to expand...

I think Shannon Applecline has written a bit about how the 70s Tournament scene had a big impact on how published Adventures ended up evolving: they make a more coherent package than a Megadungeon, by definition easier to drip into a campaign and play.

Gygax had the two perspectives: what he put in the books, and how he played the game himself. Tim Kask is one of the last people living who actually played with Gygax, and he confirms that Gray had his own house-rules for D&D. So with module design, it seems we were getting both RAW and his revised methodology.

Edit: great article! I think this is going to finally push me to getting around to watching The Guns of Navarone.

While the later tournament modules more clearly delineate extra content added for publication to the streamlined original tournament scenario, it's still my impression that the G series are either expanded or were expected to take considerably longer to play than a "standard" four hour tournament slot.

Delta ran most of the G-D series modules at tournaments in the 2000s using his more streamlined OD&D variant rather than AD&D and tended to find that there's just too much STUFF in the modules to get them anywhere close to completed in a single session. Which apparently was the case when they were originally run, too.

Theory of Games said:

Gygax had the two perspectives: what he put in the books, and how he played the game himself. Tim Kask is one of the last people living who actually played with Gygax, and he confirms that Gray had his own house-rules for D&D. So with module design, it seems we were getting both RAW and his revised methodology.

Click to expand...

The picture is a little more complex than that, and how Gary ran it clearly evolved over time.

I'm sure Tim is correct about when he was playing with Gary. Luke Gygax reports that when he and others were playing with his dad in the late 70s to early 80s they commonly used AD&D rules, with little modification. Later, in the 2000s when Gary was appearing at conventions and participating in extensive Q&A threads here and on Dragonsfoot (other places as well?) he had reverted back to OD&D and explained some of his house rules. You can track down those posts on here and read them today, if you like.

Gygax's real genius was in allowing D/GMs to shape the rules into what we like. He paved the way for the OSR.