OD&D's Dungeon Design - The Primordial Stack

Gus L · Jun 23, 2024

I have an interest in some of the ways that D&D has evolved in the last 50 years, especially in how the dungeon crawl is played and portrayed. Lately I've been thinking about the "design forms" for dungeons and how different editions and sources from OD&D "Underworld and Wilderness Adventures" to 5E's "Dungeon Masters Guide" advise creating the adventure, specifically. I suspect from a brief exchange with @Snarf Zagyg regardign B1 v. B2 and changes in the TSR design/play style that I'm not alone in this and wonder what other people think?

The specific topic I'm reaching towards is not the aesthetics of dungeon design, but the practical advice provided by or embodied in various works, scenes or editions and how they interact with various rules (mechanics or procedure) to create distinct play styles and focuses.

To start with I think the dungeon design advice in OD&D (the 1974 "Little Brown Books") is fascinating in how much it both sets the standards for future design and how much it focuses on the aspect of player mapping and map puzzles. Likewise how the structure of the OD&D "sample" dungeon is a tall stack of smaller levels with lots of vertical connections. In many ways this design style flows naturally into the design of Jennell Jaquays (Caverns of Thracia especially), but it's also at least somewhat distinct from that of other early published dungeon designers and the practices of "home games" for both the big names of early D&D such as Gygax's Castle Greyhawk or even the dungeon design showcased in early community/fan spaces (such as Alarums & Excursions).

Anyway I wrote a fair bit more about this idea some months ago on my blog which I'm linking below.

Underground Maze & Primordial Stack

Since I'm currently thinking a lot about Jaquays' dungeon design and how it's distinct - something that goes far beyond "Jaquaysing" in the usual map focused sense, I'm quite interested in hearing what others think about the design advice in OD&D?

Snarf Zagyg · Jun 23, 2024

Two things-

Unfortunately, I cannot click that link. It is giving me an error.

I have thoughts on this, of course, but I think that a lot of "Original" design ethos was predicated on the idea of what we call "skilled play" as a mode of playing D&D. That dungeons were a test of player skill.

In that way, resource management, mapping, and "meta-game" knowledge (it gets harder as you go down, puzzles and traps that are solved by player knowledge) was emphasized in older dungeon design.

Gus L · Jun 23, 2024

Snarf Zagyg said:
Two things-

Unfortunately, I cannot click that link. It is giving me an error.

Thanks! Should be fixed now!

Snarf Zagyg said:
I have thoughts on this, of course, but I think that a lot of "Original" design ethos was predicated on the idea of what we call "skilled play" as a mode of playing D&D. That dungeons were a test of player skill.

In that way, resource management, mapping, and "meta-game" knowledge (it gets harder as you go down, puzzles and traps that are solved by player knowledge) was emphasized in older dungeon design.

This I think is largely correct - at least for what the Lake Geneva style becomes (very quickly) by the time D&D is fully published and propogating in the wild. I also think it's a style that defines the early OSR (The "Revival" or "Forum" OSR) and maybe even what Retired Adventurer's "Six Styles" essay calls "Classic". Though I think the degree of "player knowledge" in this style, or at least the part that isn't meta knowledge, isn't really all it's hyped up as. For example I don't think we see any early dungeons designed for this style of play that talk about the in game ways that a secret door works (this as far as I know is a Jaquays thing) so it would be very hard to apply player know how and problem solving to them. I suspect instead that a lot of it is "Search and Check for traps" sung in a mantra like manner in every room (as we sang it in my first D&D game - and which still pops unbidden into my head sometimes... like when looking for a bar bathroom).

What I find fascinating though is that the design advice in OD&D isn't this!

It's something even much closer to a maze game and to me at least has hints of DUNGEON! the board game (which I am coming to think should be considered as much an early D&D as things like Blackmoor and Greyhawk). So it's design for a board game/wargame that highlights small "mazey" levels in a tall stack and really puts stuff like Craig VanGrasstek's "Game of Dungeon" into a context.

Mark Hope · Jun 24, 2024

Gus L said:
What I find fascinating though is that the design advice in OD&D isn't this!

It's something even much closer to a maze game and to me at least has hints of DUNGEON! the board game (which I am coming to think should be considered as much an early D&D as things like Blackmoor and Greyhawk). So it's design for a board game/wargame that highlights small "mazey" levels in a tall stack and really puts stuff like Craig VanGrasstek's "Game of Dungeon" into a context.

I think this is an accurate assessment and supported by accounts of the time. The boardgame was designed to mirror the dungeon explorations of Blackmoor after all, so its influence is strong.

Cool article too - I really dig the analysis of comparative level size and how that affects the pressure to include more vertical exploration options to maintain variety and player interest

Gus L · Jun 24, 2024

Mark Hope said:
I really dig the analysis of comparative level size and how that affects the pressure to include more vertical exploration options to maintain variety and player interest

Glad you liked it. I think looking at the OD&D design ideas is helpful because it really drives home that the large mega dungeons are a design choice of both the late 1970's and the early-mid OSR. They aren't bad, but they are difficult to run in the shorter sessions online play demands. I think that the Primordial Stack offers a few ways around this - much easier entrance and exit, multiple paths, shortcuts, and entrances especially. I am less enamored with it's maze style puzzles, I tend to think that mapping puzzles are not especially fun as a major party of play for example.

I've written up about three levels of a primordial stack - maybe 70 rooms total and it feels very functional as a design style. Have to find time to playtest once I've gotten all my layout jobs done on the main project.

Reynard · Jun 24, 2024

How does this design style square with the distribution of monsters and treasure along with traps, as exemplified by the systems presented in either the DMG or B/X? Or is it "over" by then?

Gus L · Jun 24, 2024

Reynard said:
How does this design style square with the distribution of monsters and treasure along with traps, as exemplified by the systems presented in either the DMG or B/X? Or is it "over" by then?

So OD&D's monster and treasure distribution scheme is part of the confusion - it presents seemingly multiple options (I like every other OD&D fan have a "100% CORRECT WAY!") ... but I also think OD&D giant rats have 2-13HD...so ummm...It's OD&D!

What's interesting here, and part of the point I make in the post, is that the "Sample Dungeon" doesn't have monster encounters - two potential set piece monsters are vaguely mentioned (ogres and a basilisk), while treasure is likewise not examined. I think this presents a few interesting things.
A) The locus of play and the focus of design is very much on the map.
B) OD&D may envision purely randomized encounter and treasure - both placement and actual "random encounters"
C) OD&D's "Sample Dungeon" and dungeon design advice may be for a fundamentally distinct sort of game - the 1/2 written version of D&D as a commando raid supplement for fantasy wargames that I've mentioned before... that then transformed into an RPG midway through writing. Some parts feel less updated then others.

So to answer your questions....how does OD&D handle monster & treasure distribution... It depends.

A) we have the sample dungeon which treats monsters as an afterthought.
B) Then, next page, we have a brief table that is the along the typical early D&D 1/3 empty rooms 1/3 treasure 1/3 monster and some overlap (less unguarded treasure etc)
C) A few pages later we have random encounter advice - which is coupled with quite a nice set of nested tables and the nesting aspect (you can meet small numbers of level 4 monsters on level 1 for example) deserves more attention - it's too often used as 8 monster types per dungeon level.

There are a few more tidbits tossed around that generally rationalize monster placement, power levels and numbers. These seem to have been ignored in some important communities - specifically some of the West Coast tables that ultimately led to more heroic play styles and who tried to follow the Number Appearing stat on the monster tables... so 200 orcs and such was possible. It's a fascinating thing that helps evolve modern D&D because it's part of that scene (not being wargamers) wanting more heroic games. From this blossoms feats, Ravenloft, CoC, and narrative design etc etc. Also Pendragon - we should all give a moment of respect for Pendragon.

Anyways...

Basically monster and treasure placement in OD&D is a mess, but at the least I can say the following about how I approach it.
A) It's "Level Based" Balance. I.E. the challenges you face on the first level of the dungeon is for first level PCs etc. This uses the singular dungeon approach of OD&D - quite interesting how this evolved with referees having their unique signature dungeons. It's less useful in published adventures for campaign use.
B) It may focus on random stocking ... but I don't think it really needs to or random stocking works. It wouldn't work well with the traps and tricks really - like you want a treasure reward for figuring out the stupid spinning room etc. Some early dungeons follow the random stocking idea seemingly - Palace of the Vampire Queen feels this way. Again I don't think it works well with the size of the levels though.
OD&D monster design and placement deserves its own post... someday.

The thing I like about the OD&D sample is that one can see how it evolves into some of the new and amazing design choices for Caverns of Thracia

Reynard · Jun 24, 2024

Gus L said:
So OD&D's monster and treasure distribution scheme is part of the confusion - it presents seemingly multiple options (I like every other OD&D fan have a "100% CORRECT WAY!" ... but I also think OD&D giant rats have 2-13HD...so ummm...It's OD&D!

What's interesting here, and part of the point I make in the post, is that the "Sample Dungeon" doesn't have monster encounters - two potential set piece monsters are vaguely mentioned (ogres and a basilisk), while treasure is likewise not examined. I think this presents a few interesting things.
A) The locus of play and the focus of design is very much on the map.
B) OD&D may envision purely randomized encounter and treasure - both placement and actual "random encounters"
C) OD&D's "Sample Dungeon" and dungeon design advice may be for a fundamentally distinct sort of game - the 1/2 written version of D&D as a commando raid supplement for fantasy wargames that I've mentioned before... that then transformed into an RPG midway through writing. Some parts feel less updated then others.

So to answer your questions....how does OD&D handle monster & treasure distribution... It depends.

A) we have the sample dungeon which treats monsters as an afterthought.
B) Then, next page, we have a brief table that is the along the typical early D&D 1/3 empty rooms 1/3 treasure 1/3 monster and some overlap (less unguarded treasure etc)
C) A few pages later we have random encounter advice - which is coupled with quite a nice set of nested tables and the nesting aspect (you can meet small numbers of level 4 monsters on level 1 for example) deserves more attention - it's too often used as 8 monster types per dungeon level.

There are a few more tidbits tossed around that generally rationalize monster placement, power levels and numbers. These seem to have been ignored in some important communities - specifically some of the West Coast tables that ultimately led to more heroic play styles and who tried to follow the Number Appearing stat on the monster tables... so 200 orcs and such was possible. It's a fascinating thing that helps evolve modern D&D because it's part of that scene (not being wargamers) wanting more heroic games. From this blossoms feats, Ravenloft, CoC, and narrative design etc etc. Also Pendragon - we should all give a moment of respect for Pendragon.

Anyways...

Basically monster and treasure placement in OD&D is a mess, but at the least I can say the following about how I approach it.
A) It's "Level Based" Balance. I.E. the challenges you face on the first level of the dungeon is for first level PCs etc. This uses the singular dungeon approach of OD&D - quite interesting how this evolved with referees having their unique signature dungeons. It's less useful in published adventures for campaign use.
B) It may focus on random stocking ... but I don't think it really needs to or random stocking works. It wouldn't work well with the traps and tricks really - like you want a treasure reward for figuring out the stupid spinning room etc. Some early dungeons follow the random stocking idea seemingly - Palace of the Vampire Queen feels this way. Again I don't think it works well with the size of the levels though.
OD&D monster design and placement deserves its own post... someday.

The thing I like about the OD&D sample is that one can see how it evolves into some of the new and amazing design choices for Caverns of Thracia

Thanks for the detailed reply.

That West Coat-Midwest divide is interesting to me. the first time I really learned about it was The Elusive Shift, where Peterson documented a bunch of the communication and fanzines of the early days.

I wonder (and don't recall if that book mentioned it) was there a East Coast play culture? One would think some of the big schools in the NE such as MIT would have developed D&D communities at the same time.

Gus L · Jun 24, 2024

Reynard said:
I wonder (and don't recall if that book mentioned it) was there a East Coast play culture? One would think some of the big schools in the NE such as MIT would have developed D&D communities at the same time.

Not that I know of - I think you can maybe break things down into Twin Cities and Lake Geneva for a few things, but it's not that much of a difference once D&D is published at least - both sort of become team TSR pretty quickly.

Alarums & Excursions is worth a read btw.

Snarf Zagyg · Jun 24, 2024

Reynard said:
I wonder (and don't recall if that book mentioned it) was there a East Coast play culture? One would think some of the big schools in the NE such as MIT would have developed D&D communities at the same time.

MIT was (in)famous for the "killer dungeon" approach, and I would argue that the MIT approach of high lethality is probably what people think of when they think of the extremes of that approach.

OD&D's Dungeon Design - The Primordial Stack

Gus L

Explorer

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist

Gus L

Explorer

Mark Hope

Hero

Gus L

Explorer

Reynard

Legend

Gus L

Explorer

Reynard

Legend

Gus L

Explorer

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist

Similar Threads

Voidrunner's Codex