BoV for dungeons?

[Isamu]

I'm curious if anyone else thinks a BoV type review process to help the best dungeon scenarios rise to the top would be a good idea.

BoV is a great resource for balanced, well-tested maps and I'd love to have a similar resource for dungeons.

Are there any plans for a new system, or for BoV to accept and approve dungeon scenarios?

[Creationist]

I doubt the latter will occur. The BoV is for tournament maps of a certain kind. It would be interesting to have a similar styled review of dungeons. The problem is that there are so many ways to go with a dungeon, and that a dungeon is multiple maps. The main problems are probably the enormity of dungeons and the variance of said dungeons. For example, one dungeon might be 7 rooms that are kill em all and another dungeon that is 3 rooms with puzzles. How do you compare the 2 dungeons with one system?

[Darkmage7a]

I don't know about a BoV style committee, but it would be nice if everything followed a similar format for displaying information.

Such as listing;
the required terrains
the specific figures required
how much space you need
approximate time to set up
approximate time to play
I think if people knew they had the time and materials to play out a dungeon beforehand they would be more inclined to read through it and give it a try.

[Creationist]

I don't know about a BoV style committee, but it would be nice if everything followed a similar format for displaying information.

Such as listing;
the required terrains
the specific figures required
how much space you need
approximate time to set up
approximate time to play
I think if people knew they had the time and materials to play out a dungeon beforehand they would be more inclined to read through it and give it a try.
The major problem is that dungeons contain very heavy amounts of special rules that wouldnt occur in something like a BOV map. Maybe only a kill-em-all style dungeon reviewing, but that takes the essence out of the dungeons.

[Velenne]

I don't know about a BoV style committee, but it would be nice if everything followed a similar format for displaying information.

Such as listing;
the required terrains
the specific figures required
how much space you need
approximate time to set up
approximate time to play
I think if people knew they had the time and materials to play out a dungeon beforehand they would be more inclined to read through it and give it a try.

I agree that a panel isn't needed in Dungeons but I'm very keen on the idea of standard presentation formatting Darkmage is suggesting. I'd like to see something like this developed.

[SgtHulka]

I doubt the latter will occur. The BoV is for tournament maps of a certain kind.

I would actually find a BoV style thread for dungeons much more useful than for tournament maps. Why? Because there is absolutely no way to judge the balance of a dungeon without playtesting. If I see a dungeon on this site, I want to build it, play it and have fun. I don't want to playtest it and tweak it. That's too large an investment of time.

In other words, it's much more difficult to know whether a given dungeon is a cake walk for the heroes, for the monsters, or balanced, when it isn't just two 500 point armies duking it out. Is the D&D Masterset dungeon balanced? I think so. But I wouldn't have guessed it after playing the first room.

[BadBird]

I think this is actually a good idea. Something like the BoV but certainly not like the BoV....

My wheels have been turning after seeing (and playing) Scotts Sunken Crypt. It would be nice to have something to go to similar to the BoV but for dungeon crawl maps. I get that the BoV is for well tested balanced best of the best tourney maps. We don't need something as intense as that but something that serves a similar end, a list of well balanced, play tested somewhat accessible, fun dungeon crawl maps. Maps that we know others have played and enjoyed.

I can't see there being to many hard and fast rules, more like guide lines.


I think Scott nailed it.

Easy Instructions. Build and rules all in one place and easy to understand.

Custom glyphs and traps combined with official glyphs.

Not overly character specific. (Easy to swap out Heroes or squads for those you own)

4 rooms.

Increasing difficulty.

Not epic in scope. Not many have 12+ hours to play a game :shock:

And most of all fun!


Really the intent with this "DoV" (?Dungeons of.... ) would be for the purpose of discussing and positive criticism of given dungeon maps, perhaps by way of nomination, by a panel. The end result being a database of "go to" dungeon crawl maps. This panel would not necessarily have to be closed like the BoV (witch is very understandable mind you) but maybe more open and organic.

[Agent Minivann]

I think that wanting this to have included scenarios is a bit much. The BoV is about giving a balanced tournament experience. D&D scenarios are a different animal entirely. They aren't necessarily going to be balanced for one (especially if part of a larger campaign). What makes a good BoV map can be reduced down to a few fairly simple criteria. Balance, interesting decisions, and following the prescribed limit of terrain sets to name a few. What makes a good D&D scenario and map is a little more ambiguous. I think it would be hard enough to get a BoV type of approval process for D&D maps without scenarios. They're just going to be so different that you can't really approach them the same way.

Putting an "official" scenario on them would only pigeon hole the maps with a specific scenario in the minds of too many players. I think the real magic of the D&D set is to create a set of rooms that can be explored, and then revisited with new scenarios. Let's go back into the dungeon and see what nasties moved in after we got rid of the last ones.

I don't want to discourage people from putting something together if they so desire, but I would like to discourage them from attaching a scenario to a map. Or at least get a map (or maps) and make multiple scenarios for that map.

[Isamu]

It wouldn't have to be exactly like BoV, just some way to filter the best dungeon scenarios to the top.

Dungeons with fixed armies are actually easier to balance through play-testing, but with all the special rules and multiple rooms, it's harder to know if a scenario is balanced just by looking.

I was just thinking a 'community tested and approved' dungeons thread would be great when you just want a proven dungeon that you can setup and start playing quickly.

[Jexik]

Fair warning: such a thing would take an awful lot of time and effort.

[Warlord Alpha]

Hmmmm. I think some kind of database would be a good idea.

Like, there is a master index of dungeon campaigns people have created, and it is sortable by terrain and length and such. And users and can also rate the dungeons out of 10 stars or something like that.

Allowing users to submit the dungeons themselves in a standard kind of template would take all the work out of running it and organizing it.

The only issue I can see is that it would probably need to be done on an external site and would require somebody with a lot of experience creating web-based apps.

Although it will probably never be created, it is a nice thought nonetheless.

[SgtHulka]

Although it will probably never be created, it is a nice thought nonetheless.

Quoted for truth.

[Agent Minivann]

I think something that might have a lot of utility would be to create a set of rooms, and then multiple scenarios for each room. They could all work from the same starting army for player 1, but player 2 (the "DM") could have a set of scenarios for each room. He draws one from deck, so to speak, and plays that set up. Each time through the campaign could be a completely different experience.

[Scott]

I think Scott nailed it.

Thanks!

Really the intent with this "DoV" (?Dungeons of.... ) would be for the purpose of discussing and positive criticism of given dungeon maps, perhaps by way of nomination, by a panel. The end result being a database of "go to" dungeon crawl maps.

No reason to exclude Marvel, right? So I suggest "Dungeons of Marvel and Valhalla" or DMV.

I don't want to discourage people from putting something together if they so desire, but I would like to discourage them from attaching a scenario to a map. Or at least get a map (or maps) and make multiple scenarios for that map.

That's a really interesting couple of ideas there. I don't know about divorcing a scenario from a map or set of maps, but it might be interesting to try.

On the flip side, using a well-built dungeon map for multiple scenarios could work really well! We could start with the most simple thing - the D&D MS3 dungeon crawl set of maps - and design multiple scenarios for that. Stay within a set of constraints and playtest a couple of times before posting to the boards. I don't know if that would lead to a DMV process, but it would be a good place to start and work through ideas. And it would be guaranteed to produce something that would have broad usability as most HSers now and in the future will own MS3.

Has anyone already made any alternate scenarios for the MS3 dungeon that I missed?

Maybe this could be a judged contest for the best scenario in the MS3 dungeon?

Like, there is a master index of dungeon campaigns people have created, and it is sortable by terrain and length and such. And users and can also rate the dungeons out of 10 stars or something like that.

That would work too, but it wouldn't have to be a database - it could just be a thread or series of polls that are consolidated or something. Not sure what's best for the community or forum, but something on those lines would be a good resource.

Allowing users to submit the dungeons themselves in a standard kind of template...

I'm not sure about this. If you mean a set of required information like Darkmage7a listed that would be fine. If you really mean a different format of presentation then I think requiring anything more than a VS print to pdf could be asking too much and limit participation.

[Velenne]

Allowing users to submit the dungeons themselves in a standard kind of template...

I'm not sure about this. If you mean a set of required information like Darkmage7a listed that would be fine. If you really mean a different format of presentation then I think requiring anything more than a VS print to pdf could be asking too much and limit participation.

I'm keen on this far more than the creation of a panel or body to judge Scenarios. Such an endeavor requires the creation of by-laws, guidelines, an officiating body, and long-term commitments. The BoV's primary function is providing resource-friendly, community-tested maps for competitive events. D&D Scenarios just don't fit any sort of mold and I fear carving out a specific niche for them so early in their community development.

However, if a standard presentation format were drafted that dungeon-makers could adhere to, that could serve two functions: 1) make it easy to identify the scenarios you have the resources for and 2) give the community an idea of which scenarios and resources are most commonly desired.

A lot goes into the requirements for a dungeon. Knowing what you need ahead of time and being able to easily find it could make these scenarios much more popular.

Again, <snip>

Such as listing [could include]:
the required terrains
the specific figures required
how much space you need
approximate time to set up
approximate time to play<snip>

I'd simply suggest adding a Title and Author section to that and you'd be good to go. I'm not great at creating pretty, easy-to-grasp formats though. :oops:

[Darkmage7a]

<snip>

Such as listing [could include]:
Title
Author
Required Terrains
Specific figures required
How much space you need
Approximate time to set up
Approximate time to play<snip>

I'd simply suggest adding a Title and Author section to that and you'd be good to go.
Fixed:)

It seems that a little common sense like listing the general requirements like time space and materials can go a long way toward helping people figure out which dungeon they want to crawl that night or what campaign to play that month. We have a excellent diversity of games already, I don't want to do anything that would hurt the creativity of an author just make it easier for players to decide what they want to play. At the moment its difficult to know how long it takes to play some dungeons until you've read through the whole setup, sometimes more than once. Some dungeons are great for an afternoon while others take a whole day. That doesn't make one better than the other but if someone chooses the wrong one to play for their situation it could give a solid dungeon a bad review or even discourage that player from using scenarios in the future. Similar expectations go for playing a dungeon halfway through and only to realize that the next room requires some figures or terrain they didn't notice before. With a clear list, a lot of issues can be avoided.

[Scott]

<snip>

Such as listing [could include]:
Title
Author
Required Terrains
Specific figures required
How much space you need
Approximate time to set up
Approximate time to play
Number of Players
Difficulty<snip>

Added a couple more. I guess the point is that all of this needs to be on the front page in one "box" or in the description on the downloads page - or both?

[Warlord Alpha]

<snip>

Such as listing [could include]:
Title
Author
Required Terrains
Specific figures required
How much space you need
Approximate time to set up
Approximate time to play
Number of Players
Difficulty<snip>

Added a couple more. I guess the point is that all of this needs to be on the front page in one "box" or in the description on the downloads page - or both?

That's the kind of "standard template" kind of thing I was talking about. Just a standard way to present information.

Something like:


Title
Author
Number of Players
Number of Rooms
Difficulty
Minimum Required Terrain (as in, if you only build one room at a time, how much terrain will you need)
Maximum Required Terrain (as in, if you wanted to build the entire dungeon all at once, how much terrain would you need)
Maximum single-room dimensions
Full dungeon dimensions
Specific figures required
Approximate time to set up
Approximate time to play (longest/largest single room) (assuming set-up time is not included)
Approximate time to play (full dungeon) (assuming set-up time is not included)

[Velenne]

Good suggestions, WA. Let's just pretty that up a tad. I guess I'll take a swing at it...

[Campaign or Dungeon Name / Hyperlink] - by [Designer]
A [Campaign/Dungeon] for [x] Players

(Optional)Campaign specifications
[x] Dungeons
Approximate Playtime: [x] hours(s)
Total Terrain Requirements:
Name of Set, Name of Set, Name of Set... (etc)

[Dungeon 1 Name] Gameplay specifications
[x] Rooms
For [New, Experienced, Advanced, Veteran] Players
Approximate Playtime: [x] hour(s), [x] minutes
Figures Required:
Name of Figure, Name of Figure, Name of Figure... (etc)
[Dungeon 1 Name] Build specifications
Terrain Requirements
Entire Dungeon:
(Optional) Room 1:
(Optional) Room 2:

(etc.)
Dimensions
Entire Dungeon: [x] inches
Largest Single Room: [x] inches
Approximate Build Time: [x] minutes Make sure you link the title to the download page for your dungeon!

The "Campaign specifications" section can be cut for single dungeons. Similarly, if you're describing one dungeon, you won't need the [Dungeon 1 Name] preface at the beginning of each sub-header. If you do have several dungeons for a campaign, you would repeat the gameplay and build sections for each dungeon in your campaign.

If you have large rooms, you have the option of listing your terrain requirements by Room. Otherwise, you can simple cut that section out.

I'm sure someone can do better, but that's my shot at it.

[Scott]

Sooo....someone would take that info and put it in the first post of a stickied thread, maintaining all the dungeons listed in alphabetical order?

[Creationist]

Would this be for all dungeons or for just dungeons being submitted? Either way, I'm willing to help in any way I can.

[Warlord Alpha]

Submitted? No, at this point we are talking about making a kind of "Master List of Dungeons" rather than a BoV-style thing.

[Darkmage7a]

Sooo....someone would take that info and put it in the first post of a stickied thread, maintaining all the dungeons listed in alphabetical order?
Thats the part where it gets a little tricky. We just pointed out a lot of unlisted variables. Some of those variables even the authors may not be sure about. Not every dungeon posted is complete, and not every dungeon posted is playtested enough to give real time frames. Most of these elements would really have to be the responsibility of the author.
Don't get me wrong some of the designers have done a real thorough job developing their dungeons and could likely be ready to use this system almost immediately but not everyone is ready for it.

The other thing is a small group of us have developed this format. It looks good and I really do think it's a great idea, but you have to keep in mind we can't just arbitrarily develop a system and expect everyone else to follow it. No one is obligated to follow our guidelines. All we can do is hope to design it well enough that everyone sees the benefits it offers and follows suit.

The third thing is a stickied thread like that would require someone who is dedicated to the task of updating it regularly. We would need a volunteer to step forward and agree to maintain it.

Finally, I'm not sure if you noticed but Velenne cut out the section WA suggested for difficulty. Quite frankly I'm glad, becuase determining a system for difficulty is something that we could debate about for months before anyone reaches a consensus.

I think the best way for this to get off it's feet is to just have authors choose weather or not to use this system on their own. Velenne posted an excellent version of the concept and suggested if anyone can do better, have at. If no one can do better then the best way to get this kind of thing enacted is begin with our own dungeons.

Sadly, I haven't made a dungeon of my own yet and it will be some time before I have the chance. But I will gladly commend anyone who chooses to do so.

[Velenne]

Sooo....someone would take that info and put it in the first post of a stickied thread, maintaining all the dungeons listed in alphabetical order?

Yes, I'll do that once we agree on the best format.


<snip>

The other thing is a small group of us have developed this format. It looks good and I really do think it's a great idea, but you have to keep in mind we can't just arbitrarily develop a system and expect everyone else to follow it. No one is obligated to follow our guidelines. All we can do is hope to design it well enough that everyone sees the benefits it offers and follows suit.

The third thing is a stickied thread like that would require someone who is dedicated to the task of updating it regularly. We would need a volunteer to step forward and agree to maintain it.

Finally, I'm not sure if you noticed but Velenne cut out the section WA suggested for difficulty. Quite frankly I'm glad, becuase determining a system for difficulty is something that we could debate about for months before anyone reaches a consensus.

<snip>

Actually I left the difficulty thing in there but it's an arbitrary scale: [New, Experienced, Advanced, Veteran]. That's just my suggestion.

I'll volunteer to keep the thread updated with posts submitted to the thread in the format we agree on. The only folks who submit to the thread are the ones who have completed their dungeon and want to have it added, so it's not like forcing anyone to do anything. It won't even be stickied unless a mod deems it worthy of such -something I suspect will require general adherence. That done, I think we'll have accomplished our goal here of creating a single place folks can go to look for Dungeons and Campaigns. :)

[Isamu]

That done, I think we'll have accomplished our goal here of creating a single place folks can go to look for Dungeons and Campaigns. :)

Awesome! A simple but effective solution. I like it.

I've got a short dungeon scenario that I'm almost done playtesting. I'll definitely use this format when I post it.

[Darkmage7a]

I'll volunteer to keep the thread updated with posts submitted to the thread in the format we agree on. The only folks who submit to the thread are the ones who have completed their dungeon and want to have it added, so it's not like forcing anyone to do anything. It won't even be stickied unless a mod deems it worthy of such -something I suspect will require general adherence. That done, I think we'll have accomplished our goal here of creating a single place folks can go to look for Dungeons and Campaigns. :)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Velenne again.
Thanks for stepping up Velenne. The forum is in your debt.:up:

[Velenne]

Anyone else have anything to add or are we happy with THIS (http://heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=1021981&postcount=19) format?

[Isamu]

Hmmmm. I think some kind of database would be a good idea.

Like, there is a master index of dungeon campaigns people have created, and it is sortable by terrain and length and such. And users and can also rate the dungeons out of 10 stars or something like that.

Allowing users to submit the dungeons themselves in a standard kind of template would take all the work out of running it and organizing it.

The only issue I can see is that it would probably need to be done on an external site and would require somebody with a lot of experience creating web-based apps.

Although it will probably never be created, it is a nice thought nonetheless.

I've been thinking about this, as web design/development happens to be my profession. The thread idea is very practical for now, but a database may eventually be needed if this dungeon thing catches on. ;)

The problem is, something like this would land on my 'fun side projects' list, meaning I would have very limited time to work on it.

But now I'm curious, what essential features would everyone want in a Heroscape dungeon database website?