# What could One D&D do to bring the game back to the dungeon?



## Reynard

I'd love to see a modern version of D&D refocused on dungeon exploration, and with a new revision/spiffying up/half edition/whatever of 5E in One D&D, I wonder what rule tweaks could they do to the 5E chassis to make it work well as a dungeon crawler (as @overgeeked called it)?

The biggest issues with 5E as a good dungeon crawl game are that the exploration pillar is essentially ignored, especially in regards to resource management and environmental elements (like lighting). I think shoring up some DCs for common exploration tasks as well as upping the use of tables can help. More importantly though would be the curtailing of a lot of spells and class abilities that obviate dungeon exploration challenges. Light should not be a cantrip, for eample.

Thoughts?


----------



## mellored

Given the amount of dark vision, I can't see why light is going to cause problems.


----------



## Reynard

mellored said:


> Given the amount of dark vision, I can't see why light is going to cause problems.



PCs shouldn't have darkvision in the first place, but even if they do if played by the actual rules darkvision is a very bad way to move around a dungeon.


----------



## Clint_L

I think the argument about 5e not being exploration-friendly is weak and doesn't track with what actually occurs on my tabletop or in most published adventures, so I'm not even going to bother addressing that premise.

The biggest problem with D&D as a dungeon crawler is that combat takes ages and mostly isn't that fun.

The other problem is that dungeon crawls are occasionally fun but emphasis on "occasionally." The game has evolved since the 1970s, and so has the playing culture. Dungeon crawls in ye olden days were very light on story - if you look at those early modules, the dungeon crawls and combat encounters were the point, with the story being there to facilitate them. I don't think most tables play that way anymore. It's great that some do - more power to 'em - but 4e was probably the most dungeon crawler friendly version of the game since AD&D and it tanked.


----------



## overgeeked

Oh man. So many changes.

The nerf to exhaustion is a move in the right direction. You can use exhaustion from the "play test" without crippling the party from the off. For some that wasn't an issue but for others it was a game quitting line never to be crossed.

Light. Races would need to be changed, i.e. you'd need to not have something like 75% of all PC races have darkvision. You'd also need to remove light as a cantrip. Somehow center the effects of dim light (disadvantage on perception checks). Push for the black & white sight of darkvision to actually matter (like making lots of things dependent on color vision).

Food & Water. They are doing a bit of the work by removing the ribbon abilities from backgrounds (looking at you Outlander) along with swapping favored terrain out for expertise in the ranger. Both of these work to make exploration not automatic, which is a step in the right direction. Though with the default DCs of things like getting lost and foraging, expertise is effectively automatic exploration...but it's a start in the right direction. Also remove or nerf spells like create food & water, goodberry, etc.

Resting. This is the big one. RAW long rests in 5E give you too much. Long rests in the "play test" give you even more. You either need to nerf resting, or dramatically increase...basically everything on the DM's side of things to make 5E anything more difficult than a cakewalk. Things like wandering monsters every 10 minutes and start all those encounters at deadly. Definitely remove Leomund's Tiny Bunker.

Procedures. You'd actually need to put the procedures for dungeon crawling together in one place that's in the actual main books instead of sort of put them together in the two DM's screens focused on wilderness and dungeon exploration. And, of course, you'd need those procedures to be good and work as intended...and for that intent to be properly challenging the PCs and players.

Personally, I doubt WotC will ever do anything like most of those. Mainstream D&D has moved on. The new player base is more interested in high action, tough guy, badasses. The appetite for hard scrabble adventures with weak, near-peasant adventurers is still there, but it's a niche within a niche within a niche at this point.


----------



## Malmuria

Clint_L said:


> I think the argument about 5e not being exploration-friendly is goofy and doesn't track with what actually occurs on my tabletop or in most published adventures, so I'm not even going to bother addressing that premise.



What do you mean "exploration-friendly"?  The OP seems to be saying that what is lacking are exploration _challenges_, and that, while 5e has plenty of combat challenge, there are lots of things that make exploration of a space not a challenge.


----------



## AnotherGuy

I'll add one more nerf or ban the Twilight Cleric.
Shared 300 feet of Darkvision, for an hour between long rests (and you can expend a spell slot of any level to do it again). 
I mean what were they thinking?


----------



## overgeeked

AnotherGuy said:


> I'll add one more nerf or ban the Twilight Cleric.
> Shared 300 feet of Darkvision, for an hour between long rests (and you can expend a spell slot of any level to do it again).
> I mean what were they thinking?



Sell books by leaning into the power creep and intentionally designing OP subclasses.


----------



## mellored

Reynard said:


> PCs shouldn't have darkvision in the first place, but even if they do if played by the actual rules darkvision is a very bad way to move around a dungeon.



Kind of too late for that.
And does requiring people to carry torches that much of a challenge?

Twilight cleric definitely needs a nerf though.


----------



## aco175

Matt Colville had a video about this I seem to recall.  He talked about the item list in the PHB and how it is only there now for us to fondly recall the items and then nobody uses them.  He talks about 1e and being fragile.  Using your 10ft pole to prod through dungeons above and below for traps- hoping to get enough coin to be able to buy a hooded lantern.  Then you would not need to count your torches.  Counting arrows meant something since you engaged in melee meant you could die.  The game was set up around the crawl and this mundane record keeping.

I do not see going back to this myself.  PCs have become heroes at 1st level and the game is less gotcha between the players and the DM.  The new game is more about class and not items, magic included.  Being scared to die has been so watered down that everyone expects to walk into whateer the DM/module has and not die.


----------



## Reynard

mellored said:


> Kind of too late for that.



How so? OneD&D isn't out yet.


mellored said:


> And does requiring people to carry torches that much of a challenge?



Tracking resources, including light resources, is a very important part of the dungeon challenge.


----------



## Reynard

aco175 said:


> Matt Colville had a video about this I seem to recall.  He talked about the item list in the PHB and how it is only there now for us to fondly recall the items and then nobody uses them.  He talks about 1e and being fragile.  Using your 10ft pole to prod through dungeons above and below for traps- hoping to get enough coin to be able to buy a hooded lantern.  Then you would not need to count your torches.  Counting arrows meant something since you engaged in melee meant you could die.  The game was set up around the crawl and this mundane record keeping.



That is a great video.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Making the dungeon a place players want to go instead of just a pain like everyone trying to lure us into the dungeon want it to be?


----------



## Reynard

Vaalingrade said:


> Making the dungeon a place players want to go instead of just a pain like everyone trying to lure us into the dungeon want it to be?



We get it: you hate dungeons. Why are you in this thread?


----------



## mellored

Reynard said:


> How so? OneD&D isn't out yet.



It's backwards compatible.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Reynard said:


> We get it: you hate dungeons. Why are you in this thread?



You literally asked!


----------



## Reynard

mellored said:


> It's backwards compatible.



Well, no one can be sure yet what that means, but I don't think it means they can't change any races because, well, we already know they are planning that.


----------



## Reynard

Vaalingrade said:


> You literally asked!



That isn't an invitation to threadcrap.


----------



## payn

I put the onus on adventure writing and not the system. I mean, I'm not saying the system has nothing to do with exploration, but I don't think 5E needs changes here. Dungeon crawling is often boring because there is little point beyond kill things and take their stuff. What is the history of the place? What secrets does it hold? Make it interesting to explore and not just a pit to sink resources into again again. 

So, probably more stuff in the DMG for GMs to build their own interesting dungeons. Perhaps even a DMG II that focuses on campaign building with a dedicated section on dungeon crawling. Also, adventures that are good, which often WotC ones are not (IMO of course).


----------



## Vaalingrade

Reynard said:


> That isn't an invitation to threadcrap.



It's not threadcrapping. That's how you get people back into the dungeon: rethinking what the dungeons should be in the modern era.


----------



## Reynard

Vaalingrade said:


> It's not threadcrapping. That's how you get people back into the dungeon: *rethinking what the dungeons should be in the modern era*.



See, that is a good start to a conversation, as opposed to


Vaalingrade said:


> Making the dungeon a place players want to go instead of just a pain like everyone trying to lure us into the dungeon want it to be?




So, that out of the way, what do you think "dungeons should be in the modern era"?


----------



## Shiroiken

Very little would be needed, as 5E already does a decent job for dungeon crawls. Primarily it should consolidate the damn rules! The rules needed are scattered all over the DMG and PHB, which is why most people feel they don't exist. Darkvision isn't as much of a problem when you realize that -5 on your Passive Perception and disadvantage on Perception checks means you're likely going to miss all the traps and secret doors, plus you'll get ambushed more frequently. Light being a cantrip is only an issue because the Cleric has so few useful cantrips, but adding Concentration would probably make it a non-factor.

The biggest actual change would be in how to use Passive Perception/Investigation. If you simply compare flat numbers, as JC claims, the mechanic just doesn't work. Either the party is going to succeed or fail from the moment the adventure begins, barring them getting advantage or disadvantage. Currently 1D&D is requiring actions for checks, meaning Passive skills are going away, and I feel that's probably the way to go. If they keep Passive for secret checks, I'd recommend using the Mike Mearls method (which I currently use) of having the trap/door/whatever make the roll against the Passive score.

Travel activities need a change and made meaningful. Making a map is easy and either has no benefit or completely negates the navigation activity. I'd also separate watching for danger into looking for enemies and looking for traps/secret doors. 

Time needs to be more easily tracked. The current setup is fine, but a suggestion to consolidate it into manageable segments would be good. I use 1 minute increments for a lot of nuance, but 5 minutes and 10 minutes would also work well. This plays into the time for resting and wandering monsters, which needs to be better address. Putting the environments with the monsters would be helpful in this regard, along with the full lists.

Other than that, I don't think they need to do that much to make 5E work great for dungeon crawls. The real issue with getting D&D "back to the dungeon" is that players don't really want that as much anymore. Having an occasional dungeon crawl is fine, but there's a reason DM's like the 5 room dungeon concept. I personally love dungeon crawls, but my group is kinda _meh_ about them.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Reynard said:


> See, that is a good start to a conversation, as opposed to



This is unnecessary. Stop.


Reynard said:


> So, that out of the way, what do you think "dungeons should be in the modern era"?



Let's start with what a dungeon is. Is it pretty much an adventure location, or is it specifically a the inexplicable big hole in the ground filled with monsters?

I think there's a serious lack of fantastic locations going around these days. Not in vision, not in function. It's mostly just holes and corridors. Big setpieces the players can screw around with, moving parts, things to climb on, etc. Exploration should be more about _exploring_.

I remember Kobold Hall, with the big glue pool and the Indiana Jones boulder you could run on or find a way to push and want more of that and less logistics.


----------



## Bill Zebub

I would buy a good (emphasis on good) 3rd party book refocusing the game on dungeons.


----------



## Reynard

Vaalingrade said:


> This is unnecessary. Stop.
> 
> Let's start with what a dungeon is. Is it pretty much an adventure location, or is it specifically a the inexplicable big hole in the ground filled with monsters?



I don't think you need a hole in the ground for it to be a dungeon, but not every adventure location is a dungeon. A city isn't a dungeon, nor is a castle serving as an actual castle. But a dark forest of twisting paths and clearings can be a dungeon, as could a graveyard of spelljammer hulks in Astral Space.


Vaalingrade said:


> . Exploration should be more about _exploring_.



I agree but I think we differ on what that word means and implies in play.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Reynard said:


> A city isn't a dungeon, nor is a castle serving as an actual castle.



Why not?

Imagine having to fight invading cultists that have infiltrated the castle in a Die Hard situation. The servants are all being forced to continue business as usual, so you have to maneuver around and protect them while searching for where they've set up the Portal of Very Bad Things.

Or the City! Didn't the Arkham games show how a city can be a massive explorable space with thins to do? The group has to parkour across roofs, square off in a park, climbing on statues to avoid drakes that have been attracted here by the local crimeboss.

Is a 'dungeon' something inherently linear? Enclosed? Abandoned? What makes a dungeon a dungeon?


Reynard said:


> I agree but I think we differ on what that word means and implies in play.



To me it means getting to do and discover things; investigation and puzzle solving. It irks me when these things are cast aside for inventory management and death spiral mechanics.


----------



## prabe

If you want the PCs to go into the dungeon, the answer is simple: Put things they want there. You can do that just as easily in 5e as in any other edition I've played or run.


----------



## Desdichado

If every edition needs to go "back to the dungeon" that clearly indicates that something about either the D&D player ecology or publisher ecology really doesn't want to be in the dungeon in the first place, so they're constantly trying to escape it, only to be wrangled back in by back to the dungeon absolutists who refuse to see the game evolve. At least that's my analysis for why this topic has come up over and over again since the pre-3e motto at least. Don't get me wrong; there's always been a significant plurality of dungeon-preferers. But ever since Tracy Hickman showed up at TSR and busted the bank on sales by leaving the dungeon, everyone really needs to come to terms with the fact that there's also a very significant plurality if not outright majority of demand for non-dungeon D&D.


----------



## Reynard

Vaalingrade said:


> Why not?
> 
> Imagine having to fight invading cultists that have infiltrated the castle in a Die Hard situation. The servants are all being forced to continue business as usual, so you have to maneuver around and protect them while searching for where they've set up the Portal of Very Bad Things.
> 
> Or the City! Didn't the Arkham games show how a city can be a massive explorable space with thins to do? The group has to parkour across roofs, square off in a park, climbing on statues to avoid drakes that have been attracted here by the local crimeboss.



I didn't say "couldn't be." I meant a normal functioning city or fortress, even one inhabited by so-called monsters, is an adventure location without being a dungeon. 


Vaalingrade said:


> Is a 'dungeon' something inherently linear? Enclosed? Abandoned? What makes a dungeon a dungeon?



In the broadest sense, it has to be outside the normal paradigm. That is easily encapsulated by ancient ruined temples and dark fey demiplanes and abandoned cloud castles,but the main point is that they are strange and dangerous and don't fit the world in a way that makes sense. An evil orc fortress or whatever isn't a dungeon because it serves a normal purpose in the world. A millenia abandoned high elven castle currently occupied by orcs with even stranger, darker things hidden within is a dungeon.


Vaalingrade said:


> To me it means getting to do and discover things; investigation and puzzle solving. It irks me when these things are cast aside for inventory management and death spiral mechanics.



whynotboth.gif


----------



## Vaalingrade

Reynard said:


> I didn't say "couldn't be." I meant a normal functioning city or fortress, even one inhabited by so-called monsters, is an adventure location without being a dungeon.
> 
> In the broadest sense, it has to be outside the normal paradigm. That is easily encapsulated by ancient ruined temples and dark fey demiplanes and abandoned cloud castles,but the main point is that they are strange and dangerous and don't fit the world in a way that makes sense. An evil orc fortress or whatever isn't a dungeon because it serves a normal purpose in the world. A millenia abandoned high elven castle currently occupied by orcs with even stranger, darker things hidden within is a dungeon.



I'm not sure if this definition is valuable in improving the concept of a dungeon is a dungeon is 'a big delict space'.


Reynard said:


> whynotboth.gif



Because making me count torches and exhaustion makes me not want to go that, which is the issue at hand.


----------



## Reynard

Vaalingrade said:


> I'm not sure if this definition is valuable in improving the concept of a dungeon is a dungeon is 'a big delict space'.



I mean, that's not what I said. At all.


Vaalingrade said:


> Because making me count torches and exhaustion makes me not want to go that, which is the issue at hand.



I mean, you have preferences. That's great. They aren't universal. Some people think counting torches is integral to the dungeon experience.


----------



## CreamCloud0

i think a problem in the premise of dungeons is that unlike alot of the rest of the world in a ttrpg it's not something you can really just make up on the spot, it's something that needs planning, and that's not to say other bits of the game don't too but if you're in a town you can just 'you want a new weapon? uh sure, there's a blacksmith's here round that corner' and it doesn't matter if you hadn't put one there when you envisioned the town in your head but for a really dungeony dungeon it tends to require this whole interconnected web that matters how it's all laid out, what's the answer to this puzzle? where's the key to this chest? is there a hidden doorway here? what monsters are there abouts?
so that being said i think what 1DnD really needs is a way to make actually designing dungeons and 3D spaces accesible for GMs, i know there are online dungeon mapper/creators,
also elaborate on rules for exploration, give a list of example traps and challenges and _things to use_


----------



## TwoSix

Reynard said:


> I mean, you have preferences. That's great. They aren't universal. Some people think counting torches is integral to the dungeon experience.



Yes, but it is worth noting that “focusing the game on the dungeon” and “emphasizing resource and inventory management” are not conjoined goals.  You can certainly have a game of dungeon spelunking that eschews inventory tracking in favor of abstract rolls to determine if there are inventory or resource complications, for example.


----------



## Scott Christian

Reynard said:


> I'd love to see a modern version of D&D refocused on dungeon exploration, and with a new revision/spiffying up/half edition/whatever of 5E in One D&D, I wonder what rule tweaks could they do to the 5E chassis to make it work well as a dungeon crawler (as @overgeeked called it)?
> 
> The biggest issues with 5E as a good dungeon crawl game are that the exploration pillar is essentially ignored, especially in regards to resource management and environmental elements (like lighting). I think shoring up some DCs for common exploration tasks as well as upping the use of tables can help. More importantly though would be the curtailing of a lot of spells and class abilities that obviate dungeon exploration challenges. Light should not be a cantrip, for eample.
> 
> Thoughts?



A focus on equipment could help. For example, having equipment (and proficiency in the equipment) modify DCs or even open up smaller exploration side quests.


----------



## ECMO3

Reynard said:


> I'd love to see a modern version of D&D refocused on dungeon exploration, and with a new revision/spiffying up/half edition/whatever of 5E in One D&D, I wonder what rule tweaks could they do to the 5E chassis to make it work well as a dungeon crawler (as @overgeeked called it)?
> 
> The biggest issues with 5E as a good dungeon crawl game are that the exploration pillar is essentially ignored, especially in regards to resource management and environmental elements (like lighting). I think shoring up some DCs for common exploration tasks as well as upping the use of tables can help. More importantly though would be the curtailing of a lot of spells and class abilities that obviate dungeon exploration challenges. Light should not be a cantrip, for eample.
> 
> Thoughts?



That is not going to happen as a core mechanic but it is already there I think for anyone that wants to play that way.  DOMM is 15 levels of nothing but dungeon.


----------



## Krachek

For me I got no more interest in tracking torch, ration, making the mapping of an endless dungeon, we got apps to do that now!
The old dungeon crawling is like a vintage phone, it’s cool to have one on his desk, but no one will leave his smart phone.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Give me a reason to want to explore. pre-2e we had XP for GP which meant that every gold piece was important. In 5e gold is basically worthless and attunement plus increasing abilities means magic items aren't that great either unless they are actual quest items.

Then make combat faster.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Reynard said:


> I mean, you have preferences. That's great. They aren't universal. Some people think counting torches is integral to the dungeon experience.



Please let me know ahead of time whenever you're asking a question of me you don't want my answer to.


----------



## Cadence

Running my second 5e group through B2 and it doesn't feel massively different than the days of old... which makes me think I wasn't always paying attention to food and torches back in B/X and 1e as a DM (although I think I usually do/did as a player). 

Having a variety of skills to roll when trying to do things now (convince the monsters of something and overcoming physical challenges) seems better to me than B/X and 1e.  Not having a bunch of really particular skill rules I feel like I need to look up seems nicer to me than 3.5/PF.


----------



## Clint_L

When I want to do a dungeon crawl, which I do on occasion, it is easier to do in 5e than any other edition of the game, because 5e is easier to play than any other edition of the game. Combat still takes way too much time, but that is true of wherever it is happening.

Do I have trouble setting traps and puzzles and other "exploration" challenges in 5e? Nope. Do I have trouble building challenging combat encounters in 5e? Nope. I just don't see anything about 5e that discourages dungeon crawling at all. It's just that the game doesn't try to coerce campaigns into it like it did once upon a time, and it turns out that players and DM's aren't that into non-stop dungeon crawls when they don't have to be.

In other words, what the OP has is not a design problem, it's a player problem. I do not think _anything_ should be done to the game to try to coerce players into one particular way to play it, so the only solutions I would suggest to the OP are ones that would be useful in any type of game. Like shortening combat encounters.

Here is a dungeon crawl I put together recently:


----------



## Cadence

Clint_L said:


> In other words, what the OP has is not a design problem, it's a player problem. I do not think _anything_ should be done to the game to try to coerce players into one particular way to play it, so the only solutions I would suggest to the OP are ones that would be useful in any type of game. Like shortening combat encounters.




If I want to run a dungeon crawl, then that's the pitch I make to the prospective players.  If they aren't interested the I save it for later.


----------



## Reynard

ECMO3 said:


> That is not going to happen as a core mechanic but it is already there I think for anyone that wants to play that way.  DOMM is 15 levels of nothing but dungeon.



And terrible.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Reynard said:


> And terrible.



There's actually a *lot *of really good stuff in Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Unfortunately, all of them are the lower levels that are buried under a dozen+ boring dungeon levels with nothing exciting to do. My group got bored around level 9, and never made it to the best levels of the dungeon.


----------



## ToddBS

Clint_L said:


> The other problem is that dungeon crawls are occasionally fun but emphasis on "occasionally." The game has evolved since the 1970s, and so has the playing culture. Dungeon crawls in ye olden days were very light on story - if you look at those early modules, the dungeon crawls and combat encounters were the point, with the story being there to facilitate them. I don't think most tables play that way anymore. It's great that some do - more power to 'em - but 4e was probably the most dungeon crawler friendly version of the game since AD&D and it tanked.



Yeah, my own memories don't track with D&D actually being a dungeon crawler. Maybe in the very early OD&D days. But by the time I came to the game with BECMI we played long-term campaigns. I think we left dungeons behind at level 4 when we graduated to the blue Expert box. And that was almost 40 years ago.


----------



## Retreater

It comes down to the adventure design. Darkvision was common in 3.x and the Light spell was easy to come by. 3rd edition's tagline was "back to the dungeon," so I don't see any reason 5.x can't do the same.


----------



## tetrasodium

overgeeked said:


> Oh man. So many changes.
> 
> The nerf to exhaustion is a move in the right direction. You can use exhaustion from the "play test" without crippling the party from the off. For some that wasn't an issue but for others it was a game quitting line never to be crossed.
> 
> Light. Races would need to be changed, i.e. you'd need to not have something like 75% of all PC races have darkvision. You'd also need to remove light as a cantrip. Somehow center the effects of dim light (disadvantage on perception checks). Push for the black & white sight of darkvision to actually matter (like making lots of things dependent on color vision).
> 
> Food & Water. They are doing a bit of the work by removing the ribbon abilities from backgrounds (looking at you Outlander) along with swapping favored terrain out for expertise in the ranger. Both of these work to make exploration not automatic, which is a step in the right direction. Though with the default DCs of things like getting lost and foraging, expertise is effectively automatic exploration...but it's a start in the right direction. Also remove or nerf spells like create food & water, goodberry, etc.
> 
> Resting. This is the big one. RAW long rests in 5E give you too much. Long rests in the "play test" give you even more. You either need to nerf resting, or dramatically increase...basically everything on the DM's side of things to make 5E anything more difficult than a cakewalk. Things like wandering monsters every 10 minutes and start all those encounters at deadly. Definitely remove Leomund's Tiny Bunker.
> 
> Procedures. You'd actually need to put the procedures for dungeon crawling together in one place that's in the actual main books instead of sort of put them together in the two DM's screens focused on wilderness and dungeon exploration. And, of course, you'd need those procedures to be good and work as intended...and for that intent to be properly challenging the PCs and players.
> 
> Personally, I doubt WotC will ever do anything like most of those. Mainstream D&D has moved on. The new player base is more interested in high action, tough guy, badasses. The appetite for hard scrabble adventures with weak, near-peasant adventurers is still there, but it's a niche within a niche within a niche at this point.



I agree with all of this  as needed first steps but would add one big one.  Cantrips need to change in two important ways.  First they need to be linked to class or spell list linked magic items like equipment/weapons list type gear.  Second they need to scale based on the item they are linked to rather than character level (with some being charges not unlimited).  It poses a serious problem for dungeon crawling when a bunch of classes are literally born with the only weapon they will ever care about rouynd after round for the entire campaign


----------



## Azzy

ToddBS said:


> Yeah, my own memories don't track with D&D actually being a dungeon crawler. Maybe in the very early OD&D days. But by the time I came to the game with BECMI we played long-term campaigns. I think we left dungeons behind at level 4 when we graduated to the blue Expert box. And that was almost 40 years ago.



This is my experience, too. I came in in 86, and dungeon crawling was something that became more and more of an occasional thing as we discovered more story-themed campaigns. While I am good with the game having room for dungeon crawls, I certain wouldn't want the game to focus on them as that would bore me to no end.


----------



## R_J_K75

Clint_L said:


> Here is a dungeon crawl I put together recently:



I'm intrigued, what's with the wheelbarrow?


----------



## Xamnam

Clint_L said:


> When I want to do a dungeon crawl, which I do on occasion, it is easier to do in 5e than any other edition of the game, because 5e is easier to play than any other edition of the game. Combat still takes way too much time, but that is true of wherever it is happening.
> 
> Do I have trouble setting traps and puzzles and other "exploration" challenges in 5e? Nope. Do I have trouble building challenging combat encounters in 5e? Nope. I just don't see anything about 5e that discourages dungeon crawling at all. It's just that the game doesn't try to coerce campaigns into it like it did once upon a time, and it turns out that players and DM's aren't that into non-stop dungeon crawls when they don't have to be.
> 
> In other words, what the OP has is not a design problem, it's a player problem. I do not think _anything_ should be done to the game to try to coerce players into one particular way to play it, so the only solutions I would suggest to the OP are ones that would be useful in any type of game. Like shortening combat encounters.
> 
> Here is a dungeon crawl I put together recently:
> 
> View attachment 269604View attachment 269605View attachment 269606View attachment 269607View attachment 269608View attachment 269609



That terrain!


----------



## TerraDave

Retreater said:


> It comes down to the adventure design. Darkvision was common in 3.x and the Light spell was easy to come by. 3rd edition's tagline was "back to the dungeon," so I don't see any reason 5.x can't do the same.



And these things were also in 1e. 

I have never really played D&D were it was about rations and torches. 

I do think excess resting can interact badly with certain dungeons that depended on a certain amount of attrition. I put limits on long-rests starting in 4e to deal with this. Old school dungeons also work well with a "challenge the player" approach. 5e actually has language to facilitate this--i.e. the very loose skill system--and for players that buy into this, they can be quite entertaining, in any edition.


----------



## Incenjucar

What is good about dungeons that is not sufficiently supported?


----------



## Desdichado

ToddBS said:


> Yeah, my own memories don't track with D&D actually being a dungeon crawler. Maybe in the very early OD&D days. But by the time I came to the game with BECMI we played long-term campaigns. I think we left dungeons behind at level 4 when we graduated to the blue Expert box. And that was almost 40 years ago.



My pet theory about the evolution of the player base has to do with what happened to D&D in the early 80s when it really "hit it big." For a time, D&D as an evolution out of the wargaming hobby with a bunch of wargamers as the target audience made D&D as it was written make some sense. But when a whole host of new players came into the game who'd never played a wargame and didn't really have any particular interest in one showed up, but who had read Tolkien and Lloyd Alexander, and Robert E. Howard, and whatever else they'd read (heck, even if all they'd read was Terry Brooks or David Eddings) they just wanted something else from D&D, and were never going to want D&D to focus on what it did back in the Wisconsin regional gaming culture of the mid 70s. And, like it or not, a lot of that wave of gamers is still here, and they're still—in my opinion—one of the biggest pluralities in the gamer population. And if there's a big wave that's come in in the last—I dunno, five years or so? they will have some similarities because they came in through a vector that was even _more _divorced from the wargaming experience of the mid 70s Wisconsin regional gaming culture.  Playstyle preference, in my pet theory, correlates more with the vector that brought you into gaming than it does with anything else. For people who came to the game from fantasy fiction as opposed to wargaming, the dungeon was always a weird paradigm, and the classic 10-foot pole and lovingly and excruciating detail lavished on traps and descriptions of room dimensions and the traits of doors, or whatever else, was tedious and strange. 

One of the things that I admit irritates me a bit is the big tent approach. The One D&D launch trailer tries really hard to push this big tent approach. This time the new edition isn't really a new edition, because all D&D is the SAME (which is clearly baloney), this edition will be all things to all people; no matter what you want, One D&D is the gaming nectar of the gods that will be better than whatever you're playing before! I just don't buy that kind of hype. Big tentism to me signals that the game ISN'T likely to appeal to me, or people who enjoy what I enjoy most about the game, because since the 80s _at least_, my preferred style hasn't been the mainstream, at least if the biggest selling products are any guide. I know, I know, it's their business to sell D&D as much as they can, but I think that there isn't any one thing that will do that. I think the player base is too fractured in nature, and the cause of the fracturing is just different expectations and wants from the game.


----------



## payn

Desdichado said:


> My pet theory about the evolution of the player base has to do with what happened to D&D in the early 80s when it really "hit it big." For a time, D&D as an evolution out of the wargaming hobby with a bunch of wargamers as the target audience made D&D as it was written make some sense. But when a whole host of new players came into the game who'd never played a wargame and didn't really have any particular interest in one showed up, but who had read Tolkien and Lloyd Alexander, and Robert E. Howard, and whatever else they'd read (heck, even if all they'd read was Terry Brooks or David Eddings) they just wanted something else from D&D, and were never going to want D&D to focus on what it did back in the Wisconsin regional gaming culture of the mid 70s. And, like it or not, a lot of that wave of gamers is still here, and they're still—in my opinion—one of the biggest pluralities in the gamer population. And if there's a big wave that's come in in the last—I dunno, five years or so? they will have some similarities because they came in through a vector that was even _more _divorced from the wargaming experience of the mid 70s Wisconsin regional gaming culture.  Playstyle preference, in my pet theory, correlates more with the vector that brought you into gaming than it does with anything else. For people who came to the game from fantasy fiction as opposed to wargaming, the dungeon was always a weird paradigm, and the classic 10-foot pole and lovingly and excruciating detail lavished on traps and descriptions of room dimensions and the traits of doors, or whatever else, was tedious and strange.
> 
> One of the things that I admit irritates me a bit is the big tent approach. The One D&D launch trailer tries really hard to push this big tent approach. This time the new edition isn't really a new edition, because all D&D is the SAME (which is clearly baloney), this edition will be all things to all people; no matter what you want, One D&D is the gaming nectar of the gods that will be better than whatever you're playing before! I just don't buy that kind of hype. Big tentism to me signals that the game ISN'T likely to appeal to me, or people who enjoy what I enjoy most about the game, because since the 80s _at least_, my preferred style hasn't been the mainstream, at least if the biggest selling products are any guide. I know, I know, it's their business to sell D&D as much as they can, but I think that there isn't any one thing that will do that. I think the player base is too fractured in nature, and the cause of the fracturing is just different expectations and wants from the game.



Well, the big tent was supposed to be backed up with modularity that would allow all kinds of D&D to work. Like, OSR dungeon crawling, 3E strategy and system mastery, 4E tactical, etc... Though, that was abandoned and never brought up again once 5E sold like hotcakes. It's up to folks to figure it all out now if it doesnt work for them out the box.


----------



## tetrasodium

Incenjucar said:


> What is good about dungeons that is not sufficiently supported?



Anything can be a "dungeon", a forest a treacherous ice mountain. the bad side of town, an entire plane, a bandit camp, a region in the world, a luxury cruise liner, the dragon's cave, the basilisk's lair, the cult temple, etc.  They all share elements of a dungeon even if they aren't an actual "dungeon".  T

he ways that 5e fails at dungeon crawling impacts all of them by limiting a GM who needs those elements for their players to be awesome.  In doing so it turns those awesome PC's & fun adventures into well... captain marvel 
.


----------



## Incenjucar

tetrasodium said:


> Anything can be a "dungeon", a forest a treacherous ice mountain. the bad side of town, an entire plane, a bandit camp, a region in the world, a luxury cruise liner, the dragon's cave, the basilisk's lair, the cult temple, etc.  They all share elements of a dungeon even if they aren't an actual "dungeon".  T
> 
> he ways that 5e fails at dungeon crawling impacts all of them by limiting a GM who needs those elements for their players to be awesome.  In doing so it turns those awesome PC's & fun adventures into well... captain marvel
> .



Okay. What are these ways, and why is "dungeon" relevant to the conversation at all, and not just "series of locations"?


----------



## Shiroiken

Scott Christian said:


> A focus on equipment could help. For example, having equipment (and proficiency in the equipment) modify DCs or even open up smaller exploration side quests.



I find this notion of equipment being useless rather odd. My group regularly carries misc. equipment. It started when someone used manacles (technically the chain) to tie the handles of a double door together. Then a player started combing over the adventuring equipment to see what they actually do. Now they regularly carry chains, manacles, caltrops, ball bearings, oil, a crowbar or portable ram, and we always keep any acid, alchemist fire, and holy water we come across. A lot of this stuff actually helps if you plan things out, rather than just going Leroy Jenkins.


Cadence said:


> Running my second 5e group through B2 and it doesn't feel massively different than the days of old... which makes me think I wasn't always paying attention to food and torches back in B/X and 1e as a DM (although I think I usually do/did as a player).



As a player, you are supposed to track these things, not the DM. If you don't or "overlook" it, then technically you're cheating (unless the DM has specifically stated otherwise). I know that my group doesn't do all the bookkeeping they're supposed to, but I'm not going to make a fuss about it. As a player I track everything, including container capacity (which is almost certainly the most overlooked rule in the game).


----------



## Desdichado

Shiroiken said:


> As a player, you are supposed to track these things, not the DM. If you don't or "overlook" it, then technically you're cheating (unless the DM has specifically stated otherwise). I know that my group doesn't do all the bookkeeping they're supposed to, but I'm not going to make a fuss about it. As a player I track everything, including container capacity (which is almost certainly the most overlooked rule in the game).



That's A play style, certainly.


----------



## tetrasodium

Incenjucar said:


> Okay. What are these ways,



darkvision is almost default to the point of being more unusual to not be there than to be there.  Because of mechanics of how people interact at a table ensures that it never plays out like this if a small subset of the table is lacking it. Attrition has been downplayed to the point of being nearly nonexistent thanks to trivialized recovery. PCs don't actually need anything. Players never feel like their PCs are facing certain risk because getting killed is such a high bar that players will often fail at attempting to deliberately get their character killed in a fight. etc.  

Matt Colevile did a great job of explaining it with  much deeper levels of detail 


Spoiler: What are dungeons for









Incenjucar said:


> and why is "dungeon" relevant to the conversation at all, and not just "series of locations"?



Because communities built around a particular subject tend to develop their own meaningful shorthand jargon & in the case of ttrpgs like d&d "dungeon" is a nebulous concept that generally represents some form of an area that usually contains monsters or similar & is usually somehow linked to a quest of some form along with a bunch of expectations that will vary based on the system being used but 5e takes great pains to avoid trying to even gesture towards making any of those expectations as Matt Coleville described in that video.  That's not helpful for discussion though so the bit of jargon being used in this thread that simplifies it to "dungeon" allows for easier conversation.


----------



## Incenjucar

tetrasodium said:


> darkvision is almost default to the point of being more unusual to not be there than to be there.  Because of mechanics of how people interact at a table ensures that it never plays out like this if a small subset of the table is lacking it. Attrition has been downplayed to the point of being nearly nonexistent thanks to trivialized recovery. PCs don't actually need anything. Players never feel like their PCs are facing certain risk because getting killed is such a high bar that players will often fail at attempting to deliberately get their character killed in a fight. etc.
> 
> Matt Colevile did a great job of explaining it with  much deeper levels of detail
> 
> 
> Spoiler: What are dungeons for
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because communities built around a particular subject tend to develop their own meaningful shorthand jargon & in the case of ttrpgs like d&d "dungeon" is a nebulous concept that generally represents some form of an area that usually contains monsters or similar & is usually somehow linked to a quest of some form along with a bunch of expectations that will vary based on the system being used but 5e takes great pains to avoid trying to even gesture towards making any of those expectations as Matt Coleville described in that video.  That's not helpful for discussion though so the bit of jargon being used in this thread that simplifies it to "dungeon" allows for easier conversation.



...so this is actually about survival mechanics and resource countdowns, not dungeons? Bringing people back to inventory tracking?


----------



## Reynard

Incenjucar said:


> ...so this is actually about survival mechanics and resource countdowns, not dungeons? Bringing people back to inventory tracking?



It's not an either/or. Meaningful exploration requires meaningful choices, and in one particular iteration of that it means counting torches. How far do we go? How close to the limit do we push it? Somewhere down there,there's a big haul in gold and XP and I don't know if we should quit or try again.

That's the inherent drama in the dungeon.


----------



## Clint_L

R_J_K75 said:


> I'm intrigued, what's with the wheelbarrow?



My spouse's character is a goblin artificer whose robot guardian is a transforming cart that normally acts as a mobile toyshop, and that was the best miniature I had to represent it.


----------



## Incenjucar

Reynard said:


> It's not an either/or. Meaningful exploration requires meaningful choices, and in one particular iteration of that it means counting torches. How far do we go? How close to the limit do we push it? Somewhere down there,there's a big haul in gold and XP and I don't know if we should quit or try again.
> 
> That's the inherent drama in the dungeon.



Okay, so it's actually about creating higher risk, higher reward scenarios, with dwindling resources - including opportunities to escape- as a potential mechanism for increasing that risk, rather than just increasing the difficulty of the challenge itself?


----------



## R_J_K75

Clint_L said:


> My spouse's character is a goblin artificer whose robot guardian is a transforming cart that normally acts as a mobile toyshop, and that was the best miniature I had to represent it.



Nice. I'm impressed you even have a wheelbarrow mini.


----------



## Charlaquin

mellored said:


> Given the amount of dark vision, I can't see why light is going to cause problems.



Darkvision isn’t that bad in my opinion, as long as you properly enforce the -5 penalty on passive perception and disadvantage on perception checks for dim light. The bigger problem is cantrips that produce bright light.


----------



## Horwath

Charlaquin said:


> Darkvision isn’t that bad in my opinion, as long as you properly enforce the -5 penalty on passive perception and disadvantage on perception checks for dim light. The bigger problem is cantrips that produce bright light.



of all the things to complain is this?

wow, a spellcaster can save a silver or two a day for not needing oil for hooded lantern?

But, I agree. Everyone should be more focused on dim light penalties.
Being 100% stealthy with darkvision is a problem if rules are applied.
You will probably trigger every trap there is and if you use light you will fall into any ambush easily.


----------



## reelo

Horwath said:


> of all the things to complain is this?
> 
> wow, a spellcaster can save a silver or two a day for not needing oil for hooded lantern?
> 
> But, I agree. Everyone should be more focused on dim light penalties.
> Being 100% stealthy with darkvision is a problem if rules are applied.
> You will probably trigger every trap there is and if you use light you will fall into any ambush easily.



It's not about "saving a silver or two". If you carry a torch in your off-hand, you're not carrying a shield, using a 2h weapon, or casting a spell with somatic components. And if you need to do that, it means you have to drop the torch, which has a chance of going out in the process, and if doesn't, acts as an obstacle for tactical movement.
There's more to torches than just their monetary cost. Think about it.


----------



## Horwath

reelo said:


> It's not about "saving a silver or two". If you carry a torch in your off-hand, you're not carrying a shield, using a 2h weapon, or casting a spell with somatic components. And if you need to do that, it means you have to drop the torch, which has a chance of going out in the process, and if doesn't, acts as an obstacle for tactical movement.
> There's more to torches than just their monetary cost. Think about it.











						Lantern shield - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## reelo

Horwath said:


> Lantern shield - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



So?


----------



## Horwath

reelo said:


> So?



Combat usually means in this context as mass battle.

If it were used on patrols, some fights might occurred or night time duels.


----------



## Jahydin

@Reynard 
As much as I don't like it, I think the push to go all digital will make the game more "dungeon" centric than every before.


----------



## Shiroiken

reelo said:


> It's not about "saving a silver or two". If you carry a torch in your off-hand, you're not carrying a shield, using a 2h weapon, or casting a spell with somatic components. And if you need to do that, it means you have to drop the torch, which has a chance of going out in the process, and if doesn't, acts as an obstacle for tactical movement.
> There's more to torches than just their monetary cost. Think about it.



Humorously, it's usually the mage or bard that ends up carrying it anyway, as they seldom use shields or two handed weapons. Hooded lanterns are far better than torches anyway, and you can use your 1st turn's object interaction to set it down at the start of combat if you think you'll need to hold a weapon. A 2H weapon fighter could do the same, particularly a polearm fighter since they don't need to draw their weapon (it'd be heavy to carry a greatsword in one hand all day, but nothing in the rules prevents it).


----------



## Reynard

Jahydin said:


> @Reynard
> As much as I don't like it, I think the push to go all digital will make the game more "dungeon" centric than every before.



How so?


----------



## Retreater

Reynard said:


> How so?



I can share my experience. 
VTTs can handle resource expenditures better than many players can. It can time torches, deplete every arrow, etc. Fog of war and vision rules can be set for each character so each player can see only as much as their character.
Maps can be pre-loaded so a DM doesn't stop play to draw, with monsters & traps already placed.
Going back to some in-person play, there are elements of VTT I miss. I even prefer VTT for more complex systems (such as PF2, which I don't know I even have the skill to run in-person).


----------



## John R Davis

Given there is much less need for gold and magic items that removes some dungeoneering incentives.

This generation doesn't have the patience/wish for " technical dungeoneering" .

Dungeons in the 5e era need a lot more space in a publication than the olden days.

I still like a good sensible social dungeons with a mix of tricks, traps, peril and such.


----------



## Desdichado

payn said:


> Well, the big tent was supposed to be backed up with modularity that would allow all kinds of D&D to work. Like, OSR dungeon crawling, 3E strategy and system mastery, 4E tactical, etc... Though, that was abandoned and never brought up again once 5E sold like hotcakes. It's up to folks to figure it all out now if it doesnt work for them out the box.



That may have all been snake oil all along. It sounds to me like what 5e really intended to do was redesign 3e to be easier and simpler to run than 3e and its spin-off Pathfinder had become, because WotC recognized its enduring popularity in the 4e era. They also made some noise towards OSR guys, but I don't know how much (if any) effort was really made to make 5e appeal to the OSR, and the OSR seems to have thrived in the 5e era just fine, which suggests that 5e did very little other than make campaign promises to the OSR that it never really intended to keep.


----------



## Desdichado

John R Davis said:


> Given there is much less need for gold and magic items that removes some dungeoneering incentives.
> 
> This generation doesn't have the patience/wish for " technical dungeoneering" .
> 
> Dungeons in the 5e era need a lot more space in a publication than the olden days.
> 
> I still like a good sensible social dungeons with a mix of tricks, traps, peril and such.



Its not necessarily generational. I'm 50 and I've been playing since 1979 or 1980, and I've always hated "technical dungeoneering."


----------



## payn

My


Desdichado said:


> That may have all been snake oil all along. It sounds to me like what 5e really intended to do was redesign 3e to be easier and simpler to run than 3e and its spin-off Pathfinder had become, because WotC recognized its enduring popularity in the 4e era. They also made some noise towards OSR guys, but I don't know how much (if any) effort was really made to make 5e appeal to the OSR, and the OSR seems to have thrived in the 5e era just fine, which suggests that 5e did very little other than make campaign promises to the OSR that it never really intended to keep.



My thoughts too, though some folks are convinced a cabal of grogs called all the 5E shots.


----------



## Reynard

payn said:


> My
> 
> My thoughts too, though some folks are convinced a cabal of grogs called all the 5E shots.



It's because WotC is leveraging nostalgia -- not towards the grognards, but toward me and my cohort, GenXers who discovered D&D in the 80s and 90s. And that isn't a conspiracy, it's because the team is GenXers, or has been. I don't pay much attention to staff changes so maybe some millenials are moving into creative management positions?


----------



## Reynard

Retreater said:


> I can share my experience.
> VTTs can handle resource expenditures better than many players can. It can time torches, deplete every arrow, etc. Fog of war and vision rules can be set for each character so each player can see only as much as their character.
> Maps can be pre-loaded so a DM doesn't stop play to draw, with monsters & traps already placed.
> Going back to some in-person play, there are elements of VTT I miss. I even prefer VTT for more complex systems (such as PF2, which I don't know I even have the skill to run in-person).



I do think VTTs can do a lot to improve the play experience overall, at least for crunchy systems. I keep meaning to try and do a proper crawl with FG using all the tools. I was running Rappan Athuk but did not leverage anything besides the map. One of these days I will completely light a map and figure out how to make it count time.


----------



## Desdichado

Reynard said:


> It's because WotC is leveraging nostalgia -- not towards the grognards, but toward me and my cohort, GenXers who discovered D&D in the 80s and 90s. And that isn't a conspiracy, it's because the team is GenXers, or has been. I don't pay much attention to staff changes so maybe some millenials are moving into creative management positions?



Probably a few, but I think it's still mostly Xers and Yers. 

Complete tangent, although maybe not completely and totally so: why have "the powers that be" decided that generation Y needs to be forgotten and folded into either X or the Millennials? Their pop culture and generational experience is really pretty significantly different to either. I don't think that the gen x cohort who came in the early to mid 80s to D&D and had a B/X and 1e experience really had the same experience or the same expectations of the game as the gen Y cohort that came in during the 2e era. Sure, plenty of Gen Xers continued to play through the 2e era and maybe even liked an awful lot of what was happening, but the point is that they _also _had a completely different experience that the Gen Y cohort did *not *have.


----------



## Reynard

Desdichado said:


> Probably a few, but I think it's still mostly Xers and Yers.
> 
> Complete tangent, although maybe not completely and totally so: why have "the powers that be" decided that generation Y needs to be forgotten and folded into either X or the Millennials? Their pop culture and generational experience is really pretty significantly different to either. I don't think that the gen x cohort who came in the early to mid 80s to D&D and had a B/X and 1e experience really had the same experience or the same expectations of the game as the gen Y cohort that came in during the 2e era. Sure, plenty of Gen Xers continued to play through the 2e era and maybe even liked an awful lot of what was happening, but the point is that they _also _had a completely different experience that the Gen Y cohort did *not *have.



Aren't GenY just the "elder millenials" -- the "only 90s kids understand" cohort? I did not realize they were considered a separate generation" from a colloquial standpoint.

But, yeah, those that discovered D&D in the 90s probably have a very different set of experiences and certainly a different flavor of nostalgia. I am a BECMI kid, the tail end of GenX. Technically I was part of the Hickman generation but since it was just me and my brothers with the Basic, Expert and Companion rules and no modules, my formative gaming years were defined by those rules: D&D campaigns are a) stuff you come up with off the top of your head, b) intended to change in style and scope over time. I discovered AD&D later and really liked it. I played 2E the longest and deepest but I still treated it like BECMI -- I never used modules and the only setting we ever played in that wasn't homebrew was Dragonlance.

Anyway, my point is that had I been a part of the "D&D community" when i discovered the game I would probably be more nostalgic for Planescape and Spelljammer than i am.


----------



## Clint_L

I see nothing in 5e that is limiting your ability to run that kind of a game - just have a session 0 with your players and lay out your vision. I don't understand why there seems to be a suggestion that the rules need to change to coerce one particular style of play that has largely gone out of fashion.

If you want to run a dungeon crawler, run a dungeon crawler. I've done dungeons crawls in every edition of the game. This thread seems more about worrying about how other folks choose to play rather than just focusing on our own tables. 

AD&D was more dungeon oriented because the game grew out of super simple dungeon crawls using Chainmail rules to build up hero characters that were ultimately intended for wargaming. But as the game evolved it moved to larger and larger environments with more and more focus on story. That's all that happened.


----------



## reelo

Reynard said:


> Aren't GenY just the "elder millenials" -- the "only 90s kids understand" cohort? I did not realize they were considered a separate generation" from a colloquial standpoint.
> 
> But, yeah, those that discovered D&D in the 90s probably have a very different set of experiences and certainly a different flavor of nostalgia. I am a BECMI kid, the tail end of GenX. Technically I was part of the Hickman generation but since it was just me and my brothers with the Basic, Expert and Companion rules and no modules, my formative gaming years were defined by those rules: D&D campaigns are a) stuff you come up with off the top of your head, b) intended to change in style and scope over time. I discovered AD&D later and really liked it. I played 2E the longest and deepest but I still treated it like BECMI -- I never used modules and the only setting we ever played in that wasn't homebrew was Dragonlance.
> 
> Anyway, my point is that had I been a part of the "D&D community" when i discovered the game I would probably be more nostalgic for Planescape and Spelljammer than i am.



Those born between 75 and 85 are known as "Xennials". The "Oregon Trail" generation. Analog childhood, digital adolescence.
A lot of us started with the Revised 2nd Edition, or the Rules Cyclopedia I guess.


----------



## Cadence

reelo said:


> Those born between 75 and 85 are known as "Xennials". The "Oregon Trail" generation. Analog childhood, digital adolescence.
> A lot of us started with the Revised 2nd Edition, or the Rules Cyclopedia I guess.



I hadn't heard the Xennials one before, careerplanner.com (for what that's worth) had this chart:


----------



## Desdichado

That's what the redefinition of Gen Y is, yeah—"older Millennials". But when I was getting my MBA in the very late 90s, Gen Y was defined by marketing people as its own generation. I've never been clear why someone decided to change that and Gen Y was folded into Gen X or Millennials, depending on where the cutoff is pinged, because I think Gen Y as a generation cohort, has its own unique values and its own unique experience. It certainly has its own unique pop culture experience, which is what matters most for our particular discussion.

As an aside, on the other end, Generation Jones is a real thing too; the Baby Boomers don't just run right up in to Gen X without a significant gap in between where people had a very different experience. These cultural generational trends tend very roughly to last about a decade; and trying to make them longer dilutes their utility because "older Millennials" (really Gen Y) have little in common in many ways with the youngest Millennials who are pushing the Gen Z boundary, because the younger ones weren't even born yet when Gen Y was having a lot of their formative experiences. 

I think that there's some utility on pinning these generations to playstyles. While not perfect, a lot of people who came in to the hobby at a certain point no doubt accreted a lot of habits that were current when they did so. The OSR seems to reflect a very early Gen X type of game, and it seems that a big chunk of that player base are Gen-Xers, although a lot of Millennials have been drawn into the OSR as well, and have put their own spin on it in many ways, because they don't have the context of having been taught to play with a Holmes or a Moldvay box in the early 80s while in middle school, so all that they can do is interpret what the text actually says without reference to what was actually happening "at the table" so to speak when those games that the OSR emulates were new.

5e is the iconic Millennial game system, however, and as people of other generations are wont to do, it gets both praise and condemnation for filling their expectations of Millennial habits and attitudes. 

Gen Y and the 2e setting era tend to get forgotten, and I don't really know of very many people who talk about the influence that White Wolf's success had on the direction of D&D throughout the 90s, for instance, or if it was related to other rejections during the 90s of 80s pop cultural elements like corny action movies, synthesizer New Wave music, and D&D as something that was edgy and exciting and metal. 

Or maybe it's just a total coincidence that Gen Y is kind of written out and disappeared as if they never existed as a unique generational cohort, and the playstyle and product style of 2e that was prevalent during the "Gen Y years" is largely ignored and forgotten too with the exception of some occasional nods to Planescape, Spelljammer or Dark Sun, etc.


----------



## James Gasik

overgeeked said:


> Oh man. So many changes.
> 
> The nerf to exhaustion is a move in the right direction. You can use exhaustion from the "play test" without crippling the party from the off. For some that wasn't an issue but for others it was a game quitting line never to be crossed.
> 
> Light. Races would need to be changed, i.e. you'd need to not have something like 75% of all PC races have darkvision. You'd also need to remove light as a cantrip. Somehow center the effects of dim light (disadvantage on perception checks). Push for the black & white sight of darkvision to actually matter (like making lots of things dependent on color vision).
> 
> Food & Water. They are doing a bit of the work by removing the ribbon abilities from backgrounds (looking at you Outlander) along with swapping favored terrain out for expertise in the ranger. Both of these work to make exploration not automatic, which is a step in the right direction. Though with the default DCs of things like getting lost and foraging, expertise is effectively automatic exploration...but it's a start in the right direction. Also remove or nerf spells like create food & water, goodberry, etc.
> 
> Resting. This is the big one. RAW long rests in 5E give you too much. Long rests in the "play test" give you even more. You either need to nerf resting, or dramatically increase...basically everything on the DM's side of things to make 5E anything more difficult than a cakewalk. Things like wandering monsters every 10 minutes and start all those encounters at deadly. Definitely remove Leomund's Tiny Bunker.
> 
> Procedures. You'd actually need to put the procedures for dungeon crawling together in one place that's in the actual main books instead of sort of put them together in the two DM's screens focused on wilderness and dungeon exploration. And, of course, you'd need those procedures to be good and work as intended...and for that intent to be properly challenging the PCs and players.
> 
> Personally, I doubt WotC will ever do anything like most of those. Mainstream D&D has moved on. The new player base is more interested in high action, tough guy, badasses. The appetite for hard scrabble adventures with weak, near-peasant adventurers is still there, but it's a niche within a niche within a niche at this point.



Just a second.  To get people "back" to the dungeon, we'd need to remove darkvision from 75% of the races.

I just want to point out, that in 1e, there were 7 races in the PHB.  Of these seven, 6 had infravision, though some Halflings only had 30' infravision.  So that's uh, 85.71%? 

And if we're saying that "only seeing temperature" is a downside, well, I can't see how that's any better or worse than "disadvantage on Perception checks".

So why is it that we could dungeon crawl then, but now you can't?


----------



## Reynard

Cadence said:


> I hadn't heard the Xennials one before, careerplanner.com (for what that's worth) had this chart:
> 
> View attachment 269631



That's an interesting breakdown. Thanks for sharing. We could atomize it further, of course, getting down to say 5 year spreads based entirely on what cartoons were popular when members of the generation were between 6 and 11, say.


----------



## Cadence

Reynard said:


> That's an interesting breakdown. Thanks for sharing. We could atomize it further, of course, getting down to say 5 year spreads based entirely on what cartoons were popular when members of the generation were between 6 and 11, say.




The video game system they wanted games for, the computers they used, and what they listened to music on, all in middle school?  (Atari 2600; C64 and TRS80; Cassette).


----------



## Desdichado

James Gasik said:


> So why is it that we could dungeon crawl then, but now you can't?



While this only tangentially addressing your specific question, I think it's worth pointing out that there is really a vast gulf between the presumed playstyle of AD&D and OD&D, with B/X being more a continuation of the OD&D playstyle, and AD&D being the precursor to what would eventually become the 3.5 paradigm. Today, often tend to try and create a binary between the 5e crowd and the OSR crowd, but that doesn't always work because we are often sloppy in our references or ignore nuance between various older games and the playstyles that their rules were specifically written to address.

So we get a lot of OSRians refer somewhat pejoratively to elements of 5e design sometimes, like the assumption that darkvision means you can't dungeon crawl, while ignoring that nuance that AD&D from the 1977 PHB was significantly different from Moldvay from 1980. They're just running whatever version of the retroclone idea that they're running and merging all of that nuance together in their head as if old school were some monolithic playstyle that all versions and all players used throughout most of the 70s and 80s until the Hickman Revolution came along and ruined it all, or something.

*UPDATE: *On top of all of that, it's also often ignored that the OSR is its own emergent thing. While it gives a nod back to the 70s and early 80s games, it's not like they were recreated exactly as is, or played exactly as is. Even people who are old enough to have remembered them from back in the day have accreted all kinds of habits and experiences that have changed their tastes and preferences, even if its sometimes in subtle ways. I defy anyone who's 50-something running Old School Essentials to tell me that their current game is basically the same as their Keep on the Borderlands game that they ran while sitting on the grass at recess in 7th grade in 1981.


----------



## James Gasik

Desdichado said:


> While this only tangentially addressing your specific question, I think it's worth pointing out that there is really a vast gulf between the presumed playstyle of AD&D and OD&D, with B/X being more a continuation of the OD&D playstyle, and AD&D being the precursor to what would eventually become the 3.5 paradigm. Today, often tend to try and create a binary between the 5e crowd and the OSR crowd, but that doesn't always work because we are often sloppy in our references or ignore nuance between various older games and the playstyles that their rules were specifically written to address.
> 
> So we get a lot of OSRians refer somewhat pejoratively to elements of 5e design sometimes, like the assumption that darkvision means you can't dungeon crawl, while ignoring that nuance that AD&D from the 1977 PHB was significantly different from Moldvay from 1980. They're just running whatever version of the retroclone idea that they're running and merging all of that nuance together in their head as if old school were some monolithic playstyle that all versions and all players used throughout most of the 70s and 80s until the Hickman Revolution came along and ruined it all, or something.
> 
> *UPDATE: *On top of all of that, it's also often ignored that the OSR is its own emergent thing. While it gives a nod back to the 70s and early 80s games, it's not like they were recreated exactly as is, or played exactly as is. Even people who are old enough to have remembered them from back in the day have accreted all kinds of habits and experiences that have changed their tastes and preferences, even if its sometimes in subtle ways. I defy anyone who's 50-something running Old School Essentials to tell me that their current game is basically the same as their Keep on the Borderlands game that they ran while sitting on the grass at recess in 7th grade in 1981.



First of all, thank you for this post, it's very illuminating (pun not intended, but hey), but I guess the question now is, when did the ability to see in the dark actually become an issue?  I mean, I'm not sure how far back I have to go- the oldest D&D book I have in my possession is TSR 2001 (edited by Eric Holmes), and there we have Elves and Dwarves able to see 60' in the dark (so long as there is no light source within 30' of them), without any other penalty (an ability they share with all monsters, according to the text).

I'm assuming the difference there was the human-centric nature of the game- only humans could assume their own character classes, so it wasn't like you'd have a party of only Dwarves and Elves (though having a Dwarf or Elf 30' in front of the party to scout doesn't seem an odd idea to me).


----------



## Carlsen Chris

Vaalingrade said:


> This is unnecessary. Stop.



No no this is unnecessary.  Stop.


----------



## tetrasodium

.


James Gasik said:


> Just a second.  To get people "back" to the dungeon, we'd need to remove darkvision from 75% of the races.
> 
> I just want to point out, that in 1e, there were 7 races in the PHB.  Of these seven, 6 had infravision, though some Halflings only had 30' infravision.  So that's uh, 85.71%?
> 
> And if we're saying that "only seeing temperature" is a downside, well, I can't see how that's any better or worse than "disadvantage on Perception checks".
> 
> So why is it that we could dungeon crawl then, but now you can't?



Going back to those old vision types would be a huge improvement actually,  Here's what the 2e PHB has to say about infravision on page155


Spoiler: Infravision



Infravision 
Some characters and monsters have the power of infravision. This can mean one of two things, depending on whether the standard or the optional rule is used (this is discussed in detail in the Dungeon Master's Guide). The choice is left to the DM and he must tell the players how he wants infravision to work. Regardless of how the power functions, the range of infravision is at most 60 feet unless otherwise noted.


From that the player can be sure they need a torch & have no room to argue when the GM says it's dark& they can't see well...  
Here's what the 2dmg says...


Spoiler: oh boy...



*Infravision* 
There are two definitions of infraviion that can be used in the AD&D game. The first is simple but lacks detail. It is, however, a perfectly adequate definition for those who don’t want to bother with the complexities of infravision. The second, optional, definition, adds another 
level of detail to the game. It allows the DM to create special situations in which the function of infravision becomes important, but requires the DM to keep track of more rules and more details.
*Standard Infravision*
 The easiest definition of infravision is that it allows characters to see in the dark. Nothing more is said about how this works—it simply works. Characters do not see into the infared spectrum or “see’’ heat or anything else. They just see in the dark as clearly as they do in normal light. However, since it is a somewhat magical power, the range is not that of normal vision—infravision ability extends only 60 feet. Beyond this 
only normal vision is allowed.

Optional Infravision


Spoiler: spoilered because I'm not fixing the linebreaks



This definition is much more scientific and accurate to
what we know of physical properties of the real world. To
its advantage, this definition makes infravision very differ-
ent from normal sight, with its own strengths and weak-
nesses. To its disadvantage, it introduces a certain amount
of scientific accuracy (with all its complications) into a
fantasy realm.
 According to this definition, infravision is the ability to
sense or “see’’ heat. The best comparison is to thermal imag-
ing equipment used by the armed forces of many different
nations today. This special sense is limited to a 60-foot
range. Within this range, characters can see the degrees of
heat radiated by an object as a glowing blob translated into
colors like a thermagram.
 If this definition is used, there are several things that
must be considered. First, large heat sources will temporar-
ily blind characters with infravision just as looking at a
bright light blinds those with normal vision. Thus, those
attempting to use infravision must make the effort to avoid
looking directly at fires or torches, either their own or the
enemy’s. (The light from magical items does not radiate
significant heat.) Second, the DM must be ready to state
how hot various things are. A literal interpretation of the
rule means that characters won’t be able to tell the floor
from the walls in most dungeons. All of it is the same tem-
perature, after all.
 The DM must also be ready to decide if dungeon doors
are a different temperature (or radiate heat differently) from
stone walls. Does a different color or kind of stone radiate
heat differently from those around it? Does the ink of a page
radiate differently enough from the paper to be noticed?
Probably not. Can a character tell an orc from a hobgoblin or
a human? Most creatures have similar “thermal outlines”—
somewhat fuzzy blobs. They do not radiate at different tem-
peratures and even if they did, infravision is seldom so acute
as to register differences of just a few degrees.
 Be sure you understand the effects this optional definition 
of infravision can have—there are dangers in bringing scien-
tific accuracy to a fantasy game. By creating a specific defini-
tion of how this power works, the DM is inviting his players to 
apply logic to the definition. The problem is, this is a fantasy 
game and logic isn’t always sensible or even desired! So, be 
aware that the optional definition may result in very strange 
situations, all because logic and science are applied to some-
thing that isn’t logical or scientific.





On that same page is an entry for darkness


Spoiler: Note the bold...



Darkness 
Sooner or later characters wind up blundering around in the dark. Normally they try to avoid this, but clever DMs and foolish players generally manage to bring it about. Perhaps the kobolds captured the player characters and stripped them of all their gear; perhaps the characters forgot to bring enough torches. Whatever the reason, those without infravision suffer both physical and psychological effects in the dark.

 For the purposes of this discussion, *“darkness’’ means any time the characters suffer from limited visibility. *Thus, the rules given here apply equally well when the characters are affected by a darkness spell, blundering about in pea-soup fog, out on a moonless night, or even blindfolded.
 Since one can’t see anything in the dark, the safe movement rate of blinded characters is immediately slowed by 1⁄3 the normal amount. Faster movement requires a Dexterity check (see Chapter 14: Time and Movement). Characters also suffer a –4 penalty to attack rolls and saving throws. Their Armor Class is four worse than normal (to a limit of 10). Sight-related damage bonuses (backstabbing, etc.) are negated. However, darkness is not always absolute, and those DMs who wish to make distinctions between various levels of darkness can use Table 72.

 The blindfighting proficiency can lessen the effects of fight-
ing in darkness as explained in the proficiency description in 
the Player’s Handbook.



The fact that infravision was linked to heat or whatever the GM deems it linked to ensured that it was not simply magical biological nightvision goggles like darkvision & devils sight.


----------



## Cadence

tetrasodium said:


> .
> 
> Going back to those old vision types would be a huge improvement actually,  Here's what the 2e PHB has to say about infravision on page155
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Infravision
> 
> 
> 
> Infravision
> Some characters and monsters have the power of infravision. This can mean one of two things, depending on whether the standard or the optional rule is used (this is discussed in detail in the Dungeon Master's Guide). The choice is left to the DM and he must tell the players how he wants infravision to work. Regardless of how the power functions, the range of infravision is at most 60 feet unless otherwise noted.
> 
> 
> From that the player can be sure they need a torch & have no room to argue when the GM says it's dark& they can't see well...
> Here's what the 2dmg says...
> 
> 
> Spoiler: oh boy...
> 
> 
> 
> *Infravision*
> There are two definitions of infraviion that can be used in the AD&D game. The first is simple but lacks detail. It is, however, a perfectly adequate definition for those who don’t want to bother with the complexities of infravision. The second, optional, definition, adds another
> level of detail to the game. It allows the DM to create special situations in which the function of infravision becomes important, but requires the DM to keep track of more rules and more details.
> *Standard Infravision*
> The easiest definition of infravision is that it allows characters to see in the dark. Nothing more is said about how this works—it simply works. Characters do not see into the infared spectrum or “see’’ heat or anything else. They just see in the dark as clearly as they do in normal light. However, since it is a somewhat magical power, the range is not that of normal vision—infravision ability extends only 60 feet. Beyond this
> only normal vision is allowed.
> 
> Optional Infravision
> 
> 
> Spoiler: spoilered because I'm not fixing the linebreaks
> 
> 
> 
> This definition is much more scientific and accurate to
> what we know of physical properties of the real world. To
> its advantage, this definition makes infravision very differ-
> ent from normal sight, with its own strengths and weak-
> nesses. To its disadvantage, it introduces a certain amount
> of scientific accuracy (with all its complications) into a
> fantasy realm.
> According to this definition, infravision is the ability to
> sense or “see’’ heat. The best comparison is to thermal imag-
> ing equipment used by the armed forces of many different
> nations today. This special sense is limited to a 60-foot
> range. Within this range, characters can see the degrees of
> heat radiated by an object as a glowing blob translated into
> colors like a thermagram.
> If this definition is used, there are several things that
> must be considered. First, large heat sources will temporar-
> ily blind characters with infravision just as looking at a
> bright light blinds those with normal vision. Thus, those
> attempting to use infravision must make the effort to avoid
> looking directly at fires or torches, either their own or the
> enemy’s. (The light from magical items does not radiate
> significant heat.) Second, the DM must be ready to state
> how hot various things are. A literal interpretation of the
> rule means that characters won’t be able to tell the floor
> from the walls in most dungeons. All of it is the same tem-
> perature, after all.
> The DM must also be ready to decide if dungeon doors
> are a different temperature (or radiate heat differently) from
> stone walls. Does a different color or kind of stone radiate
> heat differently from those around it? Does the ink of a page
> radiate differently enough from the paper to be noticed?
> Probably not. Can a character tell an orc from a hobgoblin or
> a human? Most creatures have similar “thermal outlines”—
> somewhat fuzzy blobs. They do not radiate at different tem-
> peratures and even if they did, infravision is seldom so acute
> as to register differences of just a few degrees.
> Be sure you understand the effects this optional definition
> of infravision can have—there are dangers in bringing scien-
> tific accuracy to a fantasy game. By creating a specific defini-
> tion of how this power works, the DM is inviting his players to
> apply logic to the definition. The problem is, this is a fantasy
> game and logic isn’t always sensible or even desired! So, be
> aware that the optional definition may result in very strange
> situations, all because logic and science are applied to some-
> thing that isn’t logical or scientific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On that same page is an entry for darkness
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Note the bold...
> 
> 
> 
> Darkness
> Sooner or later characters wind up blundering around in the dark. Normally they try to avoid this, but clever DMs and foolish players generally manage to bring it about. Perhaps the kobolds captured the player characters and stripped them of all their gear; perhaps the characters forgot to bring enough torches. Whatever the reason, those without infravision suffer both physical and psychological effects in the dark.
> 
> For the purposes of this discussion, *“darkness’’ means any time the characters suffer from limited visibility. *Thus, the rules given here apply equally well when the characters are affected by a darkness spell, blundering about in pea-soup fog, out on a moonless night, or even blindfolded.
> Since one can’t see anything in the dark, the safe movement rate of blinded characters is immediately slowed by 1⁄3 the normal amount. Faster movement requires a Dexterity check (see Chapter 14: Time and Movement). Characters also suffer a –4 penalty to attack rolls and saving throws. Their Armor Class is four worse than normal (to a limit of 10). Sight-related damage bonuses (backstabbing, etc.) are negated. However, darkness is not always absolute, and those DMs who wish to make distinctions between various levels of darkness can use Table 72.
> 
> The blindfighting proficiency can lessen the effects of fight-
> ing in darkness as explained in the proficiency description in
> the Player’s Handbook.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that infravision was linked to heat or whatever the GM deems it linked to ensured that it was not simply magical biological nightvision goggles like darkvision & devils sight.




I know @tetrasodium already saw it, but if anyone has any musings on vision types for D&D...








						D&D General - Types of Vision for D&D and Other Fantasy RPGs  (Besides Darkvision)
					

So 1e had Ultravision and Infravision.  3.5 had Low-Light and Darkvision and 5e has Darkvision.  The former sounds too sci-fi to some and the later is too ubiquitous and overpowered to some.  What would you put in a fantasy game?  For me, it was kind of cool looking up the variety of eye types...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## Charlaquin

Horwath said:


> of all the things to complain is this?
> 
> wow, a spellcaster can save a silver or two a day for not needing oil for hooded lantern?
> 
> But, I agree. Everyone should be more focused on dim light penalties.
> Being 100% stealthy with darkvision is a problem if rules are applied.
> You will probably trigger every trap there is and if you use light you will fall into any ambush easily.



It’s not about the monetary expense, it’s about the logistical considerations of light sources. As @reelo pointed out, carrying a torch or lantern occupies a hand, which can limit a character’s ability to wield weapons, manipulate spell components, or interact with the environment, unless they use action economy resources to put it down at the start of combat. More importantly though, it’s something you have to take into consideration when planning a delve into the dungeon. How many torches or vials of oil are you going to bring? Those take up inventory space/weight, and they can be a limiting factor on how long you can remain in the dungeon. Or would do, if the Wizard couldn’t just cast Light whenever they want. “Torches/lanterns go out” is also a standard dungeon complication, which doesn’t really matter if the players are relying on cantrips for light instead of torches or lanterns.


----------



## Charlaquin

Reynard said:


> Aren't GenY just the "elder millenials" -- the "only 90s kids understand" cohort? I did not realize they were considered a separate generation" from a colloquial standpoint.



I mean, generations are arbitrary and pretty vaguely defined. But by most definitions, Gen Y is just another name for millennials.


----------



## Clint_L

These arguments about 5e discouraging a particular old school play style are utterly unconvincing and are just folks grumping that the game isn't the same as in the golden years of their youth. It's the D&D equivalent of us old farts complaining that music just isn't as good anymore.

There is zero - ZERO - in 5e discouraging you from sitting down at a session 0 and stipulating limited/no dark vision, meticulous resource tracking, etc. If that is not happening at your table it's because your table doesn't want it to happen. Probably because most folks are pretty happy with the direction the game has gone and don't actually want to just do Keep on the Borderlands crawls with minimal story and character development.

Trying to make others play the game more like "in the good old days" is a doomed and misguided goal. Let's just worry about our own tables. If the kids don't want to dungeon crawl, it's not because they can't, it's because they are making a choice not to.


----------



## Desdichado

Charlaquin said:


> I mean, generations are arbitrary and pretty vaguely defined. But by most definitions, Gen Y is just another name for millennials.



No, that's actually not true at all. Gen Y was a completely separate generation that NOW makes up the first half of Millennials, while the second half of the Millennial generation is what was called Millennials back when product marketing people still cared about Gen Y.


----------



## Charlaquin

Clint_L said:


> These arguments about 5e discouraging a particular old school play style are utterly unconvincing and are just folks grumping that the game isn't the same as in the golden years of their youth. It's the D&D equivalent of us old farts complaining that music just isn't as good anymore.
> 
> There is zero - ZERO - in 5e discouraging you from sitting down at a session 0 and stipulating limited/no dark vision, meticulous resource tracking, etc. If that is not happening at your table it's because your table doesn't want it to happen. Probably because most folks are pretty happy with the direction the game has gone and don't actually want to just do Keep on the Borderlands crawls with minimal story and character development.
> 
> Trying to make others play the game more like "in the good old days" is a doomed and misguided goal. Let's just worry about our own tables. If the kids don't want to dungeon crawl, it's not because they can't, it's because they are making a choice not to.



I mean… The need to stipulate those things in session zero is what makes 5e discouraging to such play styles, whereas with another system, there might not be a need to stipulate such things because they’re a part of the core rules. That’s not to say that people who want to play that way aren’t “grumping that the game isn't the same as in the golden years of their youth,” many of them certainly are. But that doesn’t mean the game hasn’t genuinely changed in that time, in a way that makes it more work to play the way they did back then.

Also, there are some of us who _didn’t_ experience the game that way during our youths, but have since discovered the playstyle and found it to our liking.


----------



## Desdichado

Clint_L said:


> These arguments about 5e discouraging a particular old school play style are utterly unconvincing and are just folks grumping that the game isn't the same as in the golden years of their youth. It's the D&D equivalent of us old farts complaining that music just isn't as good anymore.
> 
> There is zero - ZERO - in 5e discouraging you from sitting down at a session 0 and stipulating limited/no dark vision, meticulous resource tracking, etc. If that is not happening at your table it's because your table doesn't want it to happen. Probably because most folks are pretty happy with the direction the game has gone and don't actually want to just do Keep on the Borderlands crawls with minimal story and character development.
> 
> Trying to make others play the game more like "in the good old days" is a doomed and misguided goal. Let's just worry about our own tables. If the kids don't want to dungeon crawl, it's not because they can't, it's because they are making a choice not to.



While I mostly agree with you, let me address each of these paragraphs in turn.

1) My Gen Z kids also complain that music isn't as good anymore. My 19 year old got really in to 80s Motley Crue, The Cult and Metallica. And he didn't really hear them from me; I'm much more of a synthesizer New Wave kind of guy; Depeche Mode, Duran Duran, and all that. Sometimes complaints are just old farts grumbling about nostalgia, but sometimes they have a point.

2) I have the same complaint about a lot of OSRians—their refrain seems to be "if only people would try this, it would solve all of their problems!" It's baloney. People who aren't playing OSR games aren't doing so because OSR games don't offer what they want from their gaming experience, and the games that they ARE playing do, by and large. 

3) This has also always been my personal refrain about big tent movements. Who cares what someone else is doing? I've never been a big tent kind of guy anyway, I'm the kind of guy who wants to set up my own little tent in some private, quiet part of the woods. Big tentism is a supply driven initiative, because WotC wants to sell as many copies as they can. It's not demand driven, because people all want different things from the game, therefore being more modular, or even just offering different iterations on the same idea (i.e., different games) is the solution for consumers. I know some people get some kind of endorphin rush with feeling validated that their playstyle or favorite game or favorite rule or whatever is popular, but sometimes you just need to not worry about what anyone else is doing at their table and just worry about what you're going to do at your table.


----------



## Charlaquin

Desdichado said:


> No, that's actually not true at all. Gen Y was a completely separate generation that NOW makes up the first half of Millennials, while the second half of the Millennial generation is what was called Millennials back when product marketing people still cared about Gen Y.



It is 100% true that generations are arbitrary and vaguely defined. It is also true that by most definitions, Gen Y is another name for Milennials. It may _also_ be true that  there are some definitions by which Gen Y is a separate generation between Gen X and millennials, and these definitions may have once been more common than they are now. These categories are socially constructed, and are subject to drift over time. There’s no central authority governing what the definitions of generations are, so one certainly could consider Gen Y a distinct generation, and one wouldn’t be wrong. But it wouldn’t be consistent with the current most commonly used definitions.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Charlaquin said:


> It’s not about the monetary expense, it’s about the logistical considerations of light sources. As @reelo pointed out, carrying a torch or lantern occupies a hand, which can limit a character’s ability to wield weapons, manipulate spell components, or interact with the environment, unless they use action economy resources to put it down at the start of combat. More importantly though, it’s something you have to take into consideration when planning a delve into the dungeon. How many torches or vials of oil are you going to bring? Those take up inventory space/weight, and they can be a limiting factor on how long you can remain in the dungeon. Or would do, if the Wizard couldn’t just cast Light whenever they want. “Torches/lanterns go out” is also a standard dungeon complication, which doesn’t really matter if the players are relying on cantrips for light instead of torches or lanterns.



A _ lot_ of these are caused by cantrips in general.  Mage Hand, Light, every attack cantrip.  All of these allow easy, magical ways to circumvent what used to be a challenge.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Desdichado said:


> No, that's actually not true at all. Gen Y was a completely separate generation that NOW makes up the first half of Millennials, while the second half of the Millennial generation is what was called Millennials back when product marketing people still cared about Gen Y.



Gen Y was just the first dumb name they came up with for us before they settled on the dumb name they blame for not using fabric softener and wasting money on diamonds.

'Millennial' is just a word for 'heretic who broke from the Old Ways and must be made to pay for it.


----------



## Charlaquin

Micah Sweet said:


> A _ lot_ of these are caused by cantrips in general.  Mage Hand, Light, every attack cantrip.  All of these allow easy, magical ways to circumvent what used to be a challenge.



Yeah, cantrips as they work in 5e definitely get in the way of a lot of the traditional dungeon delving challenges. One way to fix this problem might be to have all spells require material components to cast, and have all material components be expended on casting, unless otherwise noted. Have a generic unit of spellcasting components, and limit how many units can be carried in a component pouch. That basically gets you back around to individual spell preparation, since you’d have to choose how many castings of each of your spells to bring components for. Cantrips wouldn’t cost spell slots, but you’d need to plan ahead how many times you wanted to be able to use each one, and they would come at the opportunity cost of room for components of other spells.


----------



## Desdichado

Vaalingrade said:


> Gen Y was just the first dumb name they came up with for us before they settled on the dumb name they blame for not using fabric softener and wasting money on diamonds.
> 
> 'Millennial' is just a word for 'heretic who broke from the Old Ways and must be made to pay for it.



Gen Y was the obvious name to call a generation that followed Gen X.

Your description of Millennial sounds like something a Boomer would say, but what "Old Ways"? The "Old Ways" that the Boomers created after they themselves broke from the Old Ways? I often think that Boomers and Millennials tend to butt heads so much because they're actually so much alike and they see reflections of each other in their counterparts. Except that, for some reason, it's cool when they're the ones doing it and lame when it's the other generation doing the same thing.

Meanwhile, us Gen-Xers are sitting here quietly on the sidelines commiserated with our Gen-Y younger brothers and sisters about the mess that Boomers and Millennials have created, shaking our heads and doing our own thing. It's been estimated that up to a third of Gen-X was aborted. I wonder if things would have been different had our generation been nearly 50% bigger, but I guess we'll never know. In the meantime, Boomers and Millennials suck up all of the attention, so much so that they've literally planted their flag like conquerors in generations adjacent to them; Boomers have swallowed up Generation Jones, at least according to marketing and cultural pundits, and Millennials have swallowed up Gen Y. Because nobody seems to know what to say about them.

They don't know what to say about Gen-Xers other than that we're supposedly cynical, but we're too far removed from either for anyone to suggest folding us in to some other generation.


----------



## Charlaquin

Vaalingrade said:


> Gen Y was just the first dumb name they came up with for us before they settled on the dumb name they blame for not using fabric softener and wasting money on diamonds.
> 
> 'Millennial' is just a word for 'heretic who broke from the Old Ways and must be made to pay for it.



Well, it was. That’s rapidly becoming what “Zoomer” means, while “Miliennial” is slotting into the socially ignored space “Gen X” used to occupy. Only reason “Gen X” hasn’t taken over as “Old folks whose fault everything is,” is because “Boomer” is a much punchier-sounding epithet.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Charlaquin said:


> Well, it was. That’s rapidly becoming what “Zoomer” means, while “Miliennial” is slotting into the socially ignored space “Gen X” used to occupy. Only reason “Gen X” hasn’t taken over as “Old folks whose fault everything is,” is because “Boomer” is a much punchier-sounding epithet.



Nah, Millennials are still the ones everyone hates. The Zoomers are, at worst, the weird kids who have a legit beef with us because we invented the meme culture that destroyed them.

Then we have the Last Generation, who will never know how it feels to turn 50.


----------



## Desdichado

Charlaquin said:


> It is 100% true that generations are arbitrary and vaguely defined. It is also true that by most definitions, Gen Y is another name for Milennials. It may _also_ be true that  there are some definitions by which Gen Y is a separate generation between Gen X and millennials, and these definitions may have once been more common than they are now. These categories are socially constructed, and are subject to drift over time. There’s no central authority governing what the definitions of generations are, so one certainly could consider Gen Y a distinct generation, and one wouldn’t be wrong. But it wouldn’t be consistent with the current most commonly used definitions.



It is ALSO true that if generations are arbitrary and vaguely defined, as opposed to being plotted against some kind of specific marker, that they're pretty useless as labels. 

And it is ALSO true that Gen Y existed long before the Millennial label existed, and was used extensively to describe the folks between Gen X and Millennials for years. You say that there's no central authority, but I say it's curious that there was a sudden shift that seemed to cascade to all pundits at once, as if they were a school of fish or a flock of birds, but those of us watching it happen in realtime are mystified and kind of thrown off by the sudden shift. There's context to actually having been there and seen it happen first-hand, after all.

Which is why, to change the subject, I sometimes wonder how much Millennial OSRians like Ben from Questing Beast, or presumably you, really play the same way that older Gen-Xers did when the games being retrocloned were actually new and current. The rulesets may be more or less the same, but there's a whole lot of context that is different. I suspect that there are big, significant gaping chasms between the playstyle of my game in 1981 and Questing Beast's game in 2022 even if the rules are functionally identical.


----------



## Mistwell

Reynard said:


> I'd love to see a modern version of D&D refocused on dungeon exploration, and with a new revision/spiffying up/half edition/whatever of 5E in One D&D, I wonder what rule tweaks could they do to the 5E chassis to make it work well as a dungeon crawler (as @overgeeked called it)?
> 
> The biggest issues with 5E as a good dungeon crawl game are that the exploration pillar is essentially ignored, especially in regards to resource management and environmental elements (like lighting). I think shoring up some DCs for common exploration tasks as well as upping the use of tables can help. More importantly though would be the curtailing of a lot of spells and class abilities that obviate dungeon exploration challenges. Light should not be a cantrip, for eample.
> 
> Thoughts?



We've used it for primarily dungeon crawling for a decade now and it works great. I don't even know what you're going off about on this one? Light? Exploration ignored? You want tracking of rations and arrows or something and think that would enhance dungeon crawling? 

I wouldn't mind some more guidelines I suppose. Spell out how much time passes to search 5 feet of space. A better breakdown of perception versus investigation. Some more clarity for surprise. Some clarity on how far noise carries in a dungeon for various tasks, like breaking down a door. DCs for listening at a door and unsticking a door. Those sorts of things.


----------



## Desdichado

Charlaquin said:


> Well, it was. That’s rapidly becoming what “Zoomer” means, while “Miliennial” is slotting into the socially ignored space “Gen X” used to occupy. Only reason “Gen X” hasn’t taken over as “Old folks whose fault everything is,” is because “Boomer” is a much punchier-sounding epithet.



Also because the Boomers are literally still there occupying those roles.


----------



## Mistwell

Reynard said:


> And terrible.



It's not. It can be great, and we've been adventuring there for the past 6-7 months and it's great. But I agree it does need a good DM to make it work well.

We're currently on the level with the forests and the elf who runs it. We accidentally burned down her forest with an ill placed fireball, and she gathered a ton of giant bats to wear us down and then summoned some terrifying planar creature to hunt us down and kill us. We had to flee. It was awesome. We're worried she's following and will start turning Waterdeep against us.


----------



## Charlaquin

Desdichado said:


> It is ALSO true that if generations are arbitrary and vaguely defined, as opposed to being plotted against some kind of specific marker, that they're pretty useless as labels.



Yes and no. Categories being arbitrary doesn’t make them useless _per se_ (otherwise all categories would be useless), but generations specifically are pretty much useless as labels.


Desdichado said:


> And it is ALSO true that Gen Y existed long before the Millennial label existed, and was used extensively to describe the folks between Gen X and Millennials for years. You say that there's no central authority, but I say it's curious that there was a sudden shift that seemed to cascade to all pundits at once, as if they were a school of fish or a flock of birds, but those of us watching it happen in realtime are mystified and kind of thrown off by the sudden shift. There's context to actually having been there and seen it happen first-hand, after all.



Getting a bit conspiratorial there, don’t you think?


Desdichado said:


> Which is why, to change the subject, I sometimes wonder how much Millennial OSRians like Ben from Questing Beast, or presumably you, really play the same way that older Gen-Xers did when the games being retrocloned were actually new and current. The rulesets may be more or less the same, but there's a whole lot of context that is different. I suspect that there are big, significant gaping chasms between the playstyle of my game in 1981 and Questing Beast's game in 2022 even if the rules are functionally identical.



Oh, undoubtedly! I obviously can’t speak for Questing Beast, but I’m quite sure from conversations with people who did play the game in the 70s and 80s that my own games look quite different than theirs did. Reproducing the Classic gameplay style isn’t really my goal. I think there’s a lot of valuable things that can be learned from Classic play, and I think a lot of Classic procedures make for really engaging gameplay loops. But ultimately, I’m more interested in refining my own playstyle, mining both Classic and more modern play for ideas that can improve my games.


----------



## Mistwell

Charlaquin said:


> Darkvision isn’t that bad in my opinion, as long as you properly enforce the -5 penalty on passive perception and disadvantage on perception checks for dim light. The bigger problem is cantrips that produce bright light.



I wouldn't mind infravision coming back as a distinct thing from darkvision. I wouldn't mind more "invisible from darkvision" type abilities in the game, or "obscured in darkvision".


----------



## Xamnam

Mistwell said:


> I wouldn't mind some more guidelines I suppose. Spell out how much time passes to search 5 feet of space. A better breakdown of perception versus investigation. Some more clarity for surprise. Some clarity on how far noise carries in a dungeon for various tasks, like breaking down a door. DCs for listening at a door and unsticking a door. Those sorts of things.



I do think re-grounding the importance of time and the unintended consequences of when things have gone wrong are key to this type of play and under-served aspects in the current rules.


----------



## Mistwell

Retreater said:


> I can share my experience.
> VTTs can handle resource expenditures better than many players can. It can time torches, deplete every arrow, etc. Fog of war and vision rules can be set for each character so each player can see only as much as their character.
> Maps can be pre-loaded so a DM doesn't stop play to draw, with monsters & traps already placed.
> Going back to some in-person play, there are elements of VTT I miss. I even prefer VTT for more complex systems (such as PF2, which I don't know I even have the skill to run in-person).



Agreed. A VTT tracks light ranges very well. It tracks shadowing very well. It tracks time very well. It can track arrows and food and water if you wanted it to do that. All these things are made easier with a VTT.


----------



## Horwath

Charlaquin said:


> It’s not about the monetary expense, it’s about the logistical considerations of light sources. As @reelo pointed out, carrying a torch or lantern occupies a hand, which can limit a character’s ability to wield weapons, manipulate spell components, or interact with the environment, unless they use action economy resources to put it down at the start of combat. More importantly though, it’s something you have to take into consideration when planning a delve into the dungeon. How many torches or vials of oil are you going to bring? Those take up inventory space/weight, and they can be a limiting factor on how long you can remain in the dungeon. Or would do, if the Wizard couldn’t just cast Light whenever they want. “Torches/lanterns go out” is also a standard dungeon complication, which doesn’t really matter if the players are relying on cantrips for light instead of torches or lanterns.



yes, oil is always valuable, having darkvision or not. You can always sneak and lit entire goblin camp on fire.

and one light cantrip is not going to help entire party unless they will hug the wizard all dungeon. Good luck with any AoE then.

and if all have light, then every member just blew a cantrip slot on a marginal benefit. All power to them for that. 
What would you rather have? Light or guidance?
I agree that you can be creative with light and other spells, but that is why creativity is in D&D.
Mage hand the light source in front of party and that stuff...

but then you get a level or two and buy continual flame and save a cantrip slot for something more useful.

type of light source is 1st level inconvenience at best.
the fact that you have a light source at all could be a dungeon run problem as a whole.

also this:


----------



## Charlaquin

Mistwell said:


> I wouldn't mind infravision coming back as a distinct thing from darkvision. I wouldn't mind more "invisible from darkvision" type abilities in the game, or "obscured in darkvision".



I have mixed feelings about infravision. On one hand, I like that it conveys different information than normal vision, rather than just allowing you to see normally without a light source. I also like that it doesn’t work in bright light, because then you have to make a choice between normal vision or infravision. On the other hand, the fact that it conveys different information than normal vision makes it more complicated to deal with in play. I’m not used to having to think about things like whether or not a given creature gives off an infrared signature, or how long footprints would remain warm enough to follow with infravision.

I also kind of like the quasi-naturalistic explanation for some creatures being able to see in the dark, but at the same time it’s a bit science-y for my tastes. Darkvision I can just tell myself is magic and not worry about it; Infravision raises questions like do elves/dwarves/gnomes/orcs have pits under their eyes like vipers? Why doesn’t their own internal body heat interfere with their infravision? The closer you get to a scientific explanation for extraordinary abilities, the more the ascientific elements stand out to me.

Part of me wants to have infravision, ultravision, and night vision all as different vision types that various species can have and that all work in different ways and convey different information. Part of me thinks that would be way more trouble than it’s worth, and just sticking to simple Darkvision has the better depth-to-complexity ratio.


----------



## Charlaquin

Retreater said:


> I can share my experience.
> VTTs can handle resource expenditures better than many players can. It can time torches, deplete every arrow, etc. Fog of war and vision rules can be set for each character so each player can see only as much as their character.
> Maps can be pre-loaded so a DM doesn't stop play to draw, with monsters & traps already placed.
> Going back to some in-person play, there are elements of VTT I miss. I even prefer VTT for more complex systems (such as PF2, which I don't know I even have the skill to run in-person).



VTTs can be useful tools even for in-person play. Only reason I don’t use them for that more often is that I miss the tactility of miniatures and 3d terrain, and the flexibility of TotM.


----------



## CreamCloud0

i don't know if light management is really all that crucial for dungeons? it's something that was a part of original dungeon crawls but the game's changed alot in that time, just because dungeons and light management was correlated doesn't mean they're essential together, before i got into DnD my biggest source of comparible locales was legend of zelda and final fantasy, where the entire thing is well lit (unless light and darkness explicitly tied into the puzzles of said dungeon) but still manages to be an interesting brain teaser.


----------



## tetrasodium

Horwath said:


> yes, oil is always valuable, having darkvision or not. You can always sneak and lit entire goblin camp on fire.
> 
> and one light cantrip is not going to help entire party unless they will hug the wizard all dungeon. Good luck with any AoE then.
> 
> and if all have light, then every member just blew a cantrip slot on a marginal benefit. All power to them for that.
> What would you rather have? Light or guidance?
> I agree that you can be creative with light and other spells, but that is why creativity is in D&D.
> Mage hand the light source in front of party and that stuff...
> 
> but then you get a level or two and buy continual flame and save a cantrip slot for something more useful.
> 
> type of light source is 1st level inconvenience at best.
> the fact that you have a light source at all could be a dungeon run problem as a whole.
> 
> also this:
> View attachment 269653



Light sources in 5e are dramatically better,  Compare the lanterns


Spoiler: 2e phb light sources



Source Radius Burning time
Beacon lantern 240 ft.* 30 hrs./pint
Bonfire 50 ft. 1⁄2 hr./armload
Bullseye lantern 60 ft.* 2 hrs./pint
Campfire 35 ft. 1 hr./armload
Candle 5 ft. 10 min./inch
Continual light 60 ft. Indefinite
Hooded lantern 30 ft. 2 hrs./pint
Light spell 20 ft. Variable
Torch 15 ft. 30 min.
Weapon** 5 ft. As desired
 * Light from these is not cast in a radius, but rather in 
a cone-shaped beam. At its far end, the cone of 
light from a beacon lantern is 90 feet wide. A bulls-
eye lantern has a beam 20 feet wide at its far end.
 ** Magical weapons shed light if your DM allows this 
optional rule.

Lantern — —
 Beacon 150 gp *50 lbs.*
 Bullseye 12 gp 3 lbs.
 Hooded 7 gp 2 lbs.

*Lanterns*: 
A *hooded lantern* (30-foot radius of light) is a 
standard lantern with shuttered or hinged sides. It is not 
directional, as its light is cast equally in all directions. A bulls-
eye lantern (60-foot beam of light) has only a single shutter, 
the other sides being highly polished to reflect the light in a 
single direction. Both hooded and bullseye lanterns can be 
carried in one hand. A single flask of oil (one pint) burns for 
six hours in either.
 The* beacon lantern* (240-foot beam of light) is a much 
larger affair and must be mounted on the prow of a ship, the 
bed of a wagon, or other large structure. It operates like the 
bullseye lantern but illuminates to a greater distance. The bea-
con goes through oil quickly, burning a flask every two hours.





Spoiler: 5e lanterns



*Torch*. A torch burns for 1 hour, providing bright light 
in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 
feet. If you make a m elee attack with a burning torch 
and hit, it deals 1 fire damage.
*Lamp.* A lamp casts bright light in a 15-foot radius 
*and dim light for an additional 30 feet.* Once lit, it burns 
for 6 hours on a flask (1 pint) of oil.
*Lantern, Bullseye*. A bullseye lantern casts bright 
light in a 60-foot cone *and dim light for an additional 60 *
feet. Once lit, it burns for 6 hours on a flask (1 pint) of oil.
*Lantern, Hooded.* A hooded lantern casts bright light
in a 30-foot radius and dim light for an additional 30 
feet. Once lit, it burns for 6 hours on a flask (1 pint) of 
oil. As an action, you can lower the hood, reducing the 
light to dim light in a 5-foot radius.




When nearly every PC is certain to have darkvision that extra dim light perfect vision makes an enormous difference. * I can (and do) limit vision through FoW range in a VTT while I'm running the game* but darkvision is such an extreme range in the scale of normal d&d play that pretty much 100% of the time when darkness might matter darkvision ensures it never will.  Even if it does matter I have 5 players sharing one screen & they can all see what is on it, things start looking rather adversarial if I start hiding tokens & getting cutesy with "you can't see it".


----------



## Azzy

Charlaquin said:


> I have mixed feelings about infravision. On one hand, I like that it conveys different information than normal vision, rather than just allowing you to see normally without a light source. I also like that it doesn’t work in bright light, because then you have to make a choice between normal vision or infravision. On the other hand, the fact that it conveys different information than normal vision makes it more complicated to deal with in play. I’m not used to having to think about things like whether or not a given creature gives off an infrared signature, or how long footprints would remain warm enough to follow with infravision.
> 
> I also kind of like the quasi-naturalistic explanation for some creatures being able to see in the dark, but at the same time it’s a bit science-y for my tastes. Darkvision I can just tell myself is magic and not worry about it; Infravision raises questions like do elves/dwarves/gnomes/orcs have pits under their eyes like vipers? Why doesn’t their own internal body heat interfere with their infravision? The closer you get to a scientific explanation for extraordinary abilities, the more the ascientific elements stand out to me.
> 
> Part of me wants to have infravision, ultravision, and night vision all as different vision types that various species can have and that all work in different ways and convey different information. Part of me thinks that would be way more trouble than it works, and just sticking to simple Darkvision has the better depth-to-complexity ratio.



Yeah, I'd prefer lowlight vision as 3e had it instead of elves seeing like the Predator.


----------



## Charlaquin

CreamCloud0 said:


> i don't know if light management is really all that crucial for dungeons? it's something that was a part of original dungeon crawls but the game's changed alot in that time, just because dungeons and light management was correlated doesn't mean they're essential together, before i got into DnD my biggest source of comparible locales was legend of zelda and final fantasy, where the entire thing is well lit (unless light and darkness explicitly tied into the puzzles of said dungeon) but still manages to be an interesting brain teaser.



Mostly, I think light management acts as a proxy for time management. If you have to rely on torches to see, and they only last so long, and you can only carry so many of them, then there is always a source of time pressure, even when there aren’t wandering monsters to worry about. And I do think time management is a very important element of dungeon crawling. Time pressure gives weight to every action, and creates meaningful tradeoffs between expediency and caution; things that aren’t as relevant in the context of a game like Zelda where you’re much more constrained in how you can interact with the world and deal with challenges. Link doesn’t have the option to pick a lock or break down a door in a dungeon, so the player doesn’t have to weigh the costs and benefits of taking the time to find a key, or making noise battering the door, or breaking one of a limited number of picks. Zelda also has the benefit of being played in real time. Players usually don’t go around checking every wall for hidden bombable spots because doing so takes time and would get boring, but in D&D everything happens at the speed of narration. Unless time is a limited resource, there’s no reason not to scour every inch of every dungeon for secrets and traps. Light management is an easy way to create a reason not to do that.


----------



## Horwath

tetrasodium said:


> Light sources in 5e are dramatically better,  Compare the lanterns
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 2e phb light sources
> 
> 
> 
> Source Radius Burning time
> Beacon lantern 240 ft.* 30 hrs./pint
> Bonfire 50 ft. 1⁄2 hr./armload
> Bullseye lantern 60 ft.* 2 hrs./pint
> Campfire 35 ft. 1 hr./armload
> Candle 5 ft. 10 min./inch
> Continual light 60 ft. Indefinite
> Hooded lantern 30 ft. 2 hrs./pint
> Light spell 20 ft. Variable
> Torch 15 ft. 30 min.
> Weapon** 5 ft. As desired
> * Light from these is not cast in a radius, but rather in
> a cone-shaped beam. At its far end, the cone of
> light from a beacon lantern is 90 feet wide. A bulls-
> eye lantern has a beam 20 feet wide at its far end.
> ** Magical weapons shed light if your DM allows this
> optional rule.
> 
> Lantern — —
> Beacon 150 gp *50 lbs.*
> Bullseye 12 gp 3 lbs.
> Hooded 7 gp 2 lbs.
> 
> *Lanterns*:
> A *hooded lantern* (30-foot radius of light) is a
> standard lantern with shuttered or hinged sides. It is not
> directional, as its light is cast equally in all directions. A bulls-
> eye lantern (60-foot beam of light) has only a single shutter,
> the other sides being highly polished to reflect the light in a
> single direction. Both hooded and bullseye lanterns can be
> carried in one hand. A single flask of oil (one pint) burns for
> six hours in either.
> The* beacon lantern* (240-foot beam of light) is a much
> larger affair and must be mounted on the prow of a ship, the
> bed of a wagon, or other large structure. It operates like the
> bullseye lantern but illuminates to a greater distance. The bea-
> con goes through oil quickly, burning a flask every two hours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 5e lanterns
> 
> 
> 
> *Torch*. A torch burns for 1 hour, providing bright light
> in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20
> feet. If you make a m elee attack with a burning torch
> and hit, it deals 1 fire damage.
> *Lamp.* A lamp casts bright light in a 15-foot radius
> *and dim light for an additional 30 feet.* Once lit, it burns
> for 6 hours on a flask (1 pint) of oil.
> *Lantern, Bullseye*. A bullseye lantern casts bright
> light in a 60-foot cone *and dim light for an additional 60 *
> feet. Once lit, it burns for 6 hours on a flask (1 pint) of oil.
> *Lantern, Hooded.* A hooded lantern casts bright light
> in a 30-foot radius and dim light for an additional 30
> feet. Once lit, it burns for 6 hours on a flask (1 pint) of
> oil. As an action, you can lower the hood, reducing the
> light to dim light in a 5-foot radius.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When nearly every PC is certain to have darkvision that extra dim light perfect vision makes an enormous difference. * I can (and do) limit vision through FoW range in a VTT while I'm running the game* but darkvision is such an extreme range in the scale of normal d&d play that pretty much 100% of the time when darkness might matter darkvision ensures it never will.  Even if it does matter I have 5 players sharing one screen & they can all see what is on it, things start looking rather adversarial if I start hiding tokens & getting cutesy with "you can't see it".



Light source always signals that you are coming around the corner, that virtually guaranties an ambush for the party.

just a bunch of sneaky goblins behind cover with crossbows at the ready.

who ever shows face 1st gets a volley to it.


----------



## Charlaquin

Azzy said:


> Yeah, I'd prefer lowlight vision as 3e had it instead of elves seeing like the Predator.



I like the idea of low light vision, but I don’t like 3e’s execution very much. Doubling the effective range of light sources is both not how night vision really works, and cumbersome to deal with in play (except on VTTs). I think what I would do for night vision would be to upgrade dim light to bright light and leave it at that.


----------



## tetrasodium

Horwath said:


> Light source always signals that you are coming around the corner, that virtually guaranties an ambush for the party.
> 
> just a bunch of sneaky goblins behind cover with crossbows at the ready.
> 
> who ever shows face 1st gets a volley to it.



I agree but plot armor levels of risk insulation combined with near universal darkvision and overly good light sources is a bad combo.  Earlier someone mentioned how players would need to hug the torchbearer to see with that light but the light+darkvision is so good that they don't need to bother with even considering things like that.


----------



## Incenjucar

There are other ways to obscure sight. Creatures with Darkvision would almost certainly employ concealing terrain, sight line baffles, and so on, if simply so they can get things dark enough to sleep.


----------



## James Gasik

Horwath said:


> Light source always signals that you are coming around the corner, that virtually guaranties an ambush for the party.
> 
> just a bunch of sneaky goblins behind cover with crossbows at the ready.
> 
> who ever shows face 1st gets a volley to it.



Except, you know, the goblins should be using light too.


----------



## Charlaquin

Incenjucar said:


> There are other ways to obscure sight. Creatures with Darkvision would almost certainly employ concealing terrain, sight line baffles, and so on, if simply so they can get things dark enough to sleep.



But as I went over a bit upthread, light management isn’t really about visibility. It’s a proxy for time management.


----------



## Incenjucar

Charlaquin said:


> But as I went over a bit upthread, light management isn’t really about visibility. It’s a proxy for time management.



Which is kind of odd to bring up in D&D because Continual Light existed in previous editions.


----------



## tetrasodium

Charlaquin said:


> I like the idea of low light vision, but I don’t like 3e’s execution very much. Doubling the effective range of light sources is both not how night vision really works, and cumbersome to deal with in play (except on VTTs). I think what I would do for night vision would be to upgrade dim light to bright light and leave it at that.



I don't disagree but in the context of  3.x specifically there was a lot more cruinch that's just gone now & some of that gave players very good reasons to keep their hands occupied with stuff (shield dual wield 2h weapons ranged weapons etc).  The only characters who could carry a torch easily (ie most squishy casters & iirc maybe some rogues) tended to be the ones with a laundry list of reasons why they didn't want to be a glowing beacon begging to get shot at.



Incenjucar said:


> There are other ways to obscure sight. Creatures with Darkvision would almost certainly employ concealing terrain, sight line baffles, and so on, if simply so they can get things dark enough to sleep.



The trouble there is you push the players into reacting as if they are playing in tomb of horrors.  Darkness works because it doesn't take anything special to setup, it's just an absence of anything creating light so there is no reason to assume it's a trap.


----------



## James Gasik

Incenjucar said:


> Which is kind of odd to bring up in D&D because Continual Light existed in previous editions.



Yes, but all this meant was that you still had a few levels where you could make people crawl around in the dark blindly.  And you could control if a Wizard could get the spell.  And even if there's a 5th level Cleric in the game, well, at the same level the spell appears, _dispel magic _and _continual darkness_ exist to counter it, so if the DM wants, he can have you go up against Drow elves or something to return the game to the status quo if it bothers them.


----------



## Charlaquin

Incenjucar said:


> Which is kind of odd to bring up in D&D because Continual Light existed in previous editions.



It was, but it was part of character progression. Part of the core gameplay loop of D&D is gaining levels and acquiring new abilities that make challenges you used to struggle with no longer an issue, which then allows you to reach areas you couldn’t before, which contain new challenges (which you will likewise eventually gain new abilities that allow you to overcome them, etc.)


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> But as I went over a bit upthread, light management isn’t really about visibility. It’s a proxy for time management.




For me, that feels kind of like it depends on which VTT I have figured out.  If it's one that lets each character set how they see/what light source they have and uses fog of war and the like...  then it feels like it is visibility.

Since I haven't figured one out, it doesn't mean that yet of course


----------



## James Gasik

Charlaquin said:


> It was, but it was part of character progression. Part of the core gameplay loop of D&D is gaining levels and acquiring new abilities that make challenges you used to struggle with no longer an issue, which then allows you to reach areas you couldn’t before, which contain new challenges (which you will likewise eventually gain new abilities that allow you to overcome them, etc.)



So basically, the Metroid gameplay loop.  Run into an obstacle you can't deal with, get an ability that can, go back later.


----------



## CreamCloud0

Charlaquin said:


> Mostly, I think light management acts as a proxy for time management. If you have to rely on torches to see, and they only last so long, and you can only carry so many of them, then there is always a source of time pressure, even when there aren’t wandering monsters to worry about. And I do think time management is a very important element of dungeon crawling. Time pressure gives weight to every action, and creates meaningful tradeoffs between expediency and caution; things that aren’t as relevant in the context of a game like Zelda where you’re much more constrained in how you can interact with the world and deal with challenges. Link doesn’t have the option to pick a lock or break down a door in a dungeon, so the player doesn’t have to weigh the costs and benefits of taking the time to find a key, or making noise battering the door, or breaking one of a limited number of picks. Zelda also has the benefit of being played in real time. Players usually don’t go around checking every wall for hidden bombable spots because doing so takes time and would get boring, but in D&D everything happens at the speed of narration. Unless time is a limited resource, there’s no reason not to scour every inch of every dungeon for secrets and traps. Light management is an easy way to create a reason not to do that.



but even with the current widespread darkvision and ease of unlimited light granting cantrips do players nowadays search every inch of a dungeon for hidden doorways and such? time pressures can be imposed by things other than counting torches for light and i personally don't think they're really the most interesting way to do it.
Edit: i'd rather be challenged by puzzles, the monsters themselves or narrative time pressure rather than because i didn't buy enough torches


----------



## Cadence

Desdichado said:


> No, that's actually not true at all. Gen Y was a completely separate generation that NOW makes up the first half of Millennials, while the second half of the Millennial generation is what was called Millennials back when product marketing people still cared about Gen Y.






Charlaquin said:


> It is 100% true that generations are arbitrary and vaguely defined. It is also true that by most definitions, Gen Y is another name for Milennials. It may _also_ be true that  there are some definitions by which Gen Y is a separate generation between Gen X and millennials, and these definitions may have once been more common than they are now. These categories are socially constructed, and are subject to drift over time. There’s no central authority governing what the definitions of generations are, so one certainly could consider Gen Y a distinct generation, and one wouldn’t be wrong. But it wouldn’t be consistent with the current most commonly used definitions.




My brain was muddled on this, so I went back and checked the references on wikipedia (for what that's worth).  It has some of the history of the naming for Gen Y and Millenial (that y'all might not need, but I sure did !) :









						Millennials - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## tetrasodium

CreamCloud0 said:


> but even with the current widespread darkvision and ease of unlimited light granting cantrips* do players nowadays search every inch of a dungeon for hidden doorways and such?* time pressures can be imposed by things other than counting torches for light and i personally don't think they're really the most interesting way to do it.



No because there's nothing to gain from it.  They don't need the treasure it might turn up.  They don't need magic items.  They don't really need to be concerned about traps because anything dangerous enough to matter is going to make the GM look adversarial. Even if they do have or want magic items PCs don't go through the old magic item churn that would incentivize them to find stuff.  Even if the GM does try to make those things important though it's not rewarding because of all those reasons & the fact that it will probably break the game's math if they do.


----------



## Horwath

James Gasik said:


> Except, you know, the goblins should be using light too.



if you are sentry, then you hide in darkness.

but the thing with goblins also needing light is true for theirs everyday work also beats any light source management that was mentioned in this thread as it can be looted and restocked after every fight.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> For me, that feels kind of like it depends on which VTT I have figured out.  If it's one that lets each character set how they see/what light source they have and uses fog of war and the like...  then it feels like it is visibility.
> 
> Since I haven't figured one out, it doesn't mean that yet of course



But whether you’ve figured a VTT out or not (or even use one), light can still work as a timer.


----------



## Desdichado

Charlaquin said:


> Yes and no. Categories being arbitrary doesn’t make them useless _per se_ (otherwise all categories would be useless), but generations specifically are pretty much useless as labels.



Which is mitigated by the fact that everyone continues to use them suggesting that they are, in fact, pretty useful to a lot of people. 


Charlaquin said:


> Getting a bit conspiratorial there, don’t you think?



Just observational. I'm not proposing anything by the observation except that it DID in fact happen like that. Everyone was talking about Gen Y in the marketing world until almost overnight, they weren't and they almost seemed to pretend like they'd never heard of Gen Y.


Charlaquin said:


> Oh, undoubtedly! I obviously can’t speak for Questing Beast, but I’m quite sure from conversations with people who did play the game in the 70s and 80s that my own games look quite different than theirs did. Reproducing the Classic gameplay style isn’t really my goal. I think there’s a lot of valuable things that can be learned from Classic play, and I think a lot of Classic procedures make for really engaging gameplay loops. But ultimately, I’m more interested in refining my own playstyle, mining both Classic and more modern play for ideas that can improve my games.



This, to me, is the really interesting question. But I think it's even more interesting than that, because I suspect that even the people who DO have the context of having done D&D in the 80s don't do it the same way that they used to, even if they think to themselves that they do. There's no way that they haven't accrued all kinds of other things from all of the years and all of the products and all of the experiences that they've had since. 

Personally, I'm not really an OSR guy; like I said somewhere up thread, I'm old fashioned but not old school. I've embraced the fact that different experiences, different games, different styles, have all had an impact on what I think is ideal in the years since I started playing. But I think even the OSRians of my generation who maybe think that they're playing something very similar to what they did thirty some odd years ago are really doing things considerably different, maybe subconsciously even, just based on how much their gaming context has changed over time.


----------



## Charlaquin

James Gasik said:


> So basically, the Metroid gameplay loop.  Run into an obstacle you can't deal with, get an ability that can, go back later.



Precisely. Only since you can attempt any action you can imagine in D&D, most of the gating mechanisms you see in metroidvania games like special doors you need the correct upgrade to open don’t really work. A clever player can usually find a way around the obstacle. And to a certain extent that’s fine - good, even! But to truly get that gate-and-key gameplay in D&D you need more abstract gates. Can’t get to the 5th level of the dungeon because you can’t carry enough torches to get there and still have light; come back when you’re 5th level and can cast continual flame. Can’t get to the Pyramid of Doom because you can’t carry enough water to get you through the Deadly Desert; come back when you can cast Create or Destroy Water. Etc.


----------



## Incenjucar

Charlaquin said:


> It was, but it was part of character progression. Part of the core gameplay loop of D&D is gaining levels and acquiring new abilities that make challenges you used to struggle with no longer an issue, which then allows you to reach areas you couldn’t before, which contain new challenges (which you will likewise eventually gain new abilities that allow you to overcome them, etc.)



I'm not sure how this works unless this is strictly primary spellcaster progression. D&D doesn't give most classes abilities that change things that drastically, they just make things a little faster like with climb speed.


----------



## Charlaquin

CreamCloud0 said:


> but even with the current widespread darkvision and ease of unlimited light granting cantrips do players nowadays search every inch of a dungeon for hidden doorways and such?



Well, players nowadays aren’t really doing dungeon delves in the classic sense. If they’re going into dungeons at all, they’re mostly “N-Room Dungeons,” the gameplay structures of which don’t really incentivize searching every inch of the dungeon.


CreamCloud0 said:


> time pressures can be imposed by things other than counting torches for light and i personally don't think they're really the most interesting way to do it.



Sure, time pressure can and should be imposed in other ways too. But it is beneficial to have multiple axis of time pressure. Makes the challenge less linear


CreamCloud0 said:


> Edit: i'd rather be challenged by puzzles, the monsters themselves or narrative time pressure rather than because i didn't buy enough torches



That’s perfectly fine, but it’s a different play style than I think is implied in the phrase “bring D&D back to the dungeon.” Classic dungeon delving is almost more survival horror than heroic adventure.


----------



## tetrasodium

Incenjucar said:


> I'm not sure how this works unless *this is strictly primary spellcaster progression.* D&D doesn't give most classes abilities that change things that drastically, they just make things a little faster like with climb speed.



I even quitted this earlier in a post comparing 5e & 2e light sources


Spoiler










Those aren't normally a spellcaster thing.  5e was designed so players don't need those & the math starts breaking down if they have them.  Things get even worse if they start getting better & better versions of the thing they never needed to begin with.


----------



## Charlaquin

Incenjucar said:


> I'm not sure how this works unless this is strictly primary spellcaster progression. D&D doesn't give most classes abilities that change things that drastically, they just make things a little faster like with climb speed.



It is primarily spellcaster progression, yes. Magic items can kind of slot in there, but it really is mostly spellcasters. If this is a negative (and I certainly think it is), there are basically two ways to address it: embrace team play and say you pretty much need a caster in the party to bypass some obstacles (and a martial to survive combat, and a skill monkey to avoid traps, and a healer to keep you alive), or make that kind of gate-and-key utility accessible to everyone, _a la_ 4e rituals.


----------



## Incenjucar

Banning wizards in itself probably solves a lot. Banning primary casters even moreso. Get it down to only half casters and it might be almost doable.


----------



## Micah Sweet

CreamCloud0 said:


> but even with the current widespread darkvision and ease of unlimited light granting cantrips do players nowadays search every inch of a dungeon for hidden doorways and such? time pressures can be imposed by things other than counting torches for light and i personally don't think they're really the most interesting way to do it.
> Edit: i'd rather be challenged by puzzles, the monsters themselves or narrative time pressure rather than because i didn't buy enough torches



A lot of people hate puzzles, narrative time pressure can easily seem artificial, and I'd like more than one source (the monsters) as a challenge.


----------



## Micah Sweet

tetrasodium said:


> No because there's nothing to gain from it.  They don't need the treasure it might turn up.  They don't need magic items.  They don't really need to be concerned about traps because anything dangerous enough to matter is going to make the GM look adversarial. Even if they do have or want magic items PCs don't go through the old magic item churn that would incentivize them to find stuff.  Even if the GM does try to make those things important though it's not rewarding because of all those reasons & the fact that it will probably break the game's math if they do.



Level Up fixes a lot of these issues for me, but I strongly suspect 5.5e will instead double down on them.


----------



## tetrasodium

Micah Sweet said:


> Level Up fixes a lot of these issues for me, but I strongly suspect 5.5e will instead double down on them.



Yea I've been running it for about a year.  There are a few areas I wish they went a bit further _(ie OA>AoO, there's language in some maneuvers about not provoking but few class abilities not obviously casting spells have a good way of spelling out that shift)_.  With the addition of "abilities" to the magic action in the cleric packet I suspect that 6e will double down too.


----------



## Reynard

Incenjucar said:


> Which is kind of odd to bring up in D&D because Continual Light existed in previous editions.



It was a 3rd level spell,meaning that it was a serious resource choice after a significant time of not having access.


----------



## MichaelSomething

First off, ask why players and DMs left the dungeon in the first place.


----------



## Incenjucar

Reynard said:


> It was a 3rd level spell,meaning that it was a serious resource choice after a significant time of not having access.



2nd level, and can be cast thirty years ago.


----------



## Vaalingrade

I'm just disappointed that the question isn't actually about dungeons and just about OSR stuff.


----------



## Charlaquin

Vaalingrade said:


> I'm just disappointed that the question isn't actually about dungeons and just about OSR stuff.



Well, OSR is pretty big on dungeons.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Charlaquin said:


> Well, OSR is pretty big on dungeons.



But they shouldn't have a monopoly on Violence Holes.


----------



## Bill Zebub

I gotta say, when I’m playing and it seems like we are about to enter a proper dungeon, I get excited.

(And I will also agree with those who say that DotMM sucks.)


----------



## Charlaquin

Vaalingrade said:


> But they shouldn't have a monopoly on Violence Holes.



 I hear 5-room dungeons (or whatever number) are pretty popular


----------



## Reynard

Charlaquin said:


> I hear 5-room dungeons (or whatever number) are pretty popular



Those aren't dungeons, at least in any way that matters from a delving perspective.


----------



## Charlaquin

Reynard said:


> Those aren't dungeons, at least in any way that matters from a delving perspective.



Something tells me a person who objects to a thread about “going back to the dungeon” being focused on OSR isn’t going to be that particular with what they consider a dungeon.


----------



## Reynard

Incenjucar said:


> 2nd level, and can be cast thirty years ago.



3rd for clerics. I have never seen a wizard spend the effort necessary to waste a "spells known" slot on continual light, and scrolls weren't guaranteed like in later editions.


----------



## Reynard

Charlaquin said:


> Something tells me a person who objects to a thread about “going back to the dungeon” being focused on OSR isn’t going to be that particular with what they consider a dungeon.



Ah, you were replying to someone I have ignore.


----------



## Charlaquin

Reynard said:


> Ah, you were replying to someone I have ignore.



That makes sense


----------



## Incenjucar

Reynard said:


> 3rd for clerics. I have never seen a wizard spend the effort necessary to waste a "spells known" slot on continual light, and scrolls weren't guaranteed like in later editions.



We've all never seen a lot of things, I'm sure.

Even if you only have clerics using it as a 3rd level spell, it's a permanent spell. You can just make a bunch of glowing rocks to distribute. First thing I did playing a cleric of sufficient level was to cast it Cont. Light and Cont. Darkness on some metal caps with covers and put them on a rod for easy use in all future adventures.


----------



## Reynard

Incenjucar said:


> We've all never seen a lot of things, I'm sure.
> 
> Even if you only have clerics using it as a 3rd level spell, it's a permanent spell. You can just make a bunch of glowing rocks to distribute. First thing I did playing a cleric of sufficient level was to cast it Cont. Light and Cont. Darkness on some metal caps with covers and put them on a rod for easy use in all future adventures.



That doesn't change the fact that it came after a LONG period of working in the dark. Remember it used to take a long time to level if you didn't have a Monty Haul DM. And I think that was intentional. At a certain point, new challenges were expected. The game was supposed to evolve.


----------



## Incenjucar

Reynard said:


> That doesn't change the fact that it came after a LONG period of working in the dark. Remember it used to take a long time to level if you didn't have a Monty Haul DM. And I think that was intentional. At a certain point, new challenges were expected. The game was supposed to evolve.



So a wizard with Cont. Light has pretty much broken dungeons early.


----------



## Reynard

Incenjucar said:


> So a wizard with Cont. Light has pretty much broken dungeons early.



I'm not sure what your motivation is here. Yes: if a wizard in the party happened to learn continual light, it would change the darkness dynamic. Okay. Does that mean we shouldn't care about light? What's your point?


----------



## Incenjucar

Reynard said:


> I'm not sure what your motivation is here. Yes: if a wizard in the party happened to learn continual light, it would change the darkness dynamic. Okay. Does that mean we shouldn't care about light? What's your point?



I'm trying to figure out an answer to the OP. It's just constantly ending up "remove primary casters, especially wizards". Maybe also "remove infinite cantrips". It's kind of frustrating that this seems to be the core issue, since that's a huge chunk of classes.


----------



## Reynard

Incenjucar said:


> I'm trying to figure out an answer to the OP. It's just constantly ending up "remove primary casters, especially wizards". Maybe also "remove infinite cantrips". It's kind of frustrating that this seems to be the core issue, since that's a huge chunk of classes.



I don't think it is about removing casters, but the cantrip issue is a thing. Making dungeon utility spells cantrips basically obviates those challenges. Cantrips as replacements for thrown daggers is fine, as far as it goes. Cantrips so torches don't matter or so you can open every chest from 30 feet away undermines traditional dungeon exploration.


----------



## Incenjucar

Casters disrupt a lot of obstacles, but certainly limiting how often they can do so is a factor. One of many reasons nothing is permanent anymore, I'm sure.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Charlaquin said:


> I hear 5-room dungeons (or whatever number) are pretty popular



So... you can't have a large adventure location without it being OSR?

And it's foolish to expect a thread on dungeons in the _new_ Dungeons and Dragons to be about Dungeons and Dragons instead of its offshoots?


----------



## Desdichado

MichaelSomething said:


> First off, ask why players and DMs left the dungeon in the first place.



Exactly my point. Given that "going back to the dungeon" is something that people say over and over again, with each new edition if not more frequently, it's obvious that there is a significant plurality that doesn't really like dungeon-delving. Understanding why not is key to answering the question posed in the OP in a meaningful way. Of course, the answer may well be, for that significant plurality, that it doesn't matter what you do; they just aren't interested in dungeons.


----------



## Reynard

Desdichado said:


> Exactly my point. Given that "going back to the dungeon" is something that people say over and over again, with each new edition if not more frequently, it's obvious that there is a significant plurality that doesn't really like dungeon-delving. Understanding why not is key to answering the question posed in the OP in a meaningful way. Of course, the answer may well be, for that significant plurality, that it doesn't matter what you do; they just aren't interested in dungeons.



But the question isn't presented in a marketing or design strategy meeting. It is explicitly presented as a hypothetical for people that love D&D, love dungeons,  and want those things to work together. In the context of this question no one cares about the opinions of people that don't like dungeons. They're irrelevant.


----------



## Bill Zebub

On the light issue:

1) Sometimes when you are relying completely on darkvision, you are going to miss important stuff. 
2) Sometimes, when you are relying completely on light cantrips, monsters will see you coming. 
3) There is no way to know for certain which of those two scenarios is coming next. 

I don’t understand what the problem is.


----------



## Incenjucar

Maybe set cantrips to x3 proficiency/day, and see if that helps as a starter.


----------



## Charlaquin

Vaalingrade said:


> So... you can't have a large adventure location without it being OSR?



I did say “or whatever number.” You can certainly hate large adventure locations without it being OSR, I just find that modern play doesn’t tend to mesh as well with dungeons, outside of the n-room variety. YMMV.


Vaalingrade said:


> And it's foolish to expect a thread on dungeons in the _new_ Dungeons and Dragons to be about Dungeons and Dragons instead of its offshoots?



I said no such thing.


----------



## Reynard

Bill Zebub said:


> On the light issue:
> 
> 1) Sometimes when you are relying completely on darkvision, you are going to miss important stuff.
> 2) Sometimes, when you are relying completely on light cantrips, monsters will see you coming.
> 3) There is no way to know for certain which of those two scenarios is coming next.
> 
> I don’t understand what the problem is.



This is true. I guess my primary quibble with light as a cantrip is that it doesn't inform the question of "do we push further" like torches might. After all, you still need to get out. If you delve too deep and can't find your way out you could be well and truly [sorry Eric's Grandma]. One of the most interesting things about deep dungeon exploration to me is the PCs trying to decide how far to push themselves based on how many hit points, spell slots and, yes, torches they have left. That's good, dramatic stuff.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

I think it would be more appealing to go back to dungeon crawling if the main argument wasnt ''remove a bunch of stuff from the player side and have them track a bunch of small things''.

My main idea would be to go back to fun-house dungeons. Yes its quirky, but the whole game isnt really pushing for realism anyway. Think Zelda dungeons, for example. 

30 years of video games taught me that having puzzles and non-combat challenge is way more fun than endless corridors with traps and rooms full of monsters. Give us better chase mechanics, or even platforming mechanic is possible! The tombs of the false gods and the tomb of annihilation at the end of ToA are full of moving parts and evolving rooms, so clearly its possible.

As for the light, one way to keep the cantrip would be to make it create an handheld item only, like Produce Flame. Dancing Light would be for ranged option, but requires concentration, so that's not too bad. And make large use of magical darkness! and dead magic zones! or just heavy smokes that act like darkness but is not affected by light sources!


----------



## James Gasik

Bill Zebub said:


> On the light issue:
> 
> 1) Sometimes when you are relying completely on darkvision, you are going to miss important stuff.
> 2) Sometimes, when you are relying completely on light cantrips, monsters will see you coming.
> 3) There is no way to know for certain which of those two scenarios is coming next.
> 
> I don’t understand what the problem is.



As near as I can tell, here's what's going on.  Some DM's have gotten used to using darkness as a tool to surprise players and keep them on their toes.  Light sources, to them, are a trade off- how many minutes of light do you have?  What do you have to give up (shields, two handed weapons) to have it?

This has run right into players wanting magic-users to feel magical at all times, not fire off a _sleep_ spell and be reduced to throwing darts or flaming oil, as well as a general apathy towards the style of play that has you tracking ammo and rations.

WotC *claims* that 5e is more friendly to the old school approach to gaming, but it doesn't take long to realize that's really lip service.  Cantrips that are as effective as crossbows are available to most caster classes; they also don't require ammunition.  Light is plentiful. Spells that provide food, water, and shelter are common.

Adventure guidelines lean into limited encounters between rests, there's lots of out of combat healing available if groups want to use it, and players have ample opportunities to "opt out" of parts of the game that they may not find enjoyable.  In addition, these same guidelines tell us to award players with tons of money, so purchasing ammo, rations, or whatever is generally not a problem either, as long as you can carry the stuff.  Anyone can learn to use Thieves' Tools, Feats exist that make finding traps and secret doors a snap.

Honestly, I'm actually surprised darkvision has a penalty at all, though many groups seem to ignore it entirely, and some are optimized to the point that the disadvantage doesn't even slow them down.*  I mean, darkvision had no real disadvantages to speak of in 3e and 4e, and I don't remember that being a big problem either.

*Supposedly.  When I run, and enforce the disadvantage, I've had players run into ambushes and traps enough to make them break out a light source, but I've had people claim this isn't a meaningful enough penalty.

The only way to force a certain style of play is to put your foot down and invoke optional rules- but to my mind, if the players really want to just hang out in their Leomund's Portable Bomb Shelter and eat Goodberries, why not let them?  It's obvious they don't think getting lost in the wilderness and scrounging for edible grubs and tubers is any fun- if it was, then they wouldn't be using these options.

I mean, so what if the party isn't using light?  Most monsters have ways to not need light either, so the way I see it, it's a wash.  Granted, there are things like Drow, Warlocks, and Twilight Clerics that can give themselves a much longer range than 60', but that's not usually what the complaints are about- it's more that "too many" races have darkvision.


----------



## Jahydin

Reynard said:


> How so?



Looks like to me they are putting all their time and resources into making digital "Dungeon Lego" sets. If all you can do is build dungeons with those Lego, then more dungeons it will be.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Reynard said:


> This is true. I guess my primary quibble with light as a cantrip is that it doesn't inform the question of "do we push further" like torches might. After all, you still need to get out. If you delve too deep and can't find your way out you could be well and truly [sorry Eric's Grandma]. One of the most interesting things about deep dungeon exploration to me is the PCs trying to decide how far to push themselves based on how many hit points, spell slots and, yes, torches they have left. That's good, dramatic stuff.



Isn't that just tied to their hit points? As your hit points go down, so does your ability to use your darkvision (because if you're dead, you can't see in the dark anymore).


----------



## Micah Sweet

James Gasik said:


> As near as I can tell, here's what's going on.  Some DM's have gotten used to using darkness as a tool to surprise players and keep them on their toes.  Light sources, to them, are a trade off- how many minutes of light do you have?  What do you have to give up (shields, two handed weapons) to have it?
> 
> This has run right into players wanting magic-users to feel magical at all times, not fire off a _sleep_ spell and be reduced to throwing darts or flaming oil, as well as a general apathy towards the style of play that has you tracking ammo and rations.
> 
> WotC *claims* that 5e is more friendly to the old school approach to gaming, but it doesn't take long to realize that's really lip service.  Cantrips that are as effective as crossbows are available to most caster classes; they also don't require ammunition.  Light is plentiful. Spells that provide food, water, and shelter are common.
> 
> Adventure guidelines lean into limited encounters between rests, there's lots of out of combat healing available if groups want to use it, and players have ample opportunities to "opt out" of parts of the game that they may not find enjoyable.  In addition, these same guidelines tell us to award players with tons of money, so purchasing ammo, rations, or whatever is generally not a problem either, as long as you can carry the stuff.  Anyone can learn to use Thieves' Tools, Feats exist that make finding traps and secret doors a snap.
> 
> Honestly, I'm actually surprised darkvision has a penalty at all, though many groups seem to ignore it entirely, and some are optimized to the point that the disadvantage doesn't even slow them down.*  I mean, darkvision had no real disadvantages to speak of in 3e and 4e, and I don't remember that being a big problem either.
> 
> *Supposedly.  When I run, and enforce the disadvantage, I've had players run into ambushes and traps enough to make them break out a light source, but I've had people claim this isn't a meaningful enough penalty.
> 
> The only way to force a certain style of play is to put your foot down and invoke optional rules- but to my mind, if the players really want to just hang out in their Leomund's Portable Bomb Shelter and eat Goodberries, why not let them?  It's obvious they don't think getting lost in the wilderness and scrounging for edible grubs and tubers is any fun- if it was, then they wouldn't be using these options.
> 
> I mean, so what if the party isn't using light?  Most monsters have ways to not need light either, so the way I see it, it's a wash.  Granted, there are things like Drow, Warlocks, and Twilight Clerics that can give themselves a much longer range than 60', but that's not usually what the complaints are about- it's more that "too many" races have darkvision.



The reason you don't just let them ignore all that stuff is because _ you_ don't want to run that kind of game.  At least, that's why I don't.


----------



## Reynard

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Isn't that just tied to their hit points? As your hit points go down, so does your ability to use your darkvision (because if you're dead, you can't see in the dark anymore).



It's not "just" hit points. That is the whole thing: the decision whether or not to keep delving or to try and rest in the dungeon, or to make for the surface are all important decisions that are informed by the resources available. If you reduce the number of resources they have to concern themselves with -- goodberry and light and being too lazy to track ammo, etc -- then that question becomes minor, if not entirely moot.


----------



## James Gasik

Micah Sweet said:


> The reason you don't just let them ignore all that stuff is because _ you_ don't want to run that kind of game.  At least, that's why I don't.



Right, but at the same time, you have to go out of your way to change the game to suit your preferences.  If your players had the same preferences, they wouldn't be wanting to use these tools in the first place.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Reynard said:


> It's not "just" hit points. That is the whole thing: the decision whether or not to keep delving or to try and rest in the dungeon, or to make for the surface are all important decisions that are informed by the resources available. If you reduce the number of resources they have to concern themselves with -- goodberry and light and being too lazy to track ammo, etc -- then that question becomes minor, if not entirely moot.



But, as said earlier, choosing to cast Light or just use Darkvision is a difficult decision, as Light can ruin your chance of sneaking by the enemy or getting a stealth attack, and Darkvision makes it so you can't see color and have a -5 to passive Perception (so enemies are better at stealth attacking you, and you might not be able to tell if the dragon in the next room is Chromatic or Metallic). 

And Goodberry takes spell slots. 

And there's nothing in 5e that encourages you to ignore ammo. The fact that a lot of people do isn't WotC's or 5e's fault. There's nothing that they could do to force people to keep track of ammo or encumberance. 

A lot of the things that you're complaining about 5e don't seem like anything WotC can fix. It seems like they did try to cater a bit to the "back to the dungeon" playstyle you like, but people just don't like that playstyle and ignore the rules associated with it (ammo, equipment and gold weight, darkvision penalties, etc). 

WotC can't force people to engage in an unpopular playstyle.


----------



## James Gasik

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> But, as said earlier, choosing to cast Light or just use Darkvision is a difficult decision, as Light can ruin your chance of sneaking by the enemy or getting a stealth attack, and Darkvision makes it so you can't see color and have a -5 to passive Perception (so enemies are better at stealth attacking you, and you might not be able to tell if the dragon in the next room is Chromatic or Metallic).
> 
> And Goodberry takes spell slots.
> 
> And there's nothing in 5e that encourages you to ignore ammo. The fact that a lot of people do isn't WotC's or 5e's fault. There's nothing that they could do to force people to keep track of ammo or encumberance.
> 
> A lot of the things that you're complaining about 5e don't seem like anything WotC can fix. It seems like they did try to cater a bit to the "back to the dungeon" playstyle you like, but people just don't like that playstyle and ignore the rules associated with it (ammo, equipment and gold weight, darkvision penalties, etc).
> 
> WotC can't force people to engage in an unpopular playstyle.



Well, as for ammo, the fact that they suggest players find way more gold than they can use, thus making it a simple matter to carry around as much ammo as physically possible sort of trivializes it, in my eyes.

Plus, I stopped caring about it back in 4e as a DM.  If a Wizard can throw fire from his hands all day long, then tracking ammo for a Ranger is a nerf to the Ranger, IMO.  I just tell players that if they cough up a few gold pieces anytime they hit town to replenish ammo and "spell components", I'm fine with assuming they can scavenge this stuff in the field sufficient to not need to track it.


----------



## tetrasodium

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> But, as said earlier, choosing to cast Light or just use Darkvision is a difficult decision, as Light can ruin your chance of sneaking by the enemy or getting a stealth attack, and Darkvision makes it so you can't see color and have a -5 to passive Perception (so enemies are better at stealth attacking you, and you might not be able to tell if the dragon in the next room is Chromatic or Metallic).
> 
> And Goodberry takes spell slots.
> 
> And there's nothing in 5e that encourages you to ignore ammo. The fact that a lot of people do isn't WotC's or 5e's fault. There's nothing that they could do to force people to keep track of ammo or encumberance.
> 
> A lot of the things that you're complaining about 5e don't seem like anything WotC can fix. It seems like they did try to cater a bit to the "back to the dungeon" playstyle you like, but people just don't like that playstyle and ignore the rules associated with it (ammo, equipment and gold weight, darkvision penalties, etc).
> 
> WotC can't force people to engage in an unpopular playstyle.



People thinking they can just ignore encumbrance _is_ kind of wotc's fault for a few reasons.  First they made carry capacities so generous that they are almost able to hold anything but things your gm says you can't carry  Second the container rules are unfinished at best.  Third they didn't bother to list body slots  so players push to carry multiple backpacks & stuff.  On top of all that they put in powerful build to give players an option to unilaterally veto any efforts the gm engages in towards the goal of making carry capacities matter unless those efforts are crippling to everyone else.  Then finally d&dbeyond didn't support containers till like a year or two ago so players took it as wotc's blessing to not bother ether


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

James Gasik said:


> Well, as for ammo, the fact that they suggest players find way more gold than they can use, thus making it a simple matter to carry around as much ammo as physically possible sort of trivializes it, in my eyes.



So, what would be the solution? Make arrows weigh/cost more? Put a maximum number of arrows that a character can have on them at once barring magic items like the _Quiver of Ehlonna _(which is already implied through the "quivers can only carry 20 arrows" rule)? 


James Gasik said:


> Plus, I stopped caring about it back in 4e as a DM. If a Wizard can throw fire from his hands all day long, then tracking ammo for a Ranger is a nerf to the Ranger, IMO. I just tell players that if they cough up a few gold pieces anytime they hit town to replenish ammo and "spell components", I'm fine with assuming they can scavenge this stuff in the field sufficient to not need to track it.



This is why spell components exist (at least the costly ones). To ensure that spellcasters don't have an unfair advantage over their martial equivalents for the cost of using their abilities. However, that's another rule that is commonly ignored.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

tetrasodium said:


> First they made carry capacities so generous that they are almost able to hold anything but things your gm says you can't carry



I've seen characters that have carrying capacities so low that they cannot carry their default starting equipment.


tetrasodium said:


> Second the container rules are unfinished at best.



How so? Backpacks list how much weight and volume they can fit in them.


tetrasodium said:


> Third they didn't bother to list body slots so players push to carry multiple backpacks & stuff.



I have never seen a player try to wear multiple backpacks at a time. Do yours?


tetrasodium said:


> On top of all that they put in powerful build to give players an option to unilaterally veto any efforts the gm engages in towards the goal of making carry capacities matter unless those efforts are crippling to everyone else.



Powerful Build is only a thing for a few races, and those are mostly newer ones (no race in the PHB has Powerful Build).


tetrasodium said:


> Then finally d&dbeyond didn't support containers till like a year or two ago so players took it as wotc's blessing to not bother ether



And WotC didn't own D&D Beyond until this year. How is that WotC's fault?


----------



## Cadence

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I've seen characters that have carrying capacities so low that they cannot carry their default starting equipment.




The default is 15 pounds x strength isn't it?   Were they rolling and got something really low and wanted to wear heavy armor?  (What is the optional one? I confess to not remembering.  Were they using that?)


----------



## Reynard

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> WotC can't force people to engage in an unpopular playstyle.



That's true, but "unpopular" doesn't mean "untenable" and if players that don't like it are ignoring the rukles anyway, we can just discount them and are back to the beginning of the thread: what rule changes can they make for One D&D that support dungeon crawling for those players who want to engage in that. We can ignore the players that don't want to, because apparently they just ignore whatever rules they like to. Which is fine for them. Good gaming, I say, just at someone else's table.


----------



## Campbell

James Gasik said:


> Right, but at the same time, you have to go out of your way to change the game to suit your preferences.  If your players had the same preferences, they wouldn't be wanting to use these tools in the first place.




If you care about the game as a game, you are obviously going to use whatever means are available to achieve success. Otherwise, you are basically handcuffing yourself. When it comes to dungeon delving as a thing the game is based around you want a meta to play that makes managing your resources and the decision to push on interesting.

I am not sure modern D&D should be that game though. I think games like Into the Odd and Old School Essentials cover it better.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Cadence said:


> The default is 15 pounds x strength isn't it?   Were they rolling and got something really low and wanted to wear heavy armor?  (What is the optional one? I confess to not remembering.  Were they using that?)



It was with Standard Array. They put an 8 in Strength and got so much equipment from their starting class and background that they couldn't carry it all.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Campbell said:


> When it comes to _*dungeon delving as a thing the game is based around*_ you want a meta to play that makes managing your resources and the decision to push on interesting.



Right, but I'm not sure that's what the game is based around anymore. Or should be. My impression from most of the modern D&D community was that they use D&D to play through fantasy adventures, having dungeon-delving being an occasional thing that the party has to do to save the world/kill the BBEG/[insertothergenericfantasyplot] instead of the central part of the game. 

D&D has evolved past "delve into the dungeon, kill the monsters, take their stuff". That's still a part of the game, but I'm pretty sure it's not the central core of it anymore.


----------



## Cadence

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> It was with Standard Array. They put an 8 in Strength and got so much equipment from their starting class and background that they couldn't carry it all.




I mean, the brewer isn't supposed to carry the 70 lb. barrel with them!  (But that would still leave them 50 lbs more by the standard amount).

I'm guessing it was the variant encumbrance with only 5x Str?  (Which I think I prefer if I'm going for anything vaguely versimiltudinous).


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Reynard said:


> That's true, but "unpopular" doesn't mean "untenable" and if players that don't like it are ignoring the rukles anyway, we can just discount them and are back to the beginning of the thread: what rule changes can they make for One D&D that support dungeon crawling for those players who want to engage in that. We can ignore the players that don't want to, because apparently they just ignore whatever rules they like to. Which is fine for them. Good gaming, I say, just at someone else's table.



But if most people are ignoring those rules . . . why does the game need to cater to the minority of people that do want the "back to the dungeon" playstyle?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Cadence said:


> I mean, the brewer isn't supposed to carry the 70 lb. barrel with them!  (But that would still leave them 50 lbs more by the standard amount).
> 
> I'm guessing it was the variant encumbrance with only 5x Str?  (Which I think I prefer if I'm going for anything vaguely versimiltudinous).



I was using encumbrance (for like the first time I've actually enforced it). And don't small characters have a lower carrying capacity?


----------



## Cadence

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> But if most people are ignoring those rules . . . why does the game need to cater to the minority of people that do want the "back to the dungeon" playstyle?




Cater or offer?

If the PHB/DMG make the various options kind of obvious and upfront, it keeps the game big tenty (in theory), which feels good to me.


----------



## Cadence

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I was using encumbrance (for like the first time I've actually enforced it). And don't small characters have a lower carrying capacity?




Medium and Small are the same in 5e.  (With the default rules, that 10 Str, 40 pound, 3' tall halfling can jump and climb and run with 150 pounds of gear).


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Cadence said:


> Cater or offer?
> 
> If the PHB/DMG make the various options kind of obvious and upfront, it keeps the game big tenty (in theory), which feels good to me.



Right, but the premise of the thread is "D&D should refocus on its core to be a dungeon crawler". My point is that if most of the people playing the game (especially younger players) ignore the bits of 5e that are intended to support the "dungeon crawler" parts of the game . . . why is that necessary at all? If the playstyle is unpopular, the game shouldn't change to imbed the unpopular playstyle more in the core of the game.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Cadence said:


> Medium and Small are the same in 5e.  (With the default rules, that 10 Str, 40 pound, 3' tall halfling can jump and climb and run with 150 pounds of gear).



I guess I misremembered that rule. I assumed that the "carrying capacity is doubled for every size above Medium" applied inversely towards smaller characters.


----------



## Cadence

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I guess I misremembered that rule. I assumed that the "carrying capacity is doubled for every size above Medium" applied inversely towards smaller characters.




Just for Tiny.  (Is that the smallest size now?)


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Cadence said:


> Just for Tiny.  (Is that the smallest size now?)



Tiny is the smallest size. So I did misremember the rule. (But I could get behind changing the Carrying Capacity rules to make it harsher on Small and Tiny creatures.)


----------



## Reynard

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> But if most people are ignoring those rules . . . why does the game need to cater to the minority of people that do want the "back to the dungeon" playstyle?



I wasn't making an argument about what D&D should be, just what it could be. It's counter productive to argue about whether One D&D should embrace the dungeon. No one can answer that question. More interesting to me, and the point of the thread,  is how could One D&D embrace the dungeon if WotC decided to make that a goal. All this arguing about whether we should embrace the dungeon is entirely beside point.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Reynard said:


> I wasn't making an argument about what D&D should be, just what it could be. It's counter productive to argue about whether One D&D should embrace the dungeon. No one can answer that question. More interesting to me, and the point of the thread,  is how could One D&D embrace the dungeon if WotC decided to make that a goal. All this arguing about whether we should embrace the dungeon is entirely beside point.



But you were talking about what OneD&D could do to refocus the game towards that playstyle. It's implied that you think the game should do that. If your point was "how can I support focusing dungeon crawling in 5e more", you wouldn't have even mentioned OneD&D. Just ask for houserules to support your playstyle/preferences.


----------



## Cadence

Reynard said:


> I wasn't making an argument about what D&D should be,




Each of your first two posts in the thread use "should" once.  So it's hard to tell the should vs. could.  (Which seems par for course for just about all of us on some topics).


----------



## James Gasik

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Tiny is the smallest size. So I did misremember the rule. (But I could get behind changing the Carrying Capacity rules to make it harsher on Small and Tiny creatures.)



It's not like there's a lot of advantages to being Small.  And really, the only reason they didn't make the carry capacity different is that they didn't want to bother with small size gear weighing less, I imagine.


----------



## Reynard

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> But you were talking about what OneD&D could do to refocus the game towards that playstyle. It's implied that you think the game should do that. If your point was "how can I support focusing dungeon crawling in 5e more", you wouldn't have even mentioned OneD&D. Just ask for houserules to support your playstyle/preferences.



You misunderstand: I'm clarifying,  and thereby asking you to engage in the intended discussion,  even if I might have fumbled the initial invitation. So, again, I'm not interested in talking about whether it's a desirable goal. I'm interested in how it might be made to happen.

And just for additional clarity: many voices on this board have made it very clear that OneD&D is just 5E with a tweak here and there,so I think that qualifies as a reasonable request.


----------



## James Gasik

If you want 5e to go back to old school dungeon crawling, you need to have your players on board first.  Ie, the game has to start with wanting to make people explore multi-level megadungeons again.

From there, you pare away abilities the players have that would make dungeoneering easier.  No conjuring food or water.  No rope trick, leomund's, spells that grant short rests.  No purchasing potions of healing.  I'm not sure messing with light sources is necessary (if we assume the bad guys use light too), but you could go the extra step of banning darkvision if you don't think your players will get tired of being ambushed by goblins for the 778th time.

More important than all of this though, is you'd have to bring navigation and mapping back as things parties needed to do, along with skill checks to avoid becoming lost.

Double down on Gary's old Tricks and Traps section from the 1e DMG.  Publish more megadungeons, along with whatever explanations needed for a dungeon ecology to function.  Include the why of the dungeon, since I think one of the reasons they fell out of favor was there being no real explanation for why there were these extremely large catacombs laying around (never mind how the monsters and breathe and other science facts, la la la!), who built all these traps and super sturdy locked doors, and who is maintaining all this stuff.


----------



## James Gasik

Reynard said:


> You misunderstand: I'm clarifying,  and thereby asking you to engage in the intended discussion,  even if I might have fumbled the initial invitation. So, again, I'm not interested in talking about whether it's a desirable goal. I'm interested in how it might be made to happen.
> 
> And just for additional clarity: many voices on this board have made it very clear that OneD&D is just 5E with a tweak here and there,so I think that qualifies as a reasonable request.



Uh, no.  Just look at the playtest packets.  There's a huge list of changes that make this more than ".5" edition.  All the classes are being changed.  All the subclasses are being changed.  There is a change to many rules in the glossary.  Backgrounds are changed.  Feats are changed.  Spells are changed.  Spell preparation is changed.  

And we're only two packets in!


----------



## Reynard

James Gasik said:


> .Publish more megadungeons, along with whatever explanations needed for a dungeon ecology to function.  Include the why of the dungeon, since I think one of the reasons they fell out of favor was there being no real explanation for why there were these extremely large catacombs laying around (never mind how the monsters and breathe and other science facts, la la la!), who built all these traps and super sturdy locked doors, and who is maintaining all this stuff.



I'm not sure any of this s important. Dungeons are the very definition of the "weird" in the "weird fantasy" that inspired D&D. A brief glance at the dungeons of the OSR bears this out.


----------



## Reynard

James Gasik said:


> Uh, no.  Just look at the playtest packets.  There's a huge list of changes that make this more than ".5" edition.  All the classes are being changed.  All the subclasses are being changed.  There is a change to many rules in the glossary.  Backgrounds are changed.  Feats are changed.  Spells are changed.  Spell preparation is changed.
> 
> And we're only two packets in!



There are many different takes on how big the change is going to be, but I think this thread is probably the wrong place for that argument.


----------



## James Gasik

Reynard said:


> There are many different takes on how big the change is going to be, but I think this thread is probably the wrong place for that argument.



That's fair, my apologies.


----------



## Incenjucar

For the attrition element, I would suggest using counter tools to make it less obnoxious. An easy inventory and encumbrance management app for adventurers would actually be really nice, especially if it also worked for vehicles, steed bags, etc. Good for tracking spell components, too.

There are also various gimicks like curses and diseases and timed disasters and encroaching dangers you can use to create time pressure in spite of wizards and to eat up resources. These are especially available in planar adventures. A dungeon on the plane of fire with a shrinking pocket of cool air and earth at the entrance and a portal home at the very end is going to eat up a number of spells each day and demand haste.


----------



## tetrasodium

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I've seen characters that have carrying capacities so low that they cannot carry their default starting equipment.
> 
> How so? Backpacks list how much weight and volume they can fit in them.
> 
> I have never seen a player try to wear multiple backpacks at a time. Do yours?



Yes... multiple backpacks & multiple quivers especially.
Here is what the 5e phb has to say about containers


Spoiler



Container Capacity
Container Capacity
Backpack* 1 cubic foot/30 pounds of gear
Barrel 40 gallons liquid, 4 cubic feet solid
Basket 2 cubic feet/40 pounds of gear
Bottle 1 1/2 pints liquid
Bucket 3 gallons liquid, 1/2 cubic foot solid
Chest 12 cubic feet/300 pounds of gear
Flask or tankard 1 pint liquid
Jug or pitcher 1 gallon liquid
Pot, iron 1 gallon liquid
Pouch 1/5 cubic foot/6 pounds of gear
Sack 1 cubic foot/30 pounds of gear
Vial 4 ounces liquid
Waterskin 4 pints liquid
* You can also strap items, such as a bedroll or a coil of rope,
to the outside of a backpack.

L i f t i n g a n d C a r r y i n g
Your Strength score determ ines the amount of weight
you can bear. The following terms define what you can
lift or carry.
Carrying Capacity. Your carrying capacity is your
Strength score multiplied by 15. This is the weight (in
pounds) that you can carry, which is high enough that
most characters don’t usually have to w orry about it.
Push, Drag, or Lift. You can push, drag, or lift a
weight in pounds up to tw ice your carrying capacity
(or 30 times your Strength score). W hile pushing or
dragging weight in excess of your carrying capacity,
your speed drops to 5 feet.
Size and Strength. Larger creatures can bear m ore
weight, whereas Tiny creatures can carry less. For
each size category above Medium, double the creature’s
carrying capacity and the amount it can push, drag, or
lift. For a Tiny creature, halve these weights.





Spoiler: Here's what 3.5 says on it



CARRYING CAPACITY
Encumbrance rules determine how much a character’s armor and
equipment slow him or her down. Encumbrance comes in two parts:
encumbrance by armor and encumbrance by total weight.
Encumbrance by Armor: A character’s armor (as described on
Table 7–6: Armor and Shields, page 123) defines his or her
maximum Dexterity bonus to AC, armor check penalty, speed, and
running speed. Unless your character is weak or carrying a lot of
gear, that’s all you need to know. The extra gear your character
carries won’t slow him or her down any more than the armor already
does.
If your character is weak or carrying a lot of gear, however, then
you’ll need to calculate encumbrance by weight. Doing so is most
important when your character is trying to carry some heavy object.
Weight: If you want to determine whether your character’s gear
is heavy enough to slow him or her down more than the armor
already does, total the weight of all the character’s items, including
armor, weapons, and gear. Compare this total to the character’s
Strength on Table 9–1: Carrying Capacity. Depending on how the
weight compares to the character’s carrying capacity, he or she may
be carrying a light, medium, or heavy load. Like armor, a character’s
load affects his or her maximum Dexterity bonus to AC, carries a
check penalty (which works like an armor check penalty), reduces
the character’s speed, and affects how fast the character can run, as


shown on Table 9–2: Carrying Loads. A medium or heavy load
counts as medium or heavy armor for the purpose of abilities or
skills that are restricted by armor. Carrying a light load does not
encumber a character.
If your character is wearing armor, use the worse figure (from
armor or from load) for each category. Do not stack the
penalties.
For example, Tordek is wearing scale mail. As shown on
Table 7–6: Armor and Shields, this armor cuts his maximum
Dex bonus to AC to +3, and gives him a –4 armor check
penalty (and cuts his speed to 15 feet, were he not a dwarf and
thus able to move normally even when encumbered by armor
or a load). The total weight of his gear, including armor, is 71-
1/2 pounds. Since Tordek has a Strength of 15, his maximum
carrying capacity, or maximum load, is 200 pounds. A
medium load for him is 67 pounds or more, and a heavy load
is 134 pounds or more, so he is carrying a medium load.
Looking at the medium load line on Table 9–2: Carrying
Loads, his player sees that these figures are all equal to or
less than the penalties that Tordek is already incurring for
wearing scale mail, so he incurs no extra penalties.
Mialee has a Strength of 10, and she’s carrying 28
pounds of gear. Her light load limit is 33 pounds, so she’s
carrying a light load (no penalties). She finds 500 gold
pieces (weighing 10 pounds) and adds them to her load, so
now she’s carrying a medium load. Doing so reduces her
speed from 30 feet to 20 feet, gives her a –3 check penalty,
and sets her maximum Dexterity bonus to AC at +3 (which
is okay with her, since that’s her Dexterity bonus
anyway).













Spoiler: Here is what 2e says



Encumbrance (Optional Rule)
 A natural desire is to have your character own one of
everything. Thus equipped, your character could just reach
into his pack and pull out any item he wants whenever he
needs it. Sadly, there are limits to how much your character,
his horse, his mule, his elephant, or his whatever can carry.
These limits are determined by encumbrance.
 Encumbrance is measured in pounds. To calculate
encumbrance, simply total the pounds of gear carried by
the creature or character. Add five pounds for clothing, if
any is worn. This total is then compared to the carrying
capacity of the creature to determine the effects. In general,
the more weight carried, the slower the movement and the
worse the character is at fighting.
Basic Encumbrance (Tournament Rule)
 Encumbrance is divided into five categories: Unencum-
bered, Light, Moderate, Heavy, and Severe Encumbrance.
 To calculate your character’s encumbrance category, first
figure out the total weight he is carrying (including five pounds
for clothing). Then look across the row corresponding to your
character’s Strength on Table 47 until you come to the column
that includes your character’s carried weight. The heading at
the top of that column shows his level of encumbrance.
 Use Table 49 to figure out the encumbrance category of
your character’s mount or beast of burden.
 The Max. Carried Wgt. column lists the most weight (in
pounds) your character can carry and still move. But move-
ment is limited to 10 feet per round, as your character stag-
gers under the heavy load.
Specific Encumbrance (Optional Rule)
 The maximum total weight your character can carry is
determined by his Strength, as listed on Table 47.
 The basic encumbrance rule gives general categories of
encumbrance but does not allow for fine distinctions.
Some players and DMs may take exception to the idea that
adding one more pound to a character suddenly shifts that
character to the next (and drastically worse) encumbrance
category. They may want to use the following optional
table; Table 48 reduces a character’s movement rating 1
factor at a time.
 To determine your character’s movement rate (see
“Movement” in Chapter 14: Time and Movement) for a
given load, find the row on Table 48 with his Strength
score. Read across it until you find the first column in
which the number of pounds listed is greater than your
character’s current load. At the top of that column are two
rows for base movement rates. Characters with a base
movement rate of 12 use the top row; those with a base
movement rate of 6 use the bottom row. The number in
the appropriate upper row is your character’s modified
movement rate.
 Tarus (a human with a base movement of 12) has a
Strength of 17 and is carrying a 140-pound load. Looking
across on the 17 row shows that 140 falls between 133
and 145 on the table. Looking at the top of the 145 col-
umn shows that Tarus has a modified movement rate of 7.
He can carry five more pounds of gear (total 145 pounds)
and maintain his speed, or drop seven pounds of equip-
ment (to 133 pounds) and increase his speed to 8.




Magical Armor and Encumbrance
 One of the special properties of magical armor is its
effect on encumbrance. Although magical armor appears to
weigh as much as normal armor, the weight of magical
armor applies only toward the weight limit of the character.
It does not apply when determining the effects of encum-
brance on movement and combat. In essence, the armor
appears to weigh as much as normal armor (especially if the
wearer is in water over his head), but does not restrict or
hamper the character.
 Cwell the bard finds a suit of chain mail +1. Lifting it up,
he finds it weighs 60 pounds. Cwell is already carrying 50
pounds of gear. Donning the chain mail, he is now carry-
ing 110 lbs. of gear. Cwell’s Strength is 12, which means
that he can carry only 30 more pounds of equipment.
However, when calculating the effect of all this weight on
his movement, Cwell is considered to only be carrying 50
pounds of gear—the magical armor doesn’t count. Fur-
thermore, he does not suffer any combat penalties for the
chain mail’s weight.
Effects of Encumbrance
 Encumbrance has two basic effects. First, it reduces your
character’s movement rate. If encumbrance categories are
used, Unencumbered has no effect on movement, *Light
reduces the movement rate by one-third* (round fractions
down), Moderate reduces it by one-half, *Heavy reduces it by 
two-thirds,* and *Severe lowers the movement rate to 1*. If the
optional system is used, the character’s movement rate is
reduced to the amount found by using Table 48. The move-
ment rate determines how far your character can move in a
round, turn, hour, and day. As his movement rate gets lower,
your character moves slower and slower. See “Movement” in
Chapter 14: Time and Movement for more details.
*Encumbrance also reduces your character’s combat abili-
ties. If encumbrance reduces your character to half of his 
normal movement rate, he suffers a –1 penalty to his attack 
roll. If he is reduced to one-third or less of his normal move-
ment rate, the attack penalty is –2 and there is an additional 
AC penalty of +1. If your character’s movement is reduced to 
1, the attack roll penalty is –4 and the AC penalty is +3. 
Clearly, the wise thing for a heavily encumbered character to 
do is to quickly drop most of his gear before entering battle.*


I didn't include 4e simply due to lack of access & because it weasn't really my thing so I don't have much odf an idea how it worked then.


So the 5e backpack for example... does it hold 30 pounds counted against your strength times 15 carrying capacity or nullify it?  Does a PC even need to use a backpack?  Where do they carry a backpack, 5e doesn't actually have body slots on the sheet or even defined anywhere in the core books like in the past.   Can you wear a backpack a quiver a jacket & a cloak together?

Then on top of all that there is a second rather serious problem.  This is where the _minor_ penalties that came with some of the lower encumbrance levels in the past  came into play.  By having a somewhat low & reasonably achievable minor penalty players were encouraged to track it/7 try to stay under the lowest they can while carrying everything they felt they needed so they could tell at a glance is that ## pound doodad was a thing they could carry or were willing to if they could.  The rule itself in 5eis designed in such a way that players are encouraged to not bother tracking a number that is so generous they will never be impacted by it so they just never bother.  When an ## or even ### pound doodad comes up everyone is _sure_ they can carry it  until the GM starts naming all the things they know bob is carrying & now everyone needs to sit there watching bob calculate how much he is carrying  _(this is going to be slow because it's likely this is the first time he's ever calculated it)_.  Players aren't concerned about ever bothering to track it so being forced to do it on the fly mid session results inthem looking up all of their gear plus this.... "_how much did that adamantine door I stole 15 sessions ago weigh?  how much does the solid gold tea set weigh?... remember I we got it like 5 levels ago... what about the mahogany walking stick with jade inlays, what does that weigh?  What about the teak figurine?  um.. no I don't remember where we found it, I think it was a random encounter... etc_" only to ultimately wind up with "ok so I give my solid gold teaset & the marble idol to Alice & can carry it now" because the limits are so excessive before _anything_ occurs.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I've seen characters that have carrying capacities so low that they cannot carry their default starting equipment.



strength  times 15.  

Lets say it's an old volos kobold with the -2 strength  & a fighter who dumped strength to start with *6 strength.*(lets call him Bob)
That gives them a *90 pound carry capacity*.
A fighter starts with



Spoiler: this



[*]*You start with the following equipment, in addition to the equipment granted by your background:*

(a) chain mail(*20lb*) or (b) leather armor*(10lb)*, longbow, and 20 arrows*(1lb)*.
(a) a martial weapon and a shield*(6lb)* or (b) two martial weapons*(1 to 18lb each depending on weapon but only 3 are 10 pounds or above )*.
(a) a light crossbow *(5lb)*and 20 bolts *(1lb)*or (b) two handaxes*(4lb each)*.
(a) a dungeoneer's pack*(61.5lb)* or (b) an explorer's pack*(59lb)*.






adding the heaviest of each effectively usable with each option that amounts to 61.5+4+4+18(longbow)+3(whip or scimitar)+20(chainmail)
That adds to* 110.5* which is slightly more than a character with _six_strength can carry
The first step in solving that looks like this is a good place to start


Spoiler: dungeoneer's pack



[*]Dungeoneer’s Pack (12 gp). Includes a backpack*(5lb)*, a crowbar*(5lb)*,
a hammer, 10 pitons(5lb), 10 torches(*1lb each)*, a tinderbox*(1lb)*, 10 days *(2lb each)*
of rations, and a waterskin*(5lb)*. The pack also has 50 feet of
hempen rope strapped to the side of it*(10lb)*.



Easiest way for Bobto shed 20.5 pounds is for this PC to give 10 days of food & a waterskin to Alice the 8 strength wizard who has a carry capacity of 120lb & starts with choices between  3 A/B options that _combined_ A _and_ B amount to 14lb plus either a scholar's pack (11lb) or explorer's pack (59lb). 


*That gives Alice's eight strength wizard ample room to carry the too heavy food & water for bob's six strength kobold fighter even while carrying all of a second wizard's gear. *  In a normal group there is likely to be at least one PC who dud not _completely_ dump strength  who is likely to have  the ability to carry240-600lb before they are impacted in any way at all...

How badly did that PC roll when they decided to dump strength?

.


----------



## Malmuria

The "dungeon" aspect can be metaphorical-- a ruined tower, an owlbear's lair, an underwater castle, etc, are all classic sites for adventure.  I find Gus L's work to be helpful in analyzing what qualities in both scenario and game design help or don't help with running dungeons









						Classic Vs. Five Rooms
					

FIVE ROOMS DON'T MAKE A DUNGEON This blog is largely devoted to repeating a single message about game design, hammering away at the same sub...




					alldeadgenerations.blogspot.com
				




I find two claims in this thread to be odd: 
1. the idea that locations that you can explore procedurally lack story.  Does Castle Ravenloft lack story? Does a dragon's lair or a haunted house or the secret passageways under the city contain no potential for story?  
2. the idea that location-exploration, even of literal dungeon-y spaces, is antiquated or not popular.  Especially given the popularity of videogames, everything from zelda to dark souls.   Exploring locations and levels in those games is very enjoyable, and they derive much of  their ethos from dnd.

Personally, I like dungeons.  Dragons though...meh.


----------



## Bill Zebub

James Gasik said:


> As near as I can tell, here's what's going on.  Some DM's have gotten used to using darkness as a tool to surprise players and keep them on their toes.  Light sources, to them, are a trade off- how many minutes of light do you have?  What do you have to give up (shields, two handed weapons) to have it?
> 
> This has run right into players wanting magic-users to feel magical at all times, not fire off a _sleep_ spell and be reduced to throwing darts or flaming oil, as well as a general apathy towards the style of play that has you tracking ammo and rations.
> 
> WotC *claims* that 5e is more friendly to the old school approach to gaming, but it doesn't take long to realize that's really lip service.  Cantrips that are as effective as crossbows are available to most caster classes; they also don't require ammunition.  Light is plentiful. Spells that provide food, water, and shelter are common.
> 
> Adventure guidelines lean into limited encounters between rests, there's lots of out of combat healing available if groups want to use it, and players have ample opportunities to "opt out" of parts of the game that they may not find enjoyable.  In addition, these same guidelines tell us to award players with tons of money, so purchasing ammo, rations, or whatever is generally not a problem either, as long as you can carry the stuff.  Anyone can learn to use Thieves' Tools, Feats exist that make finding traps and secret doors a snap.
> 
> Honestly, I'm actually surprised darkvision has a penalty at all, though many groups seem to ignore it entirely, and some are optimized to the point that the disadvantage doesn't even slow them down.*  I mean, darkvision had no real disadvantages to speak of in 3e and 4e, and I don't remember that being a big problem either.
> 
> *Supposedly.  When I run, and enforce the disadvantage, I've had players run into ambushes and traps enough to make them break out a light source, but I've had people claim this isn't a meaningful enough penalty.
> 
> The only way to force a certain style of play is to put your foot down and invoke optional rules- but to my mind, if the players really want to just hang out in their Leomund's Portable Bomb Shelter and eat Goodberries, why not let them?  It's obvious they don't think getting lost in the wilderness and scrounging for edible grubs and tubers is any fun- if it was, then they wouldn't be using these options.
> 
> I mean, so what if the party isn't using light?  Most monsters have ways to not need light either, so the way I see it, it's a wash.  Granted, there are things like Drow, Warlocks, and Twilight Clerics that can give themselves a much longer range than 60', but that's not usually what the complaints are about- it's more that "too many" races have darkvision.




That was a well-articulated response, and points out some things I hadn't considered.

I think I understand the argument, but...there's a lot more to dungeon delving than worrying about supplies.  That seems like an overly strict/narrow interpretation of the experience.  I do agree that the fear of having pushed things too far, and worrying about being able to get back to safety, are part of the experience, but that doesn't have to be driven by counting torches and rations.  I think there are other interesting options for achieving the same kind of tension, and maybe with less book-keeping.

Elsewhere @Charlaquin has outline their method for keeping track of time, and using it as pressure.  The One Ring has (or used to have in 1e, not sure about 2e) a measure of "Eye Awareness", and if that score gets too high, bad things happen.

And all of that said, I find the OSR game "Five Torches Deep" quite appealing, although I haven't played it yet, and one thing I like is the clean approach to tracking supplies.


----------



## Desdichado

Reynard said:


> But the question isn't presented in a marketing or design strategy meeting. It is explicitly presented as a hypothetical for people that love D&D, love dungeons,  and want those things to work together. In the context of this question no one cares about the opinions of people that don't like dungeons. They're irrelevant.



How do you answer a question on how to get people back to the dungeon if you don't care about people who don't want to do dungeons? It's a question that's attempting to NOT be answered, and is itself irrelevant.


----------



## NaturalZero

Making a combat encounter, at the minimum, requires picking a handful of monsters out of the Monster Manual and running the mechanics they give you. Making a dungeon requires a lot of thought, planning, and probably making traps, set-pieces, rooms, puzzles, etc.

The way you get people into dungeons is to make all of the pieces of a dungeon as simple to pick up and use as monsters for a combat.


----------



## Clint_L

Reynard said:


> I wasn't making an argument about what D&D should be, just what it could be. It's counter productive to argue about whether One D&D should embrace the dungeon. No one can answer that question. More interesting to me, and the point of the thread,  is how could One D&D embrace the dungeon if WotC decided to make that a goal. All this arguing about whether we should embrace the dungeon is entirely beside point.



So then, I take it your argument is something like "assuming that WotC wants to reorient the game back towards the dungeon, how should they do it?" But that is pretty much guaranteed to get responses like "why would they want to do that?" and "I don't think that's a good idea" because the vibe is very much that you think the game _should_ be more focused on dungeons...or why would you pose such a hypothetical?

But my answer is still the same: it doesn't need to do anything, because all the tools are already there. It is easy to run dungeon crawls in 5e. Done it many times. Not really sure what they could do to make it easier. There are lots of examples of dungeon maps, lots of monsters that specifically live in dungeon-like environments, the starter sets all include dungeons or dungeon-like sections, there are rules for traps, lots of rules for movement using a 1" grid that is specifically designed for dungeon encounters, many if not most settings include some version of the Underdark...  D&D5e is a very dungeon-friendly game!

Edit: unless you are getting at something like the original Gygax/Arneson 70s-style campaigns, which were almost all dungeon? Because I definitely do not think that would fly with modern players, though it's a fun way to play on occasion and I wouldn't mind taking part in such a campaign. It would certainly be easier to DM!


----------



## Incenjucar

The last time a DM tried to put me in a classic dungeon I collapsed the dungeon without ever stepping foot in it. Thank you Pick of Earth Parting.

So yeah, make sure you get rid of all terrain distortion magic, too.


----------



## Micah Sweet

James Gasik said:


> Right, but at the same time, you have to go out of your way to change the game to suit your preferences.  If your players had the same preferences, they wouldn't be wanting to use these tools in the first place.



This is why I compromise with Level Up.


----------



## Micah Sweet

James Gasik said:


> Well, as for ammo, the fact that they suggest players find way more gold than they can use, thus making it a simple matter to carry around as much ammo as physically possible sort of trivializes it, in my eyes.
> 
> Plus, I stopped caring about it back in 4e as a DM.  If a Wizard can throw fire from his hands all day long, then tracking ammo for a Ranger is a nerf to the Ranger, IMO.  I just tell players that if they cough up a few gold pieces anytime they hit town to replenish ammo and "spell components", I'm fine with assuming they can scavenge this stuff in the field sufficient to not need to track it.



Maybe a wizard shouldn't be able to throw fire all day long.  Again, the problem is cantrips.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> But if most people are ignoring those rules . . . why does the game need to cater to the minority of people that do want the "back to the dungeon" playstyle?



So you're in favor of the game supporting fewer playstyles, weighted by what, a popular vote?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> So you're in favor of the game supporting fewer playstyles, weighted by what, a popular vote?



No. I'm saying that the game already supports the dungeon-delving playstyle and that to make it a more central focus could alienate a major part of the fanbase.


----------



## pemerton

payn said:


> Dungeon crawling is often boring because there is little point beyond kill things and take their stuff. What is the history of the place? What secrets does it hold? Make it interesting to explore and not just a pit to sink resources into again again.



I think flavour text is not enough to make dungeon crawling interesting. The actual process of play has to be fun.


----------



## pemerton

CreamCloud0 said:


> i think a problem in the premise of dungeons is that unlike alot of the rest of the world in a ttrpg it's not something you can really just make up on the spot, it's something that needs planning



I think @Manbearcat is able to make up dungeons as he goes along. I've made up (small) dungeons as I go along when GMing Burning Wheel. It depends very much on what the procedures are.


----------



## Reynard

Desdichado said:


> How do you answer a question on how to get people back to the dungeon if you don't care about people who don't want to do dungeons? It's a question that's attempting to NOT be answered, and is itself irrelevant.



Ah, there's the misunderstanding. I'm not trying to get people back to the dungeon. I'm trying to tweak the rules to make it more dungeon friendly.


----------



## Krachek

I think people still like dungeon very much,
it’s the crawl concept that is no more appealing.
The question is do we need to crawl when entering a dungeon?


----------



## payn

pemerton said:


> I think flavour text is not enough to make dungeon crawling interesting. The actual process of play has to be fun.



Of course it isnt. The flavor text and the mechanics compliment each other. It shows not only is there a place for the game to happen, but a place that not only makes sense, but is interesting to explore as well. Otherwise you are just playing an advanced version of Heroquest the board game.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> But if most people are ignoring those rules . . . why does the game need to *cater* to the minority of people that do want the "back to the dungeon" playstyle?




It's funny how "cater to" and "support" are used interchangeably, the former by people who don't care for a playstyle, and the latter by those who do.

It's like "terrorist" vs. "freedom fighter".


----------



## Bill Zebub

Krachek said:


> I think people still like dungeon very much,
> it’s the crawl concept that is no more appealing.
> The question is do we need to crawl when entering a dungeon?




You've hit the nail on the head.

If you want to support more dungeon crawling, use lower ceilings.


----------



## Bill Zebub

pemerton said:


> I think @Manbearcat is able to make up dungeons as he goes along. I've made up (small) dungeons as I go along when GMing Burning Wheel. It depends very much on what the procedures are.




I have a standard introductory adventure in my head that I've used many times, but the actual dungeon part is different every time, with a few common elements that get mixed and matched.

Party is traveling between two points and camps.  In the night they hear something crashing through the woods towards them.  A wounded dwarf bursts into their campsite, with an arrow in him.  He gives them just enough warning to prepare for the two goblins who are chasing him before dying.  They find a map on him (or they can track where he and the goblins came from) where they find a cave in a cliff.  While exploring the cave the rest of the goblins return, trapping them.  An ancient door in the back of the cave (sometimes it's secret, sometimes it's locked, sometimes they need to use the oil they find on the rusted locks) leads to a staircase going down.  Below are traps, undead, and some kind of secret back exit.

For first time players it's always a big hit.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

1. Bring the sexy back.

2. Bring the dungeons back.

3. ??????

4. Sexy dungeons! 

_um.... not that there's anything wrong with that. _


----------



## payn

Snarf Zagyg said:


> 1. Bring the sexy back.
> 
> 2. Bring the dungeons back.
> 
> 3. ??????
> 
> 4. Sexy dungeons!
> 
> _um.... not that there's anything wrong with that. _



Shirtless Kobolds in form fitted cargo shorts you say?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

payn said:


> Shirtless Kobolds in form fitted cargo shorts you say?




_thinking ...._

I'm not saying no!


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> I think flavour text is not enough to make dungeon crawling interesting. The actual process of play has to be fun.






pemerton said:


> I think @Manbearcat is able to make up dungeons as he goes along. I've made up (small) dungeons as I go along when GMing Burning Wheel. It depends very much on what the procedures are.




Yup.

So what actual dungeon crawling (not to be confused with sort of "mood-and-aesthetic-driven dungeoneering") requires is the following:

** Inventory, gear, and (non-spell) loadout has to matter. * It has to matter as a limited inventory-based decision-point when you're preparing/loading out.  It has to be an important component part of player decision-space when they're encountering obstacles/problem areas in the dungeon.  It has to matter to the GM's mental workspace when they're considering consequences to action resolution/moves made while dealing with obstacles/problem areas and then it has to matter to players when dealing with those consequences ("crap...I've lost my torches/rations down the dark ravine while crossing the rope bridge...how much do you guys have...do we need to go after them?").  It has to matter when handing intra-dungeon inventory decisions (do I abandon these potentially important supplies to pilfer and pack out that bejeweled urn?).

* *Procedures have to stable, sufficiently table-facing, and consequences have to be sufficiently telegraphed and with mechanical teeth. * If players don't actually know how the game works...then they're not making informed, dungeoneering-based decisions.  If players can't evaluate turn-based (or some kind of game tech akin to it) action economy and how that integrates with the overall delve attrition model + risk profile of taking this action vs that action or not taking action at all (and not just now....but longitudinally through the span of the delve)...well, then they're not actually playing a game of dungeoneer engaging dungeon crawl.  They might be having fun, but they're engaging with a different activity that is more aesthetic, mood, performative, and experiential in nature.

* *Simply put, D&D spellcasting needs to be brutally nerfed or every spell cast has to be costly or require a not-insignificant check (that will bring about interesting complications on a failure).  *D&D spellcasting is so brutally overpowered that it obviates the basic, constituent parts of dungeon crawling.  The substrate of the crawl is enmurderated by D&D spellcasting.  Inventory/gear loading out is undone, problem areas/obstacles are often obviated rather than engaged with, and basic paradigms of play (such as light and a ranger looking for a campsite for the group to recover in a dangerous place) are undone.  In dungeon crawling games that work (Moldvay Basic, Torchbearer stand at the top of the heap), D&D spellcasting doesn't kill it stone dead.

* *Units of play need to abstracted & unified sufficiently that they're user-friendly and table-time-friendly.  *Unit of play asymmetry or incoherency or just being too damn intricate and confusing (like weird action economy stratification rather than unification...or currency stratification along with compounding weight issues...and some supplies being brutally underpowered or not worthwhile because they weigh too much or are too difficult to load-out) is a killer for these games.  Good decisions on all of these things need to be made up front so play hums along rather than stalls out (for any participant...players and GMs alike).

* *Similar to the above, classes need to be functionally designed with all of the units of play as their collective guidepost.*  Otherwise, you get weird things like Rangers can't Ranger or Thieves can't Thief or some class does something thematically better than another class (like Fighter's cease to become the important "mule" because Wizards can trivially load out a, relatively uncostly, spell that makes for a better "mule" than the Fighter) because the design is borked.

* *Adventuring Site design and guidance needs to be tightly constructed and well-communicated to GMs.*  # of Problem Areas/Obstacles and the hardship scaling for a dungeon of x, y, z size.  How to spatially (points of ingress/egress, verticality) connect these Problem Areas/Obstacles and what a proper map entails (Keying, Point-Crawling or actual mapping if that is your thing).  How to integrate rest areas but keep them dangerous.  Functionally executable randomizer elements like Wandering Monsters/Twists/Random Encounters.  How to invest the whole thing with theme.  How to seed it with seductive treasure that must be agonized over (because it will be difficult to bring out without sacrifice).  How to invest the thing with a variety of Obstacles archetypes, including some that are personal to specific PCs.

* *Monsters and Conflict Resolution mechanics need to be interesting but agile, versatile, and sufficiently slim.*  Too much heft or lack of agility in this area becomes a problem for play.



One D&D has a lot of difficulty to take on if they want to make an actual dungeon crawling game.  I wouldn't expect them to pull this off (nor be interested in doing so, because there are a sufficient number of trade-offs they would have to make and I don't think their user base is interested in those trade-offs TBH).

But it can be pulled off.  And if its pulled off well, GMs who are proficient with the paradigm can make Small to Medium dungeons on the fly and execute them.  Small dungeons are not prep-intensive (if the model is done well) at all and they're easy to execute.   Medium dungeons on the fly can get tricky so they take a lot of hard-earned skill (and, again, a very capable system).  Large dungeons?  Impossible to perform on the fly in my opinion (regardless of how good the system or how proficient the GM is).


----------



## payn

Manbearcat said:


> Yup.
> 
> So what actual dungeon crawling (not to be confused with sort of "mood-and-aesthetic-driven dungeoneering") requires is the following:
> 
> ** Inventory, gear, and (non-spell) loadout has to matter. * It has to matter as a limited inventory-based decision-point when you're preparing/loading out.  It has to be an important component part of player decision-space when they're encountering obstacles/problem areas in the dungeon.  It has to matter to the GM's mental workspace when they're considering consequences to action resolution/moves made while dealing with obstacles/problem areas and then it has to matter to players when dealing with those consequences ("crap...I've lost my torches/rations down the dark ravine while crossing the rope bridge...how much do you guys have...do we need to go after them?").  It has to matter when handing intra-dungeon inventory decisions (do I abandon these potentially important supplies to pilfer and pack out that bejeweled urn?).
> 
> * *Procedures have to stable, sufficiently table-facing, and consequences have to be sufficiently telegraphed and with mechanical teeth. * If players don't actually know how the game works...then they're not making informed, dungeoneering-based decisions.  If players can't evaluate turn-based (or some kind of game tech akin to it) action economy and how that integrates with the overall delve attrition model + risk profile of taking this action vs that action or not taking action at all (and not just now....but longitudinally through the span of the delve)...well, then they're not actually playing a game of dungeoneer engaging dungeon crawl.  They might be having fun, but they're engaging with a different activity that is more aesthetic, mood, performative, and experiential in nature.
> 
> * *Simply put, D&D spellcasting needs to be brutally nerfed or every spell cast has to be costly or require a not-insignificant check (that will bring about interesting complications on a failure).  *D&D spellcasting is so brutally overpowered that it obviates the basic, constituent parts of dungeon crawling.  The substrate of the crawl is enmurderated by D&D spellcasting.  Inventory/gear loading out is undone, problem areas/obstacles are often obviated rather than engaged with, and basic paradigms of play (such as light and a ranger looking for a campsite for the group to recover in a dangerous place) are undone.  In dungeon crawling games that work (Moldvay Basic, Torchbearer stand at the top of the heap), D&D spellcasting doesn't kill it stone dead.
> 
> * *Units of play need to abstracted & unified sufficiently that they're user-friendly and table-time-friendly.  *Unit of play asymmetry or incoherency or just being too damn intricate and confusing (like weird action economy stratification rather than unification...or currency stratification along with compounding weight issues...and some supplies being brutally underpowered or not worthwhile because they weigh too much or are too difficult to load-out) is a killer for these games.  Good decisions on all of these things need to be made up front so play hums along rather than stalls out (for any participant...players and GMs alike).
> 
> * *Similar to the above, classes need to be functionally designed with all of the units of play as their collective guidepost.*  Otherwise, you get weird things like Rangers can't Ranger or Thieves can't Thief or some class does something thematically better than another class (like Fighter's cease to become the important "mule" because Wizards can trivially load out a, relatively uncostly, spell that makes for a better "mule" than the Fighter) because the design is borked.
> 
> * *Adventuring Site design and guidance needs to be tightly constructed and well-communicated to GMs.*  # of Problem Areas/Obstacles and the hardship scaling for a dungeon of x, y, z size.  How to spatially (points of ingress/egress, verticality) connect these Problem Areas/Obstacles and what a proper map entails (Keying, Point-Crawling or actual mapping if that is your thing).  How to integrate rest areas but keep them dangerous.  Functionally executable randomizer elements like Wandering Monsters/Twists/Random Encounters.  How to invest the whole thing with theme.  How to seed it with seductive treasure that must be agonized over (because it will be difficult to bring out without sacrifice).  How to invest the thing with a variety of Obstacles archetypes, including some that are personal to specific PCs.
> 
> * *Monsters and Conflict Resolution mechanics need to be interesting but agile, versatile, and sufficiently slim.*  Too much heft or lack of agility in this area becomes a problem for play.
> 
> 
> 
> One D&D has a lot of difficulty to take on if they want to make an actual dungeon crawling game.  I wouldn't expect them to pull this off (nor be interested in doing so, because there are a sufficient number of trade-offs they would have to make and I don't think their user base is interested in those trade-offs TBH).
> 
> But it can be pulled off.  And if its pulled off well, GMs who are proficient with the paradigm can make Small to Medium dungeons on the fly and execute them.  Small dungeons are not prep-intensive (if the model is done well) at all and they're easy to execute.   Medium dungeons on the fly can get tricky so they take a lot of hard-earned skill (and, again, a very capable system).  Large dungeons?  Impossible to perform on the fly in my opinion (regardless of how good the system or how proficient the GM is).



Too bad that modularity never came about in 5E. A dungeon crawler supplement seems like it would have its fans.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Bill Zebub said:


> It's funny how "cater to" and "support" are used interchangeably, the former by people who don't care for a playstyle, and the latter by those who do.
> 
> It's like "terrorist" vs. "freedom fighter".



The OP is built on the premise that dungeon crawling isn't sufficiently supported in D&D 5e and that aspects of the game should change in OneD&D to support that playstyle as a core focus more. If that's not "this playstyle should be catered to", I don't know what is. 

I actually am quite fond of dungeon delving. One of my most successful campaigns in 5e was a Dungeon of the Mad Mage campaign. I just think catering more towards old-school dungeon delving and resource management is likely to alienate a big chunk of the newer fan base.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> The OP is built on the premise that dungeon crawling isn't sufficiently supported in D&D 5e and that aspects of the game should change in OneD&D to support that playstyle as a core focus more. If that's not "this playstyle should be catered to", I don't know what is.
> 
> I actually am quite fond of dungeon delving. One of my most successful campaigns in 5e was a Dungeon of the Mad Mage campaign. I just think catering more towards old-school dungeon delving and resource management is likely to alienate a big chunk of the newer fan base.




All of that could be expressed without the inherently hostile tone of “cater to”.

More useful would be thoughts about how to support play styles without distracting from other play styles. Or even just a request that others take that into consideration.


----------



## Aldarc

overgeeked said:


> Oh man. So many changes.
> 
> The nerf to exhaustion is a move in the right direction. You can use exhaustion from the "play test" without crippling the party from the off. For some that wasn't an issue but for others it was a game quitting line never to be crossed.
> 
> Light. Races would need to be changed, i.e. you'd need to not have something like 75% of all PC races have darkvision. You'd also need to remove light as a cantrip. Somehow center the effects of dim light (disadvantage on perception checks). Push for the black & white sight of darkvision to actually matter (like making lots of things dependent on color vision).
> 
> Food & Water. They are doing a bit of the work by removing the ribbon abilities from backgrounds (looking at you Outlander) along with swapping favored terrain out for expertise in the ranger. Both of these work to make exploration not automatic, which is a step in the right direction. Though with the default DCs of things like getting lost and foraging, expertise is effectively automatic exploration...but it's a start in the right direction. Also remove or nerf spells like create food & water, goodberry, etc.
> 
> Resting. This is the big one. RAW long rests in 5E give you too much. Long rests in the "play test" give you even more. You either need to nerf resting, or dramatically increase...basically everything on the DM's side of things to make 5E anything more difficult than a cakewalk. Things like wandering monsters every 10 minutes and start all those encounters at deadly. Definitely remove Leomund's Tiny Bunker.
> 
> Procedures. You'd actually need to put the procedures for dungeon crawling together in one place that's in the actual main books instead of sort of put them together in the two DM's screens focused on wilderness and dungeon exploration. And, of course, you'd need those procedures to be good and work as intended...and for that intent to be properly challenging the PCs and players.
> 
> Personally, I doubt WotC will ever do anything like most of those. Mainstream D&D has moved on. The new player base is more interested in high action, tough guy, badasses. The appetite for hard scrabble adventures with weak, near-peasant adventurers is still there, but it's a niche within a niche within a niche at this point.





Vaalingrade said:


> It's not threadcrapping. That's how you get people back into the dungeon: rethinking what the dungeons should be in the modern era.



This was my take away after reading @overgeeked's above breakdown of classic aspects of dungeon crawling (e.g., light, food, procedures, etc.). If the mountain won't come to Muhammad, then Muhammad must go to the mountain. This is to say that the base 5e/1D&D game will likely not change, so the sort of challenges that were a part of dungeon-crawls may have to change so they are better suited to 5e/1D&D's gaming norms. That may be easier said than done, but it is worth considering IMHO.

It may be helpful to think why the characters are in the dungeon in the first place. In older editions of D&D, the gold and magic items were in the dungeon. That was the carrot, and the characters were supposed to be Sword & Sorcery types who wanted riches. But for more contemporaneous D&D, we should arguably look to the more heroic fantasy of Lord of the Rings. Why is the Fellowship in Moria? Because the mountain pass was too dangerous so they needed to get through Moria. The dungeon is the obstacle that stands in between their quest, which is their carrot.


----------



## Clint_L

I have had no problem when I've wanted to add in a dungeon crawl, but my standards look nothing like Manbearcat's, above. I suggest that those are some very exacting, idiosyncratic needs for what a dungeon crawler has to have, and if your needs are that specific it doesn't make sense (as he acknowledges) to expect that a game with as huge an audience as D&D is going to orient itself around them. There are niche RPGs that would work better, or you could go with your own home-brew version of 5e if you want to keep some of its basic kit.

Honestly, what I think this thread is demonstrating is that there isn't even clear agreement on what a "dungeon crawler" is. In my interpretation of what it is, there is no problem executing one within the 5e ruleset.


----------



## Digdude@1970

As an old school dm trying to evolve with 5e, I had no problem running Sunless citadel as a dungeon crawl. I did not make them keep track of torches, or arrows. I just assumed they had enough and would tax them next time they got to a place to rebuy them. Spells, specifically cantrips do have a too drastic of effect on the game. Between dancing lights, lights, and guidance being spammed continuously, a whole aspect of dark areas and skill check danger was reduced. But I didnt take it personal, its just the way 5e characters are made. In the end, just going room to room and having some running fights between rooms was a blast and I had fun running it. You just have to be adaptable to what your players are like and what you are comfortable running. There is no one size fits all fix the 5e dungeon issue without a paradigm shift, that does not seem popular right now.


----------



## payn

Clint_L said:


> I have had no problem when I've wanted to add in a dungeon crawl, but my standards look nothing like Manbearcat's, above. I suggest that those are some very exacting, idiosyncratic needs for what a dungeon crawler has to have, and if your needs are that specific it doesn't make sense (as he acknowledges) to expect that a game with as huge an audience as D&D is going to orient itself around them. There are niche RPGs that would work better, or you could go with your own home-brew version of 5e if you want to keep some of its basic kit.
> 
> Honestly, what I think this thread is demonstrating is that there isn't even clear agreement on what a "dungeon crawler" is. In my interpretation of what it is, there is no problem executing one within the 5e ruleset.



One of the most frustrating things (and im not picking on you Clint) is that folks think a clear agreement is even necessary to have the discussion. If dungeon crawling works for you, tell us how you are doing it. Listen to folks who say they cant do it out of the box. The interest is in the how to dos, the needs, and the differing perspectives. I also agree, that if folks say a complete overhaul of the magic system is necessary, then its likely 5E is not going to work for them. I still enjoy hearing about their desires for dungeon crawling games. YMMV.


----------



## Digdude@1970

I look back at the old 2/3e dungeons and I think the equipment list as Matt Colville has eluded to was the core of the dungeon crawl. We as DMs wanted to reward our players when they took the time to load up on some of that gear and when encountering some of your best laid shenanigans, they overcome it because they had a pound of flour or ball bearings. Many of today's cantrips simple hand wave a lot of these problems with no disruption to the inventory and really no pre-thought. Are the older Dms annoyed at this? Do you feel cheated? Is there a expectation of because dungeons were hard "back in the day" they should be just as hard now? These questions are simply to reflect on. Ask yourself. Game on!!


----------



## Malmuria

I think what dungeon crawl has come to mean is any adventure that takes place in a dungeon.  The five room dungeon is a good example of this: 5 encounters and situations neatly split up into discrete chunks.  The advantages of this are many: you can prep a series of scenes and don't have to think about how the scenes interact with each other really, and each one helps build a story with a climax at the end. 

For me the "crawl" part is everything @Manbearcat talks about, including some sort of risk/reward set up.  Venturing forth has to be risky, uncertain, scary even, and only done because there is some possible reward waiting.  Darkest Dungeon, the videogame, is a dungeon crawler in this sense, and indeed that game was inspired by  Torchbearer.


----------



## Malmuria

Does anyone ever watch videos of people exploring caves?  Absolutely terrifying.  They don't have a top-down map of where they are going, even with modern equipment (flashlights, etc) they can barely see what's 30' ahead of them, elevation changes are disorienting, and the space is palpably claustrophobic.  And there aren't even fantastical monsters there.  So how does one create those feelings of risk, disorientation, and uncomfortableness in an rpg?










						Confronting mtn LION in CAVE
					






					www.youtube.com


----------



## James Gasik

Snarf Zagyg said:


> 1. Bring the sexy back.
> 
> 2. Bring the dungeons back.
> 
> 3. ??????
> 
> 4. Sexy dungeons!
> 
> _um.... not that there's anything wrong with that. _



Sexy dungeons!?  That's how you get Bards!  Do you want Bards?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

James Gasik said:


> Sexy dungeons!?  That's how you get Bards!  Do you want Bards?




What the Bard sees in his mind:





What everyone else sees:


----------



## payn

Snarf Zagyg said:


> What the Bard sees in his mind:
> View attachment 269766
> 
> What everyone else sees:
> 
> View attachment 269768


----------



## Bill Zebub

Malmuria said:


> And there aren't even fantastical monsters there.




You can't prove that.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

So having read 13 pages of comments I come to the conclusion that the issue is not "dungeon crawling" per se nor even inventory management that 5th edition manages just fine and dandy but a particular style of play that involves interaction with a (very) challenging environment with very little buffer provided by the characters innate competencies as listed in the character sheet.
What I mean my innate competencies would be stuff like cantrips, and other powers that allow challenges to be bypassed without interaction. I would all passive skills to that list. 
I am sceptical that darkvision is itself an issue, if the rules were enforced and the passive skills were removed and light brightness and dimness radii were enforced. 
I could be wrong in my interpretation but that is what I am getting.
Can 5e provide such a game, out of the box I would say not but I think it could be easily modded to get close. Remove passive skills, maybe make casters use hit dice or something else to represent the tax of continuous cantrip usage (or the exhaustion rules). Replace the XP rules with something else and stay below level 7 though I have to ask why not play an OSR game at that point?


----------



## tetrasodium

Malmuria said:


> So how does one create those feelings of risk, disorientation, and uncomfortableness in an rpg?



There's a whole anime about it, the main character has severe PTSD & the caves are always dark  .  The first episode starts with a TPK that was almost reversing till a longsword clanged off an uneven ceiling.  At one point there's a huge battle outside... you guessed it if you assumed it was at night when it was dark & death was easy


----------



## Manbearcat

Digdude@1970 said:


> I look back at the old 2/3e dungeons and I think the equipment list as Matt Colville has eluded to was the core of the dungeon crawl. We as DMs wanted to reward our players when they took the time to load up on some of that gear and when encountering some of your best laid shenanigans, they overcome it because they had a pound of flour or ball bearings. Many of today's cantrips simple hand wave a lot of these problems with no disruption to the inventory and really no pre-thought. Are the older Dms annoyed at this? Do you feel cheated? Is there a expectation of because dungeons were hard "back in the day" they should be just as hard now? These questions are simply to reflect on. Ask yourself. Game on!!




Unclear to me what the intent is of this post or if I'm included in the target audience, but my response to this post lies in my post just upthread.

I feel neither annoyed nor cheated nor "back in my day HARRUMPH-ey" by a "dungeon play" (lets call it) experience that isn't about logistical management of a dangerous obstacle course via tightly systemitized turn-based exploration + a countdown clock (like The Grind or Light in Torchbearer or Wandering Monsters in Moldvay Basic) + difficult inventory management and loadout decisions + harsh to negotiate attrition model + consequences with teeth at multiple layers of play + the imperative of deft management of multiple types of resources to even survive the through line of play + difficult decisions around an advancement scheme that requires failure (in a game that brutally punishes failure...thereby creating complex incentive structures).

When I run games, my apex priority is "game as game" and, specifically, the game I'm running right now (I don't run Torchbearer to get a Mouse Guard experience nor D&D 4e to get a Dogs in the Vineyard experience nor Blades in the Dark to get a Stonetop experience etc).  So when it comes to a "dungeon crawler", I want play to constantly feature layered, interesting, impactful decision-points and consequences that create a particular type of thematically-potent challenge experience right now and through the longitudinal experience of both the entire crawl and the play loop at large (so like in Torchbearer, you're talking Town Phase > Journey Phase > Adventure Phase > Camp Phase > Adventure Phase > Journey Phase > Town Phase).  

There are designs for that.  And there are designs that take that away and, in its stead, provide an alternative "dungeon play" experience.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngainlyTitan said:


> So having read 13 pages of comments I come to the conclusion that the issue is not "dungeon crawling" per se nor even inventory management that 5th edition manages just fine and dandy but a particular style of play that involves interaction with a (very) challenging environment with very little buffer provided by the characters innate competencies as listed in the character sheet.
> What I mean my innate competencies would be stuff like cantrips, and other powers that allow challenges to be bypassed without interaction. I would all passive skills to that list.
> I am sceptical that darkvision is itself an issue, if the rules were enforced and the passive skills were removed and light brightness and dimness radii were enforced.
> I could be wrong in my interpretation but that is what I am getting.
> Can 5e provide such a game, out of the box I would say not but I think it could be easily modded to get close. Remove passive skills, maybe make casters use hit dice or something else to represent the tax of continuous cantrip usage (or the exhaustion rules). Replace the XP rules with something else and stay below level 7 though I have to ask why not play an OSR game at that point?



Again, working within the 5e framework (at least in broad strokes) seems necessary these days if you want to have actual players for your game.  I wish that weren't the case, believe me.


----------



## Digdude@1970

Manbearcat said:


> Unclear to me what the intent is of this post or if I'm included in the target audience, but my response to this post lies in my post just upthread.
> 
> I feel neither annoyed nor cheated nor "back in my day HARRUMPH-ey" by a "dungeon play" (lets call it) experience that isn't about logistical management of a dangerous obstacle course via tightly systemitized turn-based exploration + a countdown clock (like The Grind or Light in Torchbearer or Wandering Monsters in Moldvay Basic) + difficult inventory management and loadout decisions + harsh to negotiate attrition model + consequences with teeth at multiple layers of play + the imperative of deft management of multiple types of resources to even survive the through line of play + difficult decisions around an advancement scheme that requires failure (in a game that brutally punishes failure...thereby creating complex incentive structures).
> 
> When I run games, my apex priority is "game as game" and, specifically, the game I'm running right now (I don't run Torchbearer to get a Mouse Guard experience nor D&D 4e to get a Dogs in the Vineyard experience nor Blades in the Dark to get a Stonetop experience etc).  So when it comes to a "dungeon crawler", I want play to constantly feature layered, interesting, impactful decision-points and consequences that create a particular type of thematically-potent challenge experience right now and through the longitudinal experience of both the entire crawl and the play loop at large (so like in Torchbearer, you're talking Town Phase > Journey Phase > Adventure Phase > Camp Phase > Adventure Phase > Journey Phase > Town Phase).
> 
> There are designs for that.  And there are designs that take that away and, in its stead, provide an alternative "dungeon play" experience.



Nothing personal I assure you. Was just reflecting on my dungeoneer perspective and offering up a opinion.


----------



## Bedrockgames

I think simplifying and speeding character creation can really help. A lot of the OSR games I enjoy that are dungeon focused have fast character creation, and OD&D was relatively fast as well. I tend to associate back to the dungeon with a bit more lethality so being able to quickly make a character and jump back into the game is helpful.


----------



## Fifinjir

James Gasik said:


> Sexy dungeons!?  That's how you get Bards!  Do you want Bards?



 New species:

Half-dungeon.


----------



## MichaelSomething

How about put out some really good dungeons that players will want to go through??  There's always the Banewarrens!









						The Banewarrens - Monte Cook Games Store
					

An ancient storehouse of evil has been opened… In the murky recesses of time, a powerful and benevolent cleric set … The Banewarrens Read More »




					www.montecookgames.com


----------



## pemerton

Clint_L said:


> I have had no problem when I've wanted to add in a dungeon crawl, but my standards look nothing like Manbearcat's, above. I suggest that those are some very exacting, idiosyncratic needs for what a dungeon crawler has to have, and if your needs are that specific it doesn't make sense (as he acknowledges) to expect that a game with as huge an audience as D&D is going to orient itself around them. There are niche RPGs that would work better, or you could go with your own home-brew version of 5e if you want to keep some of its basic kit.



Moldvay Basic was not a niche game, and was oriented around @Manbearcat's desiderata. (Although frequently not played in that style.)


----------



## pemerton

Malmuria said:


> I think what dungeon crawl has come to mean is any adventure that takes place in a dungeon.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> For me the "crawl" part is everything @Manbearcat talks about, including some sort of risk/reward set up.  Venturing forth has to be risky, uncertain, scary even, and only done because there is some possible reward waiting.  Darkest Dungeon, the videogame, is a dungeon crawler in this sense, and indeed that game was inspired by  Torchbearer.





UngainlyTitan said:


> So having read 13 pages of comments I come to the conclusion that the issue is not "dungeon crawling" per se nor even inventory management that 5th edition manages just fine and dandy but a particular style of play that involves interaction with a (very) challenging environment with very little buffer provided by the characters innate competencies as listed in the character sheet.
> What I mean my innate competencies would be stuff like cantrips, and other powers that allow challenges to be bypassed without interaction. I would all passive skills to that list.



I have never been very good at running classic D&D dungeons, for two main reasons:

*I find it hard to be a neutral referee - I prefer to poke and prod the players, engaging with the goals and the weak spots of their PCs ("indie"-style);

*Related to the above, I am not a big fan of adjudication that relies heavily on GM extrapolation of the fiction - it can easily become a bit adversarial, especially if the difficulty the PCs find themselves in is a result of me as GM having poked or prodded the players into a situation!​
But recently I've been running Torchbearer 2nd ed. In TB the players never suffer a loss or setback without a check against an obstacle to see what happens (they can succeed without a check if the GM determines that their declared actions are a "good idea" - though players have reasons to want to make checks, because only by making checks and either succeeding or failing can they advance their skills and attributes). The GM has to adjudicate the fiction, but for the purposes of (i) setting obstacles, and (ii) extrapolating failure consequences. It doesn't have the unmediated character of adjudicating fiction that is found in classic D&D. So it's much better for a GM like me!

Referring to UngainlyTitan's post: in Torchbearer, it is stuff on PC sheets - skills, attributes, and the gear that enhances them (eg rope helps appropriate Dungeoneer checks) or that is otherwise necessary (light sources, food) - that lets players succeed. But it doesn't allow _bypassing challenges without interaction_. Players can't declare an action except by describing what in the fiction their PC is doing to overcome an obstacle. Only then is the difficulty set, and the player's dice pool put together and rolled.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

pemerton said:


> I have never been very good at running classic D&D dungeons, for two main reasons:
> 
> *I find it hard to be a neutral referee - I prefer to poke and prod the players, engaging with the goals and the weak spots of their PCs ("indie"-style);​​*Related to the above, I am not a big fan of adjudication that relies heavily on GM extrapolation of the fiction - it can easily become a bit adversarial, especially if the difficulty the PCs find themselves in is a result of me as GM having poked or prodded the players into a situation!​
> But recently I've been running Torchbearer 2nd ed. In TB the players never suffer a loss or setback without a check against an obstacle to see what happens (they can succeed without a check if the GM determines that their declared actions are a "good idea" - though players have reasons to want to make checks, because only by making checks and either succeeding or failing can they advance their skills and attributes). The GM has to adjudicate the fiction, but for the purposes of (i) setting obstacles, and (ii) extrapolating failure consequences. It doesn't have the unmediated character of adjudicating fiction that is found in classic D&D. So it's much better for a GM like me!
> 
> Referring to UngainlyTitan's post: in Torchbearer, it is stuff on PC sheets - skills, attributes, and the gear that enhances them (eg rope helps appropriate Dungeoneer checks) or that is otherwise necessary (light sources, food) - that lets players succeed. But it doesn't allow _bypassing challenges without interaction_. Players can't declare an action except by describing what in the fiction their PC is doing to overcome an obstacle. Only then is the difficulty set, and the player's dice pool put together and rolled.



I think you may be mislead by my word choice (I do not choose words as carefully as you, nor read texts as closely as you do). By "with out interaction" I mean that the challenge is overcome with the use of a power or other game mechanic that can abstract quite a lot in the fiction. 

My experience of old school play was that sometime opening a door could be an hour long conversation between the DM and the player about the nature of the door (the material it is made of, the manner of construction), its placement in the wall. Whether it was locked or not and the placement of the hinges. The door, eventually being opened by popping out the pins holding the hinges.


----------



## pemerton

UngainlyTitan said:


> I think you may be mislead by my word choice (I do not choose words as carefully as you, nor read texts as closely as you do).



No probs. I wasn't setting out to disagree (let alone start a fight!), just responding to what I saw in your post. 



UngainlyTitan said:


> By "with out interaction" I mean that the challenge is overcome with the use of a power or other game mechanic that can abstract quite a lot in the fiction.



I think at a certain point, that "abstraction" means that what is happening is less _action resolution_ and more _scene re-framing_. The borderline here is not precise, but I think that the core of _action resolution_ is that the player character has done some relatively definite thing in the fiction, and we're now working out what flows from that; whereas _scene reframing_ is more about changing the parameters of the situation in which the PC finds themself, as a precursor to actually declaring and resolving actions.

I think that 3E's Perception and Diplomacy skills - at least by reputation - are often used in a scene-reframing way. Rather than the player declaring what their PC is doing in the fiction, they declare "I make a Perception check" or "I use Diplomacy", and then the dice are rolled, and the upshot (if the check succeeds) is a new scene - eg instead of their being an empty room, the room is one in which the PC can see a (would-be) hidden doodad; or instead of their being an angry NPC, the situation is one in which the PC is dealing with a compliant NPC.

I'm not exactly sure which PC abilities you've got in mind in the 5e context - my familiarity with 5e is not hopeless, but is limited - but the picture I've got is similar to what I've described in the previous paragraph, whether that is based around ability/skill checks, or the use of spells (eg casting LTH means that the situation is changed from one of risky camping to one in which the PCs are safe in a magical redoubt), or similar.

Torchbearer has a little bit of player-side stuff that can permit scene-reframing - mostly the use of Circles to trigger encounters with useful NPCs - but not on the scale of modern D&D. And I do think this is relevant to the dungeon-crawl style of play.



UngainlyTitan said:


> My experience of old school play was that sometime opening a door could be an hour long conversation between the DM and the player about the nature of the door (the material it is made of, the manner of construction), its placement in the wall. Whether it was locked or not and the placement of the hinges. The door, eventually being opened by popping out the pins holding the hinges.



I think too much of this is what can give classic D&D dungeon crawling a bad reputation. Or at least can narrow its appeal.

I think it's helpful if a RPG gives a sense of the degree of "granularity"/detail expected for action declarations to be resolved. Torchbearer follows its parent game Burning Wheel in this respect - by having fairly comprehensive difficulty lists under its skills and attributes, and related rules for what gear gives what sort of bonus, it gives a good sense of the level of detail expected in action declaration. It also encourages the GM to "say 'yes'" to "good ideas" - like, say, removing a door from its hinges once their make has been successfully inspected (which might be a Carpenter or Scout check - TB has no issue with overlapping competencies in particular situations). It uses a separate part of the system - the rules for advancement - to encourage the players to aim for checks as well as "good ideas", and so avoids the problem of "GM says 'yes'" = "easy mode".

I think it is possible (not necessarily probable) that a revised version of 5e D&D could - through its skill descriptions, its advice on setting DCs,  its advice on narrating failures, and its spell descriptions - articulate a consistent approach to the granularity/detail of action declarations. Dealing with the issue that "saying 'yes'" = "easy mode" might be harder, as it's not clear what the incentive would be for players to sometimes want to make checks instead.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

pemerton said:


> No probs. I wasn't setting out to disagree (let alone start a fight!), just responding to what I saw in your post.



Not a bother but we have ad the miscommunication thing before and I wanted to head it off. I respect that generally you are trying to elucidate meaning not merely "winning an argument". I just did not want to mislead.



pemerton said:


> I think at a certain point, that "abstraction" means that what is happening is less _action resolution_ and more _scene re-framing_. The borderline here is not precise, but I think that the core of _action resolution_ is that the player character has done some relatively definite thing in the fiction, and we're now working out what flows from that; whereas _scene reframing_ is more about changing the parameters of the situation in which the PC finds themself, as a precursor to actually declaring and resolving actions.



yes Scene reframing is a good phrase and I should try an thing of thinks more in that fashion. 


pemerton said:


> I think that 3E's Perception and Diplomacy skills - at least by reputation - are often used in a scene-reframing way. Rather than the player declaring what their PC is doing in the fiction, they declare "I make a Perception check" or "I use Diplomacy", and then the dice are rolled, and the upshot (if the check succeeds) is a new scene - eg instead of their being an empty room, the room is one in which the PC can see a (would-be) hidden doodad; or instead of their being an angry NPC, the situation is one in which the PC is dealing with a compliant NPC.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure which PC abilities you've got in mind in the 5e context - my familiarity with 5e is not hopeless, but is limited - but the picture I've got is similar to what I've described in the previous paragraph, whether that is based around ability/skill checks, or the use of spells (eg casting LTH means that the situation is changed from one of risky camping to one in which the PCs are safe in a magical redoubt), or similar.



Yes, this is more or less hat I had in mind.



pemerton said:


> Torchbearer has a little bit of player-side stuff that can permit scene-reframing - mostly the use of Circles to trigger encounters with useful NPCs - but not on the scale of modern D&D. And I do think this is relevant to the dungeon-crawl style of play.
> 
> I think too much of this is what can give classic D&D dungeon crawling a bad reputation. Or at least can narrow its appeal.
> 
> I think it's helpful if a RPG gives a sense of the degree of "granularity"/detail expected for action declarations to be resolved. Torchbearer follows its parent game Burning Wheel in this respect - by having fairly comprehensive difficulty lists under its skills and attributes, and related rules for what gear gives what sort of bonus, it gives a good sense of the level of detail expected in action declaration. It also encourages the GM to "say 'yes'" to "good ideas" - like, say, removing a door from its hinges once their make has been successfully inspected (which might be a Carpenter or Scout check - TB has no issue with overlapping competencies in particular situations). It uses a separate part of the system - the rules for advancement - to encourage the players to aim for checks as well as "good ideas", and so avoids the problem of "GM says 'yes'" = "easy mode".
> 
> I think it is possible (not necessarily probable) that a revised version of 5e D&D could - through its skill descriptions, its advice on setting DCs,  its advice on narrating failures, and its spell descriptions - articulate a consistent approach to the granularity/detail of action declarations. Dealing with the issue that "saying 'yes'" = "easy mode" might be harder, as it's not clear what the incentive would be for players to sometimes want to make checks instead.



I think so, also, and I think that DM advice from multiple perspectives and with multiple gaming styles/aesthetics in mind.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

For what it's worth, always wanted them to do a Celestial Nadir megadungeon.


----------



## Clint_L

pemerton said:


> Moldvay Basic was not a niche game, and was oriented around @Manbearcat's desiderata. (Although frequently not played in that style.)



It's very much a niche game in 2022. And back then, most folks saw Basic as the kiddie version of AD&D; I got mine from an aunt who heard I was into D&D and picked it up at a toy store, which was lovely of her but the game was mostly an object of amusement for me and my AD&D-playing cohort (I have the dice from it to this day). Basic was not originally written to be a dungeon crawler, it was written to be a simple version of the game targeted at younger players. Moldvay sort of adapted it to play more like original D&D. Emphasis on sort of, as it was still being marketed as a beginner game.

But citing Basic (and the Moldvay version in particular, which was already backward-looking in 1981) sort of illustrates what bothers me about a lot of these threads: the premise that the contemporary game is doing it wrong and needs to get back to where it started. Things evolve, and to me it makes no sense to try to go backwards when the game has become as incredibly successful as it has. I don't think anything should be added to the core rules to make the game more dungeon friendly because I think it is plenty dungeon friendly as is, and if you try to push it too hard towards that one old school style of play you start making it a niche game...which already exist. Including the Moldvay books, which are easily available.

I can see adding a new dungeon setting like an Underdark source book, and including optional rules there for if players want to play it more like an old school dungeon crawler. But this is the OneD&D sub-forum, and I think the emphasis in OneD&D should be on looking forward, not back.


----------



## pemerton

Clint_L said:


> Basic was not originally written to be a dungeon crawler, it was written to be a simple version of the game targeted at younger players.



Given that the game has rules _only_ for dungeon crawling, states that the adventure begins when the PCs arrive at the dungeon and ends when they leave it, and has (excellent) GM instructions aimed solely at explaining how to design and stock a dungeon, and then adjudicate play in it, I don't agree with this.



Clint_L said:


> But citing Basic (and the Moldvay version in particular, which was already backward-looking in 1981) sort of illustrates what bothers me about a lot of these threads: the premise that the contemporary game is doing it wrong and needs to get back to where it started.



No one has said this. Not me, nor the OP, nor the other posts I've read. The OP states a preference - "I'd love to see . . ." - and then asks about changes that might be made to support that preference. That's all.



Clint_L said:


> the game has become as incredibly successful as it has. I don't think anything should be added to the core rules to make the game more dungeon friendly because I think it is plenty dungeon friendly as is



OK. So you don't share the OP's preference, and you don't want any changes made. Noted.


----------



## Malmuria

Clint_L said:


> Basic was not originally written to be a dungeon crawler, it was written to be a simple version of the game targeted at younger players.



How are these things contradictory or related at all?  Younger players can't play dungeon crawling games?  I started with the 1991 black box, where you started you inside a dungeon as prisoners and used that constrained environment to teach successive aspects of the game.



Clint_L said:


> But citing Basic (and the Moldvay version in particular, which was *already backward-looking in 1981*)



What?  They kept releasing stuff for basic dnd into the 90s.



Clint_L said:


> Things evolve, and to me it makes no sense to try to go backwards when the game has become as incredibly successful as it has. I don't think anything should be added to the core rules to make the game more dungeon friendly because I think it is plenty dungeon friendly as is,



- you seem to be of the opinion that 5e both a) works great for dungeon crawling and b) has "evolved" past being a game that features dungeon crawling.  So 5e both is and is not a dungeon crawling game?

- There's nothing nostalgic or "backward-looking" about 5e?  They just rereleased dragonlance.



Clint_L said:


> I can see adding a new dungeon setting like an Underdark source book, and including optional rules there for if players want to play it more like an old school dungeon crawler. But this is the OneD&D sub-forum, and I think the emphasis in OneD&D should be on *looking forward, not back.*



What does that mean to you?


----------



## Jack Daniel

Just reading through this thread, it's fairly clear to me that bringing D&D "back to the dungeon" is a ship that has sailed. Without some key, fundamental changes to the mechanics — changes unlikely to be made in the foreseeable future — it won't work. Not that WotC should even bother trying: the bulk of their player base obviously doesn't _want_ to go back to the dungeon.

The codename for OneD&D might as well be _& Dragons_ for all that matters at this point.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Clint_L said:


> It's very much a niche game in 2022. And back then, most folks saw Basic as the kiddie version of AD&D; I got mine from an aunt who heard I was into D&D and picked it up at a toy store, which was lovely of her but the game was mostly an object of amusement for me and my AD&D-playing cohort (I have the dice from it to this day). Basic was not originally written to be a dungeon crawler, it was written to be a simple version of the game targeted at younger players. Moldvay sort of adapted it to play more like original D&D. Emphasis on sort of, as it was still being marketed as a beginner game.
> 
> But citing Basic (and the Moldvay version in particular, which was already backward-looking in 1981) sort of illustrates what bothers me about a lot of these threads: the premise that the contemporary game is doing it wrong and needs to get back to where it started. Things evolve, and to me it makes no sense to try to go backwards when the game has become as incredibly successful as it has. I don't think anything should be added to the core rules to make the game more dungeon friendly because I think it is plenty dungeon friendly as is, and if you try to push it too hard towards that one old school style of play you start making it a niche game...which already exist. Including the Moldvay books, which are easily available.
> 
> I can see adding a new dungeon setting like an Underdark source book, and including optional rules there for if players want to play it more like an old school dungeon crawler. But this is the OneD&D sub-forum, and I think the emphasis in OneD&D should be on looking forward, not back.




I've been in a number of Moldvay campaigns that made for exceptional dungeon crawls. And basic was pretty popular through AD&D's run (I don't know the numbers but it always struck me as much more palatable for mainstream audiences than AD&D: and I was more of an AD&D person personally). 

I don't think any of this is about the game having to go back to some version of the game from 1982, but there is such a thing as going back and examining periods where the game did things well, asking why, asking if things have been added that have taken away from the game, or if things have been taken away that made the game better. That doesn't mean you can't be forward looking but with RPGs especially it is easy for design decisions to compound over time and start to introduce problems. 

Personally I don't know where D&D needs to be mechanically. I am not the target audience at this point and I doubt my preferences reflect the preferences of what most D&D players want. But when asked the question what can D&D do to bring back the dungeon, my instinct is what I posted earlier: simplify, make character creation faster and easier. Now maybe that kind of simplification would take away other important elements they want to preserve (because the game isn't only about dungeons). I would also say its worth going back and looking at the successful dungeon adventures and dungeon advice over the years and trying to learn what can be learned from that (again if the aim is to bring back the dungeon). 

In terms of old school stuff. I don't know there is a bit of old school inspiration I can discern in 5E and I think that seemed to have some appeal to people. I don't think everything in old school gaming is going to appeal to mainstream players but as a mainstream RPG, with a very broad kind of appeal, WOTC probably is going to want to examine the different style incubators in the hobby and draw on tools that help GMs achieve what they want. That might include old school exploration techniques but also could involve more of the story driven stuff coming from some of the indie games. 

I do agree their aim shouldn't be to make a niche product, so any of these ideas need to be incorporated into One D&D in a way that feels organic and adds to play (not in a way that imposes on the game or takes away from it). 

One thing I will add: simplification is probably good for having more mass appeal. D&D is very challenging, and I think the difficulty of the game, its complexity can be a hurdle to reading a wider audience (and even if that wider audience is reached, it can be a hurdle to retaining them). So the more user friendly the system the less niche I think it will be.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Given that the game has rules _only_ for dungeon crawling, states that the adventure begins when the PCs arrive at the dungeon and ends when they leave it, and has (excellent) GM instructions aimed solely at explaining how to design and stock a dungeon, and then adjudicate play in it, I don't agree with this.




This is my memory too. Obviously there is more than one version of basic but I think largely this was true I do also think it helped a bit with reaching a larger audience: the packaging of basic I think had broader appeal than the core AD&D books did. And basic also had the rules cyclopedia version which has some pretty strong hardcore fans to this day. Though that got more into wilderness exploration (if I recall with the boxed sets the wilderness version was a whole separate boxed set)


----------



## Reynard

Bedrockgames said:


> This is my memory too. Obviously there is more than one version of basic but I think largely this was true I do also think it helped a bit with reaching a larger audience: the packaging of basic I think had broader appeal than the core AD&D books did. And basic also had the rules cyclopedia version which has some pretty strong hardcore fans to this day. Though that got more into wilderness exploration (if I recall with the boxed sets the wilderness version was a whole separate boxed set)



Basic was dungeons,  Expert was wilderness,  Companion was domains and war, and Master was the search for immortality. It's the version of the game that gave each tier its most distinct function within the overall campaign.


----------



## Clint_L

pemerton said:


> No one has said this. Not me, nor the OP, nor the other posts I've read.



It's literally the title of the thread.


----------



## pemerton

Clint_L said:


> It's literally the title of the thread.



Huh?



			
				thread title said:
			
		

> What could One D&D do to bring the game back to the dungeon?





Clint_L said:


> the premise that the contemporary game is doing it wrong and needs to get back to where it started.



That question doesn't rest on any normative premise, about what is right or wrong, or what needs to be where.

EDIT: The verbs _could_ and _should_ are not synonyms.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Bedrockgames said:


> I've been in a number of Moldvay campaigns that made for exceptional dungeon crawls. And basic was pretty popular through AD&D's run (I don't know the numbers but it always struck me as much more palatable for mainstream audiences than AD&D: and I was more of an AD&D person personally).
> 
> I don't think any of this is about the game having to go back to some version of the game from 1982, but there is such a thing as going back and examining periods where the game did things well, asking why, asking if things have been added that have taken away from the game, or if things have been taken away that made the game better. That doesn't mean you can't be forward looking but with RPGs especially it is easy for design decisions to compound over time and start to introduce problems.
> 
> Personally I don't know where D&D needs to be mechanically. I am not the target audience at this point and I doubt my preferences reflect the preferences of what most D&D players want. But when asked the question what can D&D do to bring back the dungeon, my instinct is what I posted earlier: simplify, make character creation faster and easier. Now maybe that kind of simplification would take away other important elements they want to preserve (because the game isn't only about dungeons). I would also say its worth going back and looking at the successful dungeon adventures and dungeon advice over the years and trying to learn what can be learned from that (again if the aim is to bring back the dungeon).
> 
> In terms of old school stuff. I don't know there is a bit of old school inspiration I can discern in 5E and I think that seemed to have some appeal to people. I don't think everything in old school gaming is going to appeal to mainstream players but as a mainstream RPG, with a very broad kind of appeal, WOTC probably is going to want to examine the different style incubators in the hobby and draw on tools that help GMs achieve what they want. That might include old school exploration techniques but also could involve more of the story driven stuff coming from some of the indie games.
> 
> I do agree their aim shouldn't be to make a niche product, so any of these ideas need to be incorporated into One D&D in a way that feels organic and adds to play (not in a way that imposes on the game or takes away from it).
> 
> One thing I will add: simplification is probably good for having more mass appeal. D&D is very challenging, and I think the difficulty of the game, its complexity can be a hurdle to reading a wider audience (and even if that wider audience is reached, it can be a hurdle to retaining them). So the more user friendly the system the less niche I think it will be.



This post reinforces to me that it is not really about dungeons at all but a style of play based on the early game.
5e does dungeons fine, in the literal sense. You can take any classic dungeon and run it in 5e. It will work for a certain sense of work. 5e does inventory management just as D&D always did it. All the information about the cost of things and the relevant things are still there.
What you cannot do is explore the dungeon in the same way as in older versions of D&D. Not without ignoring the mechanics and that can be difficult because races are mechanically different.
To take a look at extremes of approaches; consider entering a room and checking for traps. In 5e it is an investigation check to search for traps. when the trap is found it is a thieves tools check to disarm the trap.
in the old style that process would be (as @pemerton put it) a process of scene reframing, as the search process was described in detail and then onto the mechanical nature of the trap where the information acquired was used to disable it with perhaps no dice involved at all.

Could 5e emulate that style of play. I believe it could but you would have to agree up front to never invoke the skill process until the scene had resolved to the resolution level where use of the skill system would (probably at the DMs call) become appropriate. That is the skill system or abity checks would never be invoked on the player side. No "I make an investigation/insight check" calls, it is at DM discretion only.
Passive skills would have to be dropped completely and the group would have to agree that most traps cannot be spotted with low light vision.
It would also probably need some magic exhaustion mechanic. Something that restricts cantrip use. This latter element could be the most difficult to implement but may not be a deal breaker in all groups.


----------



## Bedrockgames

UngainlyTitan said:


> This post reinforces to me that it is not really about dungeons at all but a style of play based on the early game.
> 5e does dungeons fine, in the literal sense. You can take any classic dungeon and run it in 5e. It will work for a certain sense of work. 5e does inventory management just as D&D always did it. All the information about the cost of things and the relevant things are still there.
> What you cannot do is explore the dungeon in the same way as in older versions of D&D. Not without ignoring the mechanics and that can be difficult because races are mechanically different.
> To take a look at extremes of approaches; consider entering a room and checking for traps. In 5e it is an investigation check to search for traps. when the trap is found it is a thieves tools check to disarm the trap.
> in the old style that process would be (as @pemerton put it) a process of scene reframing, as the search process was described in detail and then onto the mechanical nature of the trap where the information acquired was used to disable it with perhaps no dice involved at all.
> 
> Could 5e emulate that style of play. I believe it could but you would have to agree up front to never invoke the skill process until the scene had resolved to the resolution level where use of the skill system would (probably at the DMs call) become appropriate. That is the skill system or abity checks would never be invoked on the player side. No "I make an investigation/insight check" calls, it is at DM discretion only.
> Passive skills would have to be dropped completely and the group would have to agree that most traps cannot be spotted with low light vision.
> It would also probably need some magic exhaustion mechanic. Something that restricts cantrip use. This latter element could be the most difficult to implement but may not be a deal breaker in all groups.





I don't play 5E so I wasn't commenting on that editions ability or inability to manage dungeons I would use different language than pemerton but I broadly agree that one feature of the older approach is more direct interaction with the environment. This is I think a dividing line between TSR D&D and WOTC D&D. This isn't a commentary on what the game ought to be, but something I've noticed generally and I think it goes beyond dungeon play as you point out. I used to run almost exclusively Ravenloft campaigns and most of my adventures tended to fall into the monster hunt or investigation category (not all but that was the easiest pattern for me to plan for as a GM). When I switched to 3E, something felt radically different about the setting. For years I chalked that difference up to nostalgia but around 2008, I ran a Ravenloft campaign using the old 2E rules and I pretty immediately understood what the difference had been, as the old feel also came back. While 2E had optional NWPs and had mechanics for interacting with the environment (it still has abilities like Detect Traps after all), it also left a lot of that to the players describing what they do, the GM figuring out what worked. Also you didn't have skills like bluff, Perception, diplomacy, etc (the closest you have in the PHB is Etiquette but that is a knowledge skill you don't use it as a verb like Bluff, you simply use it so the GM can tell you what you know about what etiquette is called for in that situation. I think the combination players interacting more with their environment, not being able to rely as much on stuff like Bluff had a pretty big impact on the game. I am not saying it is better, but I personally enjoyed the game a lot more. Granted technically a lot of these things were still present in the system if you pulled certain levers (for instance you could call for a perception check to see if players know something-----I even have a 2E module where a wisdom check is called for to see if players are awakened in the night by a threat). But they were generally not buttons players pressed like bluff, the standard was for the GM to call for the wisdom check if it felt appropriate. There were many other things as well that impacted the feel but these seemed to be the big ones.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

There is a lot to unpack here: paragraphs please.


Bedrockgames said:


> I don't play 5E so I wasn't commenting on that editions ability or inability to manage dungeons I would use different language than pemerton but I broadly agree that one feature of the older approach is more direct interaction with the environment. This is I think a dividing line between TSR D&D and WOTC D&D. This isn't a commentary on what the game ought to be, but something I've noticed generally and I think it goes beyond dungeon play as you point out.



I largely agree, I was using 5e because I am more familiar with it (I have not played TSR D&D in over 30 years) and because the thread tile is to bring the game back to the dungeon and that would be a thing starting from 5e (the current edition).

As I say I largely agree as to your point about the nature of the divide and that it is most stark in the change from AD&D 2e to D&D 3.x. However, I would note that elements of the change were appearing in AD&D (as you also note). I think the split in (lets call it) level of abstraction of environment is the divide and it is independent of dungeons. So, could it be invoked in 5e (or 3,x) by a culture of play where skill/ability checks are never called by the players and only called by the DM once the appropriate level of interaction has been reached.

Is this enough to restore player skill in to the game. 


Bedrockgames said:


> I used to run almost exclusively Ravenloft campaigns and most of my adventures tended to fall into the monster hunt or investigation category (not all but that was the easiest pattern for me to plan for as a GM). When I switched to 3E, something felt radically different about the setting. For years I chalked that difference up to nostalgia but around 2008, I ran a Ravenloft campaign using the old 2E rules and I pretty immediately understood what the difference had been, as the old feel also came back. While 2E had optional NWPs and had mechanics for interacting with the environment (it still has abilities like Detect Traps after all), it also left a lot of that to the players describing what they do, the GM figuring out what worked. Also you didn't have skills like bluff, Perception, diplomacy, etc (the closest you have in the PHB is Etiquette but that is a knowledge skill you don't use it as a verb like Bluff, you simply use it so the GM can tell you what you know about what etiquette is called for in that situation. I think the combination players interacting more with their environment, not being able to rely as much on stuff like Bluff had a pretty big impact on the game. I am not saying it is better, but I personally enjoyed the game a lot more. Granted technically a lot of these things were still present in the system if you pulled certain levers (for instance you could call for a perception check to see if players know something-----I even have a 2E module where a wisdom check is called for to see if players are awakened in the night by a threat). But they were generally not buttons players pressed like bluff, the standard was for the GM to call for the wisdom check if it felt appropriate. There were many other things as well that impacted the feel but these seemed to be the big ones.



Would this play the same if the skill/proficiencies and the ability to call for ability checks was explicitly agreed at the table was reserved for the DM only?
To what degree are cantrips an issue?


----------



## Bedrockgames

UngainlyTitan said:


> There is a lot to unpack here: paragraphs please.
> 
> I largely agree, I was using 5e because I am more familiar with it (I have not played TSR D&D in over 30 years) and because the thread tile is to bring the game back to the dungeon and that would be a thing starting from 5e (the current edition).
> 
> As I say I largely agree as to your point about the nature of the divide and that it is most stark in the change from AD&D 2e to D&D 3.x. However, I would note that elements of the change were appearing in AD&D (as you also note). I think the split in (lets call it) level of abstraction of environment is the divide and it is independent of dungeons. So, could it be invoked in 5e (or 3,x) by a culture of play where skill/ability checks are never called by the players and only called by the DM once the appropriate level of interaction has been reached.




I agree elements like this were present in AD&D. It is primarily a matter of degree and prevalence. For example by the mid 90s if you used the skills and powers books, that would feel a lot more like some of the things you had in 3E. 

And a wide variety of optional rules appeared throughout supplements, dragon, etc. and you even had the complete books in the 90s (though very different flavor to crunch ratio and different mechanical benefits from the 3E complete books. 

I think a big difference was optional really meant optional abd more often than not, at least in my experience, options were not widely used. In my campaigns we did use NWPs as presented in the 89 PHB, but no table I played at allowed skills and powers.



UngainlyTitan said:


> Is this enough to restore player skill in to the game.
> 
> Would this play the same if the skill/proficiencies and the ability to call for ability checks was explicitly agreed at the table was reserved for the DM only?
> To what degree are cantrips an issue?




I can’t speak to cantrips as I don’t play 5E and don’t know the specific concern people have expressed about them in that edition. I do think shifting the call to the roll to the GM side impacts feel. In my own games I include social skills and skills like detect (because in my experience most people expect them now). But the GM calls on a player to make a command roll after the player speaks and if the GM is unclear what the outcome should be or feels the characters talent in command is way above or way below what the player actually said or did. Same for Detect. A player might say “I examine the wall” but the GM calls for detect (and detect would be made secretly anyways). That approach gets things closer to the feel I like (though I should say not as perfectly close as just eliminating detection and social skills would).


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Bedrockgames said:


> I agree elements like this were present in AD&D. It is primarily a matter of degree and prevalence. For example by the mid 90s if you used the skills and powers books, that would feel a lot more like some of the things you had in 3E.
> 
> And a wide variety of optional rules appeared throughout supplements, dragon, etc. and you even had the complete books in the 90s (though very different flavor to crunch ratio and different mechanical benefits from the 3E complete books.
> 
> I think a big difference was optional really meant optional abd more often than not, at least in my experience, options were not widely used. In my campaigns we did use NWPs as presented in the 89 PHB, but no table I played at allowed skills and powers.
> 
> 
> 
> I can’t speak to cantrips as I don’t play 5E and don’t know the specific concern people have expressed about them in that edition. I do think shifting the call to the roll to the GM side impacts feel. In my own games I include social skills and skills like detect (because in my experience most people expect them now). But the GM calls on a player to make a command roll after the player speaks and if the GM is unclear what the outcome should be or feels the characters talent in command is way above or way below what the player actually said or did. Same for Detect. A player might say “I examine the wall” but the GM calls for detect (and detect would be made secretly anyways). That approach gets things closer to the feel I like (though I should say not as perfectly close as just eliminating detection and social skills would).



Thanks for the paragraphs, I have issues with walls of text as I tend to glide over whole sections. 

So leaving aside the questions of cantrips ( I have some ideas there), would advice (re only the DM calls for checks) lead to something close enough to old school play to be worth a section in the DMG on playstyles?


----------



## Bedrockgames

UngainlyTitan said:


> Thanks for the paragraphs, I have issues with walls of text as I tend to glide over whole sections.
> 
> So leaving aside the questions of cantrips ( I have some ideas there), would advice (re only the DM calls for checks) lead to something close enough to old school play to be worth a section in the DMG on playstyles?




My impression from a lot of old school GMs I know is that the 5E advice and approach already leans a bit into old school sensibilities (this is why many of them went back to 5E after not playing 3E or 4E). I can’t speak to the truth if that or not. 

But I think if it’s true, going too old school could present a problem if it overly favors that approach but leads to less support for other styles (I think D&D always has the issue of needing to appeal to a variety of player bases and when that becomes imbalanced it can make people resentful towards the current edition). 

All that said I do think advising GMs on how to approach core mechanics differently to achieve different feels (like the above approach I gave above), could help people tailor the game to the feel they want. Ultimately though I don’t know what data WOTC is working with here. Presumably they have information regarding the pie chart if play styles, the degree to which there are demands for changes one direction or another, and dangers of losing some blocks with certain changes. I would imagine those kinds of considerations are just important to them as pure design questions (being ‘the rpg’ means they need broad appeal and that is probably a big challenge when it comes to introducing changes).


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Thanks for the response. 


Bedrockgames said:


> My impression from a lot of old school GMs I know is that the 5E advice and approach already leans a bit into old school sensibilities (this is why many of them went back to 5E after not playing 3E or 4E). I can’t speak to the truth if that or not.



Fair enough, my questions are motivated by the observation that a lot of the "back to the dungeon" or "5e cannot do exploration" or whatever are not really about the topic in the headline but the way the player and DMs interact with the rules. Since I like 5e and strongly dislike that Old School approach I am trying to understand the exact nature of the friction. 



Bedrockgames said:


> But I think if it’s true, going too old school could present a problem if it overly favors that approach but leads to less support for other styles (I think D&D always has the issue of needing to appeal to a variety of player bases and when that becomes imbalanced it can make people resentful towards the current edition).



Oh! absolutely, I think that 5e is the way that it is, is that it represents the designers best approach of a game that was maximally acceptable to the player base as it existed at that time. I do believe that it is let down by the DMG. Which is really written for experience DMs that are bascially happy with the core 5e approach to D&D.
I also feel that the game is moddable to incorporate (at least elements of) other styles but completely lacking in any advice on how to do so. 


Bedrockgames said:


> All that said I do think advising GMs on how to approach core mechanics differently to achieve different feels (like the above approach I gave above), could help people tailor the game to the feel they want. Ultimately though I don’t know what data WOTC is working with here. Presumably they have information regarding the pie chart if play styles, the degree to which there are demands for changes one direction or another, and dangers of losing some blocks with certain changes. I would imagine those kinds of considerations are just important to them as pure design questions (being ‘the rpg’ means they need broad appeal and that is probably a big challenge when it comes to introducing changes).



Yes I am pretty certain that WoTC has information on play and playstyles above and beyond what is gleaned from UA survey data.


----------



## FrogReaver

Clint_L said:


> It's very much a niche game in 2022. And back then, most folks saw Basic as the kiddie version of AD&D; I got mine from an aunt who heard I was into D&D and picked it up at a toy store, which was lovely of her but the game was mostly an object of amusement for me and my AD&D-playing cohort (I have the dice from it to this day). Basic was not originally written to be a dungeon crawler, it was written to be a simple version of the game targeted at younger players. Moldvay sort of adapted it to play more like original D&D. Emphasis on sort of, as it was still being marketed as a beginner game.
> 
> But citing Basic (and the Moldvay version in particular, which was already backward-looking in 1981) sort of illustrates what bothers me about a lot of these threads: the premise that the contemporary game is doing it wrong and needs to get back to where it started. Things evolve, and to me it makes no sense to try to go backwards when the game has become as incredibly successful as it has. I don't think anything should be added to the core rules to make the game more dungeon friendly because I think it is plenty dungeon friendly as is, and if you try to push it too hard towards that one old school style of play you start making it a niche game...which already exist. Including the Moldvay books, which are easily available.
> 
> I can see adding a new dungeon setting like an Underdark source book, and including optional rules there for if players want to play it more like an old school dungeon crawler. But this is the OneD&D sub-forum, and I think the emphasis in OneD&D should be on looking forward, not back.



IMO, this phenomenon is not just related to games or D&D.  It's also seen in the business and technology worlds where innovation leads to people forgetting why something was done a particular way to begin with, evolving that old way out, only to cause the problems it was originally implemented to solve and then they have to either revert to the old way or accept the problems that not doing it the old way caused.  Happens alot more from people dealing with 'high level' instead of in the low level weeds.


----------



## Bedrockgames

UngainlyTitan said:


> Thanks for the response.
> 
> Fair enough, my questions are motivated by the observation that a lot of the "back to the dungeon" or "5e cannot do exploration" or whatever are not really about the topic in the headline but the way the player and DMs interact with the rules. Since I like 5e and strongly dislike that Old School approach I am trying to understand the exact nature of the friction.




To be clear I am not of the opinion that 5E can't do the dungeon. I haven't played it enough (i've played like once or twice and also in a short 5E Lord of the Rings adventure). My response was more about my immediate reaction to character creation and how I felt it seemed a little involved. That is fine. But one common thread with dungeon focused D&D is simpler and faster character creation helps with getting back into the game after characters die (which just seems like more of a prominent feature of dungeon heavy campaigns). But that wasn't a statement about where 5E ought to go, what it is capable of doing, just my gut response to the question of how One can bring things more to the dungeon.


----------



## Bedrockgames

UngainlyTitan said:


> Oh! absolutely, I think that 5e is the way that it is, is that it represents the designers best approach of a game that was maximally acceptable to the player base as it existed at that time. I do believe that it is let down by the DMG. Which is really written for experience DMs that are bascially happy with the core 5e approach to D&D.
> I also feel that the game is moddable to incorporate (at least elements of) other styles but completely lacking in any advice on how to do so.
> 
> Yes I am pretty certain that WoTC has information on play and playstyles above and beyond what is gleaned from UA survey data.




One thing I will also add is my recollection is 5E was meant as an edition to bring back player bases that had left the game (whether that was people who didn't make the transition from 2E to 3E, people who didn't make the transition to 4E, even people who didn't go from 1E to 2E---because a lot of the old school elements that seem present appear to be more pre-2E in spirit). They seem to have succeeded in bringing back a large swath of the hobby (I recall how evenly divided things were between D&D and Pathfinder and D&D and various other forms of D&D available through the OGL when 5E was coming out, and I believe it was a serious question whether D&D would remain the top dog). So they are probably doing something right, and doing something right probably means they have to be very cautious about what changes they make. In short 5E seems like an edition that most people I communicate with are satisfied with (obviously having specific quibbles as all editions receive, but there doesn't seem to be anything fundamentally wrong with it as an edition).


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Bedrockgames said:


> One thing I will also add is my recollection is 5E was meant as an edition to bring back player bases that had left the game (whether that was people who didn't make the transition from 2E to 3E, people who didn't make the transition to 4E, even people who didn't go from 1E to 2E---because a lot of the old school elements that seem present appear to be more pre-2E in spirit). They seem to have succeeded in bringing back a large swath of the hobby (I recall how evenly divided things were between D&D and Pathfinder and D&D and various other forms of D&D available through the OGL when 5E was coming out, and I believe it was a serious question whether D&D would remain the top dog). So they are probably doing something right, and doing something right probably means they have to be very cautious about what changes they make. In short 5E seems like an edition that most people I communicate with are satisfied with (obviously having specific quibbles as all editions receive, but there doesn't seem to be anything fundamentally wrong with it as an edition).



Totally agree, which is why we are seeing design within the constraints of popularity.


----------



## payn

UngainlyTitan said:


> Totally agree, which is why we are seeing design within the constraints of popularity.



To be fair, I think its for the best. D&D should be big tent, which means the ultimate dungeon crawler, tactical combat, system mastery chargen, etc.. isnt going to happen. Once upon a time modularity might have ushered in these things, but 5E proved to be too popular on its own as a general fantasy RPG system.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

payn said:


> To be fair, I think its for the best. D&D should be big tent, which means the ultimate dungeon crawler, tactical combat, system mastery chargen, etc.. isnt going to happen. Once upon a time modularity might have ushered in these things, but 5E proved to be too popular on its own as a general fantasy RPG system.



I would have like some additional optional subsystems to drift the game in a particular direction. Though we may be seeing third party support for some of this. Cubicle 7's Uncharted Journeys for overland travel may be the start of 3rd party support for areas not covered in the core game.


----------



## payn

UngainlyTitan said:


> I would have like some additional optional subsystems to drift the game in a particular direction. Though we may be seeing third party support for some of this. Cubicle 7's Uncharted Journeys for overland travel may be the start of 3rd party support for areas not covered in the core game.



Modularity was pitched during Next (5E development, but they never had to return to the concept so its left in the dust bin. However, I think that is just ripe for opportunity for third party. If folks are not just making their own systems.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngainlyTitan said:


> There is a lot to unpack here: paragraphs please.
> 
> I largely agree, I was using 5e because I am more familiar with it (I have not played TSR D&D in over 30 years) and because the thread tile is to bring the game back to the dungeon and that would be a thing starting from 5e (the current edition).
> 
> As I say I largely agree as to your point about the nature of the divide and that it is most stark in the change from AD&D 2e to D&D 3.x. However, I would note that elements of the change were appearing in AD&D (as you also note). I think the split in (lets call it) level of abstraction of environment is the divide and it is independent of dungeons. So, could it be invoked in 5e (or 3,x) by a culture of play where skill/ability checks are never called by the players and only called by the DM once the appropriate level of interaction has been reached.
> 
> Is this enough to restore player skill in to the game.
> 
> Would this play the same if the skill/proficiencies and the ability to call for ability checks was explicitly agreed at the table was reserved for the DM only?
> To what degree are cantrips an issue?



This is still the way I play, as much as possible.  I resist attempts by my players to simply say, for example, "I roll a Perception check", and instead ask them to tell me what they want to do.  If a check seems appropriate, I ask for one.  Otherwise, I might run the whole thing without dice.  It feels more immersive to me, and I think to my players as well.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngainlyTitan said:


> There is a lot to unpack here: paragraphs please.
> 
> I largely agree, I was using 5e because I am more familiar with it (I have not played TSR D&D in over 30 years) and because the thread tile is to bring the game back to the dungeon and that would be a thing starting from 5e (the current edition).
> 
> As I say I largely agree as to your point about the nature of the divide and that it is most stark in the change from AD&D 2e to D&D 3.x. However, I would note that elements of the change were appearing in AD&D (as you also note). I think the split in (lets call it) level of abstraction of environment is the divide and it is independent of dungeons. So, could it be invoked in 5e (or 3,x) by a culture of play where skill/ability checks are never called by the players and only called by the DM once the appropriate level of interaction has been reached.
> 
> Is this enough to restore player skill in to the game.
> 
> Would this play the same if the skill/proficiencies and the ability to call for ability checks was explicitly agreed at the table was reserved for the DM only?
> To what degree are cantrips an issue?



Cantrips are my biggest issue with emulating old school play (the rest/recovery mechanics are a close second).


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bedrockgames said:


> One thing I will also add is my recollection is 5E was meant as an edition to bring back player bases that had left the game (whether that was people who didn't make the transition from 2E to 3E, people who didn't make the transition to 4E, even people who didn't go from 1E to 2E---because a lot of the old school elements that seem present appear to be more pre-2E in spirit). They seem to have succeeded in bringing back a large swath of the hobby (I recall how evenly divided things were between D&D and Pathfinder and D&D and various other forms of D&D available through the OGL when 5E was coming out, and I believe it was a serious question whether D&D would remain the top dog). So they are probably doing something right, and doing something right probably means they have to be very cautious about what changes they make. In short 5E seems like an edition that most people I communicate with are satisfied with (obviously having specific quibbles as all editions receive, but there doesn't seem to be anything fundamentally wrong with it as an edition).



This is the crux of my concern about the new edition.  I believe they were doing it right in 2014 where they were appealing to a base they were trying to bring back in (like me!).  But the new direction of the last few years seems to be explicitly moving away from that goal towards what they think all the new people who have joined up since then want.  If they're right, what most people want is not what I want, and ultimately that is why they've basically lost me at this point.


----------



## Reynard

Micah Sweet said:


> This is the crux of my concern about the new edition.  I believe they were doing it right in 2014 where they were appealing to a base they were trying to bring back in (like me!).  But the new direction of the last few years seems to be explicitly moving away from that goal towards what they think all the new people who have joined up since then want.  If they're right, what most people want is not what I want, and ultimately that is why they've basically lost me at this point.



I mean, it will have been 10 years and some uncounted new, generally younger and more diverse millions of players have discovered D&D. It would be utterly silly for them to aim at the same people they already recaptured,  who are now a small minority of the player base.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngainlyTitan said:


> I would have like some additional optional subsystems to drift the game in a particular direction. Though we may be seeing third party support for some of this. Cubicle 7's Uncharted Journeys for overland travel may be the start of 3rd party support for areas not covered in the core game.



IMO, Adventures in Middle-Earth's Journey system started that support, and the exploration rules in Level Up that were inspired by them continued it.  Uncharted Journeys is just a well-publisized iteration of the same idea (although that doesn't mean I won't pick it up).


----------



## Reynard

Micah Sweet said:


> IMO, Adventures in Middle-Earth's Journey system started that support, and the exploration rules in Level Up that were inspired by them continued it.  Uncharted Journeys is just a well-publisized iteration of the same idea (although that doesn't mean I won't pick it up).



It looks to me like a way to keep their AiME line going without the license.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> I mean, it will have been 10 years and some uncounted new, generally younger and more diverse millions of players have discovered D&D. It would be utterly silly for them to aim at the same people they already recaptured,  who are now a small minority of the player base.



Silly from a $ standpoint, yes.  But it does feel a bit ungrateful to me; I can't help feeling that way, as much as I get it.


----------



## payn

Micah Sweet said:


> This is the crux of my concern about the new edition.  I believe they were doing it right in 2014 where they were appealing to a base they were trying to bring back in (like me!).  But the new direction of the last few years seems to be explicitly moving away from that goal towards what they think all the new people who have joined up since then want.  If they're right, what most people want is not what I want, and ultimately that is why they've basically lost me at this point.



What is all that different now than what came about in 2014?


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Reynard said:


> It looks to me like a way to keep their AiME line going without the license.



And whats wrong with that? 

That said I think it is a subsystem that has potential.


----------



## Micah Sweet

payn said:


> What is all that different now than what came about in 2014?



If 5e content Tasha's-forward into the new playtest seems the same to you as the 2014 PH, then I don't know what we can talk about.


----------



## Bill Zebub

There seems to be this sentiment that (and I'm only slightly hyperbolizing here) that 1e did dungeons correctly and that the only way to bring that back is to do it the same way.  I don't really buy that.  

Three things this thread has me thinking about:

1. I'm torn on "load out" and inventory management.  Back in the day I thought it was fun to look through the official shopping lists and load up on stuff I might need, and conceptually I really, really like the notion of being worried about running out of torches.  But in practice it usually ends up more clerical than actually exciting.  I'm not sure what the right solution is.  (Again, without having played it I'm attracted to this solution in Five Torches Deep.)

2. I'll admit I hadn't really thought hard about the impact of cantrips, and more flexible spellcasting in general, and I think there are some valid points made here.  (I'll give another shout out to Five Torches Deep, for reining in the power of cantrips.)

3. I prefer a middle ground between the old TSR approach to "player skill" which (at least in the way I experienced it) required players to keep asking questions until they asked the correct one, versus the way most people seem to interpret the more modern style, which is a statement of character action resolved by a dice roll. The middle ground I like involves telegraphing and a combination of player skill and dice rolls.  (It also seems to me that this middle ground _is_ the intended 5e style, but the authors are a little vague about it so a lot of people choose to bring in a 3e playstyle.)


----------



## Bedrockgames

Reynard said:


> I mean, it will have been 10 years and some uncounted new, generally younger and more diverse millions of players have discovered D&D. It would be utterly silly for them to aim at the same people they already recaptured,  who are now a small minority of the player base.




I don't really have a strong position here, but I will say, there have been many booms in the hobby and all of them have faded at some point. Usually when the booms end, it's the player bases that remain and keep things going (and of course much of that base is built on new people coming in). So I think writing off a player like Micah Sweet (or any of the base who came back after 5e was released) is probably a mistake. I think you can keep that crowd, and make changes that appeal to newer fans of the game. I've long been at the point where I realize the game isn't being designed for my tastes, so I don't especially care one way or the other (beyond a general hope that D&D does well because D&D doing well is good for the hobby). 

Also we don't know how reflective Micah's views of the hobby as a whole. Perceptions could be wrong here. I think for us to say, well the game has moved on from this crowd or that crowd, is not only possibly an error, but I also don't think it is an especially friendly way for us to be with one another. It may turn out, that D&D needs to cater to younger players who have play style or mechanic preferences that are at odds with Micah's. But in the mean time, I think if a player like Micah wants something in particular from the game, or feels it has moved away from what worked for them in 2014, they should voice that opinion. 

I could understand this more if we were talking about some of the truly ancient ideas I've been a fan of. Obviously D&D has moved away from 1983, but 5E isn't that old. It came out only 8 or 9 years ago. So it doesn't sound like Micah is calling for the game to go back to how it was 40 years ago or something.


----------



## Maxperson

mellored said:


> Given the amount of dark vision, I can't see why light is going to cause problems.



Because dark vision kinda stinks if you play it RAW.  Disadvantage on all visuals is pretty sucky.


----------



## Aldarc

Reynard said:


> Basic was dungeons,  Expert was wilderness,  Companion was domains and war, and Master was the search for immortality. It's the version of the game that gave each tier its most distinct function within the overall campaign.



4e followed a similar paradigm. It flat out stated what the characters should be facing and doing at heroic (1-10), paragon (11-20), and epic (21-30) levels of the game.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Maxperson said:


> Because dark vision kinda stinks if you play it RAW.  Disadvantage on all visuals is pretty sucky.



That  kinda is the point though. It is not the same as having a light.


----------



## payn

Micah Sweet said:


> If 5e content Tasha's-forward into the new playtest seems the same to you as the 2014 PH, then I don't know what we can talk about.



Well I was asking you. I am only vaguely familiar with Tasha's. Does this fundamentally change the way the game is played? Are you unable to maintain your playstyle? I was under the impression Tasha's just adds some new players options?


----------



## Reynard

Aldarc said:


> 4e followed a similar paradigm. It flat out stated what the characters should be facing and doing at heroic (1-10), paragon (11-20), and epic (21-30) levels of the game.



I did not really play much 4E. Did the GAME change over those tiers, or was it just adventures at different scales? Did high level 4E characters rule nations or seek immortality?


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Reynard said:


> I did not really play much 4E. Did the GAME change over those tiers, or was it just adventures at different scales? Did high level 4E characters rule nations or seek immortality?




It was pretty much designed as "Save the town; Save the County; Save the World; Save the Plane; Save all of Reality". Rule nations not so much; Immortality maybe. Hobnob with kings at level 20, hobnob with gods at level 30.


----------



## Incenjucar

Reynard said:


> I did not really play much 4E. Did the GAME change over those tiers, or was it just adventures at different scales? Did high level 4E characters rule nations or seek immortality?



The scale of your abilities tended to expand with each tier to the point where you'd need a larger map to handle it all. Levels 20-30 also led to your Epic Destiny, which frequently resulted in immortality.


----------



## Reynard

FitzTheRuke said:


> It was pretty much designed as "Save the town; Save the County; Save the World; Save the Plane; Save all of Reality". Rule nations not so much; Immortality maybe. Hobnob with kings at level 20, hobnob with gods at level 30.



But the game did not actually change, sounds like. So not much a comparison.


----------



## Aldarc

Incenjucar said:


> The scale of your abilities tended to expand with each tier to the point where you'd need a larger map to handle it all. Levels 20-30 also led to your Epic Destiny, which frequently resulted in immortality.



The Epic Destinies section in PHB 1 was pretty explicit about this: 


> *Immortality*
> Each epic destiny defines your lasting impact on the world or even the universe: how people forever afterward remember and talk about you. Some people achieve lasting fame or notoriety without achieving an epic destiny, but that’s a fleeting thing. Inevitably, those people are forgotten, lost in the murky depths of history. Your epic destiny ensures that your name and exploits live on forever.
> 
> *The End*
> Perhaps most important, your epic destiny describes your character’s exit from the world at large (and more specifically, from the game) once you’ve completed your final adventure. It lays out why, after so many adventures, you finally take your leave of the mortal realm—and where you go next.



And each epic destiny described a fitting form of immortality.


----------



## pemerton

Reynard said:


> Did the GAME change over those tiers, or was it just adventures at different scales? Did high level 4E characters rule nations or seek immortality?



A premise of 4e is that epic tier PCs become immortal in some fashion - demigods, emergent primordials, heralds of their gods, etc.

The core resolution framework - combat encounters and skill challenges - remains the same at all tiers. The fiction is expected to change, as per the descriptions of the tiers that @Aldarc referred to. The mechanical minutiae become more complicated - although the rulebooks don't really discuss it, a key conceit of 4e as demonstrated by the way both PCs and creatures are built is that as the game progresses, the mechanics become more intricate and in that way the game therefore becomes more testing of the players (as well as being more demanding on the GM).



UngainlyTitan said:


> Fair enough, my questions are motivated by the observation that a lot of the "back to the dungeon" or "5e cannot do exploration" or whatever are not really about the topic in the headline but the way the player and DMs interact with the rules. Since I like 5e and strongly dislike that Old School approach I am trying to understand the exact nature of the friction.



I agree that in this sort of thread, when we talk about '"dungeon crawling" or "exploration" it is not really the fiction that is under scrutiny, but the process of play. (That's not to say that the fiction and the process of play are fully independent of one another.)


----------



## Aldarc

Reynard said:


> But the game did not actually change, sounds like. *So not much a comparison.*



It doesn't seem prudent to make this sort of claim from a place of ignorance.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Reynard said:


> But the game did not actually change, sounds like. So not much a comparison.



No, the game didn't change much, IME. 

Because of that, it _was_ more playable at any level than any other version of D&D. To be fair, I've never played under a DM who was any good at running "Ruling Nations", and it's never interested me much as a DM.

In 3e and 5e I only really enjoy the game in single-digit levels both as a player and as a DM. (To be more precise, I only really enjoyed 3.x between levels 3 and 6. At least 5e is more like 2 through 11.) I played 1e and 2e, but I don't remember much about the specifics of each level. We were young, and something of power gamers.


----------



## Reynard

Aldarc said:


> It doesn't seem prudent to make this sort of claim from a place of ignorance.



I was explicitly talking about a game than changed not just in scale but in form and function and it was pretty clear from the descriptions that this was not the case in 4E.


----------



## pemerton

FitzTheRuke said:


> Rule nations not so much



The Legendary Sovereign epic destiny involves ruling a nation.



Reynard said:


> But the game did not actually change, sounds like.



This might depend on which table you were playing at.

For instance, 1st level PCs are relatively unlikely to recruit squads of soldiers to support them. Paragon or Epic tier PCs are far more likely to do this. Mechanically, a squad of soldiers might be a bonus on a check in a skill challenge (out of combat) or a particular sort of ability or resource to deploy (in combat) - for instance, when one of the PCs in my game had a squad of drow hand crossbowmen in their service, in mechanical terms that was a minor action AoE attack (as they gave the command to shoot).


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Reynard said:


> I was explicitly talking about a game than changed not just in scale but in form and function and it was pretty clear from the descriptions that this was not the case in 4E.




There was nothing about the game mechanically that would _prevent_ a DM from running a political "Rule the nation" game, though. In fact, with Skill Challenges and the Swarm rules, you had some mechanical tools to deal with politics and mass combats that would have worked well, under a DM that knew what they were doing and wanted to run that sort of thing.


----------



## Incenjucar

The game did not become Mario Kart after level 11, no... unless the players decided to get a bunch of mounts and race them around.

4E isn't really about railroading you into new mini-games unless that's where the campaign is going.
In my 4E campaign, for example, we went from "You are crew on a pirate ship after being sold by the big bads" at heroic, "You run the pirate ship and go after the big bads" at paragon, and "Your pirate ship is a planejammer and you are stopping the big bad behind the big bads from annihilating multiple upper planes by slamming them together."


----------



## pemerton

Reynard said:


> I was explicitly talking about a game than changed not just in scale but in form and function and it was pretty clear from the descriptions that this was not the case in 4E.





FitzTheRuke said:


> There was nothing about the game mechanically that would _prevent_ a DM from running a political "Rule the nation" game, though. In fact, with Skill Challenges and the Swarm rules, you had some mechanical tools to deal with politics and mass combats that would have worked well, under a DM that knew what they were doing and wanted to run that sort of thing.



I used plenty of swarms to represent massed forces (hobgoblin phalanxes, flying squads of vrock demons, etc). 4e makes this sort of thing very straightforward.

Because of the way levelling works on the PC side, the most natural way for the players to have their characters confront a hobgoblin phalanx is not to lead a force of soldiers against it, but to wade in and destroy it themselves. As per my post just upthread, in the context of combat resolution soldiers in the service of the PCs are more likely to be an assist rather than the main game.

Political skill challenges are easy to set up and resolve. At paragon tier the PCs in my 1st to 30th level game became the dominant actors in the city that had become the focus of our play. At epic tier they shaped the politics of the Abyss and the Elemental Chaos, freed the drow from Lolth so they could return to the surface world, and turned the duergar from servants of Admodeus to servants of Levistus (that last one was not necessarily an unalloyed success).

My observation, based on comparing my own play experience with 4e to a lot of what I saw others talk about, is that a fair number of 4e GMs were very reluctant to let the course of play - especially skill challenges - change the underlying fiction to any significant degree. These GMs seemed to use skill challenges essentially as a form of complex skill check for adjudicating how the players had their PCs step through a series of hoops to resolve a GM pre-conceived puzzle. (Literally disarming a trap, say; or something with different fiction but the same basic play structure.) At those GMs' tables, it did not seem - at least to this external observer - that the scope or character of play changed with the tiers of play.


----------



## Reynard

FitzTheRuke said:


> There was nothing about the game mechanically that would _prevent_ a DM from running a political "Rule the nation" game, though. In fact, with Skill Challenges and the Swarm rules, you had some mechanical tools to deal with politics and mass combats that would have worked well, under a DM that knew what they were doing and wanted to run that sort of thing.



Again, I was talking about the explicit change of game in BECMI -- mostly wistfully, with an air of sad nostalgia. I don't expect than any other edition or version really leaned in the way BECMI did -- although 2E had a few sourcebooks bending that way and even 3E (or 3.5?) tried with the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Abstracting a unit of NPCs into a single action isn't really what I want, but I can see it working mechanically. 


pemerton said:


> The Legendary Sovereign epic destiny involves ruling a nation.
> 
> This might depend on which table you were playing at.
> 
> For instance, 1st level PCs are relatively unlikely to recruit squads of soldiers to support them. Paragon or Epic tier PCs are far more likely to do this. Mechanically, a squad of soldiers might be a bonus on a check in a skill challenge (out of combat) or a particular sort of ability or resource to deploy (in combat) - for instance, when one of the PCs in my game had a squad of drow hand crossbowmen in their service, in mechanical terms that was a minor action AoE attack (as they gave the command to shoot).


----------



## Maxperson

UngainlyTitan said:


> That  kinda is the point though. It is not the same as having a light.



The comment I replied to seemed to imply that due to the massive amounts of darkvision, light isn't an issue because everyone can already see just fine.  That's incorrect. Light is better to have whether you have darkvision or not, because darkvision in 5e stinks.


----------



## Reynard

I'm trying to decide if explicit procedures are a thing that would be worth incorporating. I know a lot of OSR folks swear by them but I don't actually recall using them so religiously back in the day. But, it might be harder to keep track of time -- which i do consider a major element of successful dungeon based play -- without them.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Reynard said:


> I'm trying to decide if explicit procedures are a thing that would be worth incorporating. I know a lot of OSR folks swear by them but I don't actually recall using them so religiously back in the day. But, it might be harder to keep track of time -- which i do consider a major element of successful dungeon based play -- without them.




Just my opinion, I may be an outlier, but for old school I think you can never go wrong with more tools, and those could be optional procedures, but I like having different procedures to invoke as needed rather than ones you are to follow all the time (and the easier these are to shape into adjustable dials, the better). It does depend on the specifics of what we are talking about though. I have run into he same thing with modern settings. Procedures are great but they can be confining. I'd  rather I decide what procedures to invoke based on what the players are trying to do, rather than have procedures that guide what players are doing if that makes sense. In a modern RPG context I ran into this when I developed a pretty solid rackets and operations table and procedure. It worked until I had a player who starting pushing into greater specifics, then it didn't. Since then I learned you kind of have to go by how the players are approaching it in a way. At least I did, for me I needed to be able to respond with procedures that made sense for the moment, rather than front load procedures to manage the flow. Hopefully that makes sense.


----------



## Manbearcat

By my reckoning, there are four types of "crawls":

1)  The kind I posted about prior that features tight systemization and procedures that exert extreme and consistent downward pressure on the "crawlers" toward a Skilled Play paradigm, decision-point-intensiveness around a myriad of both discrete and converging parts.   Moldvay Basic and Torchbearer are the exemplars here.  I'm not going to recapitulate everything again, so just refer back to this post.

2)  A heavily GM-directed experience where the crawl features free play, serial exploration and is more about performative aspects, ephemera (map and key and boxed text and possibly handouts), mood, tone, aesthetic than what (1) is about.  GM's extrapolate their conception of the dungeon ecology and they play their mental model of the simulation while players try to suss out the GM's mental model while immersing themselves in all the stuff in that first sentence.  Yes, resources are brought to bear and challenges are undertaken, but it is an extremely divergent experience from (1) above due to a number of reasons, structure and systemization of play + prospective roles and GMing techniques chief among them (both the inputs and the experience of the play).

3)  Scene-based crawling with scene-based (or overwhelmingly so) PC build focus, where there is an express goal, codified assets for the opposition that the GM can bring to bear, problem areas/obstacles/conflicts, and action and conflict resolution mechanics that resolve the PCs interaction with problem areas/obstacles.  Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy or MHRP, Dogs in the Vineyard Towns, D&D 4e, Blades in the Dark Scores, Mouse Guard Missions.  These might be Social Crawls, Wilderness Crawls, Supernatural Crawls (like managing an occult situation/site), or an actual Delve into forgotten ruins et al.

4)  The AW/DW "structured free form featuring snowballing play" approach where you have an attrition model and multi-faceted resource paradigm that is tightly systematized and heavy GM constraint integrated into the play.  You have a Threat to deal with (which has a dramatic need, attendant moves, and stats/resources to bring to bear against you) and as you attempt to resolve it (or ignore it) it moves down its Clock until its Doom/Countdown goes off if the PCs haven't sufficiently intervened and resolved it.  There are similarities to this and Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy/MHRP (because of the way Doom gathers and goes off in those games), but the encoding engine and the structure of play is entirely different (structured freeform with snowballing move resolution vs closed scene resolution > transition > closed scene resolution).




As it was conceived and is presently constituted, 5e can do (2) above.  But it cannot do any of (1), (3), and (4) without a profound overhaul (not just in the PC build paradigm, the encounter budgeting, the core engine & action resolution, but also because the role of the GM, and the GMing techniques/principles that undergird that, in all of those other 3 are profoundly different than the role of the GM in (2) and all of the other aspects of system play deeply into that.  You can't just say "hey GM, do (1) or (3) or (4)"...that is basically a non-sequitur as the systemization of those games were developed and ultimately systemitized to say "GM...here is your role and the techniques and principles to fulfill that...you'll do these particular things and not deviate because you'll muck up the fundamental paradigm of play if you go outside of that").

Because of that, it seems very unlikely that One D&D will amend the core and auxiliary aspects of 5e sufficient to pull off the other ones.  I know you can design for (1) and get (3) by basically stripping away a few components if the game is concentrically designed well enough (modular).  Torchbearer is designed entirely off the Mouse Guard engine so its trivial to get Mouse Guard out of Torchbearer by simply stripping away a few components of play.  You could then basically get (2) out of it by ignoring structure/rules to the GM's heart is content, making a heavily GM-directed and GM-mediated game out of Mouse Guard basically (with a heavy focus on all of the stuff in 2 rather than the stuff of Mouse Guard).  But going the opposite direction in the build paradigm (going from basically free form and GM-directed to deeply codified, deeply structured, deeply procedure-driven, GM-constrained play) is an ask that is far too profound.

I feel like I've been transported by to late 2012/2013 where I was saying these same things; from an applied science perspective, its infinitely easier to loosen and remove structure from a tightly designed game engine (and insert GM mediation and curation in the stead of those things) than it is to do the inverse.


----------



## pemerton

Micah Sweet said:


> Abstracting a unit of NPCs into a single action isn't really what I want, but I can see it working mechanically.



It's how wargames often work, isn't it?


----------



## Micah Sweet

pemerton said:


> It's how wargames often work, isn't it?



I've always seen D&D combat as more small unit tactics.


----------



## pemerton

Micah Sweet said:


> I've always seen D&D combat as more small unit tactics.



Once you've got a squad of one or two dozen drow hand crossbowmen, resolving them individually becomes impractical, and also unrealistic in the sense that D&D's rules for AC don't really take into account the challenge posed by a dozen or two shots taken simultaneously.


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> By my reckoning, there are four types of "crawls":
> 
> 1)  The kind I posted about prior that features tight systemization and procedures that exert extreme and consistent downward pressure on the "crawlers" toward a Skilled Play paradigm, decision-point-intensiveness around a myriad of both discrete and converging parts.   Moldvay Basic and Torchbearer are the exemplars here.  I'm not going to recapitulate everything again, so just refer back to this post.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 3)  Scene-based crawling with scene-based (or overwhelmingly so) PC build focus, where there is an express goal, codified assets for the opposition that the GM can bring to bear, problem areas/obstacles/conflicts, and action and conflict resolution mechanics that resolve the PCs interaction with problem areas/obstacles.  Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy or MHRP, Dogs in the Vineyard Towns, D&D 4e, Blades in the Dark Scores, Mouse Guard Missions.  These might be Social Crawls, Wilderness Crawls, Supernatural Crawls (like managing an occult situation/site), or an actual Delve into forgotten ruins et al.



I've done a dungeon crawl in Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy. It's not much like Torchbearer. I mean, some of the flavour is the same, but the play is completely different.

Cortex is all about building pools and spending points to establish the desired fiction. Torchbearer is all about "Now that I failed that Resources check to get rope, how am I going to make my Dungeoneer tests?"


----------



## MichaelSomething

Here's another question to consider; why are the characters crawling around in a dungeon??

The old days had gold and magic items as a driving factor; but those things arn't really carrots to a 5E character.  There's few in game uses for gold and it's "assumed" that characters get no real increase from magic items.


----------



## pemerton

MichaelSomething said:


> Here's another question to consider; why are the characters crawling around in a dungeon??
> 
> The old days had gold and magic items as a driving factor; but those things arn't really carrots to a 5E character.  There's few in game uses for gold and it's "assumed" that characters get no real increase from magic items.



Presumably in the fiction the PCs want to be rich, for the same sorts of reasons as real treasure hunters in the real world.

At the table, they players would be doing it because that's the game they sat down to play.


----------



## Incenjucar

I don't think I've ever actually played in a campaign where profit was the goal in all my decades.


----------



## Reynard

MichaelSomething said:


> Here's another question to consider; why are the characters crawling around in a dungeon??
> 
> The old days had gold and magic items as a driving factor; but those things arn't really carrots to a 5E character.  There's few in game uses for gold and it's "assumed" that characters get no real increase from magic items.



Bringing back uses for gold would be one of those things that helped. And not as a way to make items. Trainibg costs. Upkeep. Building and maintaining an HQ. Buying yourself lands and title. Etc.


----------



## James Gasik

It's interesting that those goals are things that have been stripped away from the game over time.  We lost training in 2e, and automatic followers in 3e (though Leadership was still something that could be used, though it quickly proved to be one of the game's most busted options).  

I can only assume, based on what I witnessed myself, that players were less concerned with becoming landed movers and shakers in the world as a goal, and just wanted more adventuring.  I have a friend who runs a 2e campaign (he refuses to even look at more modern editions, grumbling about there being no reason to change Thac0- no matter how many times over the past 3 decades he's watched me fumble trying to figure out what AC I hit, lol).

Not long ago, he was running a game for his nephew and some other friends- they were fighting a zombie horde and trying to figure out what to do with The Crown of Evil Might.

During the session, apparently his nephew was griping about the endless combat, and his desire for more treasure (it turns out zombies don't really have a lot of loot, go figure!), and my friend was complaining to me about it, since it had basically soured the rest of the evening.

To which I was like "wait.  I know he's name level.  He's the baron of Falkrest!"

"Yes, that's right."

"The guy has an army and a fleet, if he wants treasure, why doesn't he just go knock over a small country somewhere?  And why is he fighting zombies by himself anyways?  He has men-at-arms, and isn't he still bound to _Blackrazor_?  I thought that thing was useless at fighting undead!"

My friend just shrugged.  "He doesn't want to do anything with his army, other than have it protect his lands.  He wants to adventure."

I'm not saying that bringing back these things would be bad- I certainly liked them (and I'm hoping Bastions won't be a waste of time).  And I know the thread is about "how we could change the game", not "should we change the game".

But I think it's still worth reviewing *why *the game has changed in the first place.


----------



## Micah Sweet

pemerton said:


> Once you've got a squad of one or two dozen drow hand crossbowmen, resolving them individually becomes impractical, and also unrealistic in the sense that D&D's rules for AC don't really take into account the challenge posed by a dozen or two shots taken simultaneously.



And yet when Bounded Accuracy was introduced, people talked about how dozens of peasants with crossbows could threaten a dragon (which was and remains a cool idea to me).  Not really possible unless they all get to make an attack.


----------



## Micah Sweet

MichaelSomething said:


> Here's another question to consider; why are the characters crawling around in a dungeon??
> 
> The old days had gold and magic items as a driving factor; but those things arn't really carrots to a 5E character.  There's few in game uses for gold and it's "assumed" that characters get no real increase from magic items.



Magic items are the opposite actually.  The math assumes you don't have them, but if you do, they provide a significant increase in PC power that needs to be addressed to keep things challenging.


----------



## Micah Sweet

pemerton said:


> Presumably in the fiction the PCs want to be rich, for the same sorts of reasons as real treasure hunters in the real world.
> 
> At the table, they players would be doing it because that's the game they sat down to play.



All you have to do is reintroduce uses for gold.  TSR's games had them, 3e had them, and its not an insurmountable task.  Level Up, for example, provides numerous ways to make gold useful.


----------



## Micah Sweet

James Gasik said:


> It's interesting that those goals are things that have been stripped away from the game over time.  We lost training in 2e, and automatic followers in 3e (though Leadership was still something that could be used, though it quickly proved to be one of the game's most busted options).
> 
> I can only assume, based on what I witnessed myself, that players were less concerned with becoming landed movers and shakers in the world as a goal, and just wanted more adventuring.  I have a friend who runs a 2e campaign (he refuses to even look at more modern editions, grumbling about there being no reason to change Thac0- no matter how many times over the past 3 decades he's watched me fumble trying to figure out what AC I hit, lol).
> 
> Not long ago, he was running a game for his nephew and some other friends- they were fighting a zombie horde and trying to figure out what to do with The Crown of Evil Might.
> 
> During the session, apparently his nephew was griping about the endless combat, and his desire for more treasure (it turns out zombies don't really have a lot of loot, go figure!), and my friend was complaining to me about it, since it had basically soured the rest of the evening.
> 
> To which I was like "wait.  I know he's name level.  He's the baron of Falkrest!"
> 
> "Yes, that's right."
> 
> "The guy has an army and a fleet, if he wants treasure, why doesn't he just go knock over a small country somewhere?  And why is he fighting zombies by himself anyways?  He has men-at-arms, and isn't he still bound to _Blackrazor_?  I thought that thing was useless at fighting undead!"
> 
> My friend just shrugged.  "He doesn't want to do anything with his army, other than have it protect his lands.  He wants to adventure."
> 
> I'm not saying that bringing back these things would be bad- I certainly liked them (and I'm hoping Bastions won't be a waste of time).  And I know the thread is about "how we could change the game", not "should we change the game".
> 
> But I think it's still worth reviewing *why *the game has changed in the first place.



There's no reason they couldn't still have provided those older options for players who wanted them.


----------



## pemerton

Micah Sweet said:


> And yet when Bounded Accuracy was introduced, people talked about how dozens of peasants with crossbows could threaten a dragon (which was and remains a cool idea to me).  Not really possible unless they all get to make an attack.



I'm talking about 4e. 

If people want to use the 5e D&D combat rules to resolve battles between dozens of peasants and dragons that's on them, but to me that doesn't seem a use case that D&D's rules are ever supposed to have covered.


----------



## pemerton

Micah Sweet said:


> All you have to do is reintroduce uses for gold.



Presumably in the fiction, as in the real world, the use of gold is to wield economic power.


----------



## Micah Sweet

pemerton said:


> Presumably in the fiction, as in the real world, the use of gold is to wield economic power.



True.  We just have to find a way to make economic power sexy.


----------



## FrogReaver

Manbearcat said:


> I feel like I've been transported by to late 2012/2013 where I was saying these same things; from an applied science perspective, its infinitely easier to loosen and remove structure from a tightly designed game engine (and insert GM mediation and curation in the stead of those things) than it is to do the inverse.



I think from a mechanical perspective you are right. But from a human behavioral perspective I’m not so sure.  Taking anything away from a player tends to be infinitely worse than adding something for them.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> All you have to do is reintroduce uses for gold.




You gotta figure that previous adventurers must have used their gold to build elaborate but pointless dungeons filled with treasure. It’s the only thing that could explain the presence of so many of them. 

Why did they squander their gold this way? Because the adventurers before them must have done the same thing. 

It’s “Pay It Forward” and I, for one, am not going to break the chain.


----------



## Reynard

Bill Zebub said:


> You gotta figure that previous adventurers must have used their gold to build elaborate but pointless dungeons filled with treasure. It’s the only thing that could explain the presence of so many of them.
> 
> Why did they squander their gold this way? Because the adventurers before them must have done the same thing.
> 
> It’s “Pay It Forward” and I, for one, am not going to break the chain.



Think of all the inns run by retired adventurers, charging like 2cp for ale. There was no way those places were solvent with all the offered amenities.  Obviously they had a hoard somewhere in the cellar with all their treasure and they were just draining it slowly to give new adventurers a place to rest up and heal.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Reynard said:


> Think of all the inns run by retired adventurers, charging like 2cp for ale. There was no way those places were solvent with all the offered amenities.  Obviously they had a hoard somewhere in the cellar with all their treasure and they were just draining it slowly to give new adventurers a place to rest up and heal.




Did you hear about the rancher tavern owner who won the lottery? A reporter asked him what he was going to do with all that money. He said, “Well, I suppose I’ll just keep on ranching hosting murder hobos until the money’s gone.”


----------



## James Gasik

Micah Sweet said:


> There's no reason they couldn't still have provided those older options for players who wanted them.



Yes, they certainly could have, unless they did and it was edited for page count or something?


----------



## Starfox

This discussion seems to be less about dungeoneering and more about general grittiness. Not all of us want that, I would be sad if this became the standard mode of the game.

There are rules in the DMG for changing what a long and short rest is that can be used. A series of similar optional rules could be added to achieve the same goal. But DnD in all its editions is a pretty heroic game by level 3 or so. in 1E, many campaigns never reached 3rd level, and that I think is the reason 1E games were considered gritty. But in the end, perhaps DnD is not the best game for this kind of campaign. A game with less return from experience, such as Rune Quest, might be more suitable.

One thing I do agree with is that darkvision is an issue. For me it is much an aesthetic issue, and an issue of racial balance for rogues. Halflings and humans, the most iconic rogues, lack darkvision. My solution is to negate darkvision's ability to see in the dark. Dim light functions as bright light, and that is the entire effect. This makes orcs, goblins and such dependent on light, which I feel is much more aesthetically pleasing and true to genre. But yes, it is also something that disrupts dungeon crawling and basically bans races who lack darkvision from such campaigns.


----------



## Starfox

Reynard said:


> Bringing back uses for gold would be one of those things that helped. And not as a way to make items. Trainibg costs. Upkeep. Building and maintaining an HQ. Buying yourself lands and title. Etc.



These are not uses for gold. They are penalties for lacking gold. Gold is not a reward in this case, it is a necessity, and if the DM fails to provide it the game stalls. Which is also the case in all Gold as Xp systems where you can spend money to increase character power. It looks like a reward, but if you don't get it your power curve sags. This is really, really tricky. You want the PCs to covet gold but to do so you got to give the players incentive to get gold for their characters. 

Seriously, I think Conan does this best. Gold is a mcguffin that motivates PCs, but between adventures it is all spent carousing. You play with open cards, telling the players that gold is something their characters want but that it is useless to them as players.

Of course, there are many motivations besides gold in RPGs and I prefer motivations such as personal goals, loyalty, advance in an organization and such, but for dungeon crawling gold is indeed quite a central concept.


----------



## Reynard

Starfox said:


> These are not uses for gold. They are penalties for lacking gold. Gold is not a reward in this case, it is a necessity, and if the DM fails to provide it the game stalls. Which is also the case in all Gold as Xp systems where you can spend money to increase character power. It looks like a reward, but if you don't get it your power curve sags. This is really, really tricky. You want the PCs to covet gold but to do so you got to give the players incentive to get gold for their characters.
> 
> Seriously, I think Conan does this best. Gold is a mcguffin that motivates PCs, but between adventures it is all spent carousing. You play with open cards, telling the players that gold is something their characters want but that it is useless to them as players.
> 
> Of course, there are many motivations besides gold in RPGs and I prefer motivations such as personal goals, loyalty, advance in an organization and such, but for dungeon crawling gold is indeed quite a central concept.



I don't understand this perspective. If gold is the thing that drives the game, players will seek it out and GMs wouldn't have any apparent motivation to withhold it.


----------



## Starfox

Reynard said:


> I don't understand this perspective. If gold is the thing that drives the game, players will seek it out and GMs wouldn't have any apparent motivation to withhold it.



It limits the kinds of campaigns the rules can run. If you want to play a peasant rebellion game where money is a fantasy and feeding the multitudes a constant issue is a problem, you can't if the game requires players to spend inordinate amounts of money just to up their own skills. Likwise, if you play a game of noble intruige, if a baron can sell off 10% of their assets to give themselves ungodly magic items, that does not work either.


----------



## Reynard

Starfox said:


> It limits the kinds of campaigns the rules can run. If you want to play a peasant rebellion game where money is a fantasy and feeding the multitudes a constant issue is a problem, you can't if the game requires players to spend inordinate amounts of money just to up their own skills. Likwise, if you play a game of noble intruige, if a baron can sell off 10% of their assets to give themselves ungodly magic items, that does not work either.



The discussion is specifically about rules that will cultivate old school dungeon delving as a playstyle.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Starfox said:


> These are not uses for gold. They are penalties for lacking gold. Gold is not a reward in this case, it is a necessity, and if the DM fails to provide it the game stalls. Which is also the case in all Gold as Xp systems where you can spend money to increase character power. It looks like a reward, but if you don't get it your power curve sags. This is really, really tricky. You want the PCs to covet gold but to do so you got to give the players incentive to get gold for their characters.
> 
> Seriously, I think Conan does this best. Gold is a mcguffin that motivates PCs, but between adventures it is all spent carousing. You play with open cards, telling the players that gold is something their characters want but that it is useless to them as players.
> 
> Of course, there are many motivations besides gold in RPGs and I prefer motivations such as personal goals, loyalty, advance in an organization and such, but for dungeon crawling gold is indeed quite a central concept.




Wandering off-topic (or maybe not) but I really wish there were several different variants instead of just Darkvision:

Can see clearly if there's any source of natural light...sunlight, moonlight, starlight...however dim (e.g. elves). 
Radii from light sources are doubled (fairly common among underground races)
Heightened smell/hearing (advantage on rolls) when in darkness
Can actually see in pitch blackness (_very_ rare)
Some creatures/ancestries might have more than one of these features.  E.g. orcs/goblins might have #2 and #3.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Starfox said:


> This discussion seems to be less about dungeoneering and more about general grittiness. Not all of us want that, I would be sad if this became the standard mode of the game.
> 
> There are rules in the DMG for changing what a long and short rest is that can be used. A series of similar optional rules could be added to achieve the same goal. But DnD in all its editions is a pretty heroic game by level 3 or so. in 1E, many campaigns never reached 3rd level, and that I think is the reason 1E games were considered gritty. But in the end, perhaps DnD is not the best game for this kind of campaign. A game with less return from experience, such as Rune Quest, might be more suitable.
> 
> One thing I do agree with is that darkvision is an issue. For me it is much an aesthetic issue, and an issue of racial balance for rogues. Halflings and humans, the most iconic rogues, lack darkvision. My solution is to negate darkvision's ability to see in the dark. Dim light functions as bright light, and that is the entire effect. This makes orcs, goblins and such dependent on light, which I feel is much more aesthetically pleasing and true to genre. But yes, it is also something that disrupts dungeon crawling and basically bans races who lack darkvision from such campaigns.



Because a lot of people mean a gritty game rule tending toward Free Kriegspiel when they talk about dungeons.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Starfox said:


> It limits the kinds of campaigns the rules can run. If you want to play a peasant rebellion game where money is a fantasy and feeding the multitudes a constant issue is a problem, you can't if the game requires players to spend inordinate amounts of money just to up their own skills. Likwise, if you play a game of noble intruige, if a baron can sell off 10% of their assets to give themselves ungodly magic items, that does not work either.



You provide alternatives as needed.  That's what the DMG is for.


----------



## tetrasodium

Starfox said:


> These are not uses for gold. They are penalties for lacking gold. Gold is not a reward in this case, it is a necessity, and if the DM fails to provide it the game stalls. Which is also the case in all Gold as Xp systems where you can spend money to increase character power. It looks like a reward, but if you don't get it your power curve sags. This is really, really tricky. You want the PCs to covet gold but to do so you got to give the players incentive to get gold for their characters.
> 
> Seriously, I think Conan does this best. Gold is a mcguffin that motivates PCs, but between adventures it is all spent carousing. You play with open cards, telling the players that gold is something their characters want but that it is useless to them as players.
> 
> Of course, there are many motivations besides gold in RPGs and I prefer motivations such as personal goals, loyalty, advance in an organization and such, but for dungeon crawling gold is indeed quite a central concept.



The two are intrinsically linked.  When the system makes efforts to oblivizte too much of what is important to dungeon crawling it does not repair the gaps simply by changing how long a rest takes.   Frustratingly is the gzxt that it's easy to undo aby bit of what you are broad brushing as  "grittiness" when it's not desired but very difficult to put back when it's removed. 

 When condidered deeper though it becomes obvious why it was removed.  Removing specific elements of "grittiness" might be a big buff for some pcs but there will be other pcs who get little nothing or even harmed & they will be justified in complaining about the resulting zany no rosh super hero slog.   If that consequence free twilight zone style state of glad handling removal of all hurdles is the default though it's easy to force the One True Way to stay just by dismissing anything said to the contrary because there is no alternative to point at while expressing frustration


----------



## Bill Zebub

Reynard said:


> Think of all the inns run by retired adventurers, charging like 2cp for ale. There was no way those places were solvent with all the offered amenities.  Obviously they had a hoard somewhere in the cellar with all their treasure and they were just draining it slowly to give new adventurers a place to rest up and heal.




It just hit me: those tavernkeepers PUT THE GIANT RATS IN THE BASEMENT.


----------



## Reynard

Bill Zebub said:


> It just hit me: those tavernkeepers PUT THE GIANT RATS IN THE BASEMENT.



You can't REALLY retire until you have a replacement lined up, I guess.


----------



## James Gasik

Starfox said:


> This discussion seems to be less about dungeoneering and more about general grittiness. Not all of us want that, I would be sad if this became the standard mode of the game.
> 
> There are rules in the DMG for changing what a long and short rest is that can be used. A series of similar optional rules could be added to achieve the same goal. But DnD in all its editions is a pretty heroic game by level 3 or so. in 1E, many campaigns never reached 3rd level, and that I think is the reason 1E games were considered gritty. But in the end, perhaps DnD is not the best game for this kind of campaign. A game with less return from experience, such as Rune Quest, might be more suitable.
> 
> One thing I do agree with is that darkvision is an issue. For me it is much an aesthetic issue, and an issue of racial balance for rogues. Halflings and humans, the most iconic rogues, lack darkvision. My solution is to negate darkvision's ability to see in the dark. Dim light functions as bright light, and that is the entire effect. This makes orcs, goblins and such dependent on light, which I feel is much more aesthetically pleasing and true to genre. But yes, it is also something that disrupts dungeon crawling and basically bans races who lack darkvision from such campaigns.



I'm not calling you out, Starfox, but this post is an example of something that others keep saying, and don't understand what the fuss is about.

Darkness




What you see with a torch



What you see with darkvision



How, exactly, is darkvision so problematic, when it imposes disadvantage on perception (and -5 to passive perception)?  To see better than this, you still need a light source in 5e.


----------



## Manbearcat

FrogReaver said:


> I think from a mechanical perspective you are right. But from a human behavioral perspective I’m not so sure.  Taking anything away from a player tends to be infinitely worse than adding something for them.




Yup, that is certainly the other aspect of it (how rule-sets interact with a micro table's social contract or a macro TTRPG's culture).

So the questions become:

* How much should development and design of TTRPGs be beholden to the phenomena of a micro table's social contract or a macro TTRPG's culture?

* What are the tradeoffs and stakes when you prioritize one (the applied science of tightly designed systems and leaving it to the table to remove layers of rules or tightness-of-design) over the other (heavy-handed social engineering of both the macro TTRPG culture and the trickle-down effect of micro social contract for individual tables) or vice versa?


My opinion is that the tradeoffs are too much and stakes too high because getting tightly-integrated, tightly-tuned design from the inverse is a titanic ask of individual tables (if its even possible...and sometimes it just isn't the case...you're not squeezing the tightly-integrated, tightly-tuned performance and track experience of a Porsche GT3 RS out of a Volkwagen GTI...even though they're the same parent company and both are performance platforms) while asking individual tables to manage their social contract (without the extreme downward pressure of system design that bakes in these kind of top-down social engineering issues) is considerably less of an ask (despite the reality that it will surely lend itself to some awkwardness, discomfort, and potential confrontation for some tables).  Meanwhile, D&D has a robust history of stripping out extremely consequential mechanical architecture (Wandering Monster Clock, Rest Requirement Per 4 Exploration Turns, NPC Reaction, Gold for XP, Encumbrance/Loadout Constraints to name just a few) whose net effect is to drastically change the play paradigm.

Another alternative is to design and intensely stress-test a robust chassis with concentric, layered design (several games out there do this) where the designers not only design toward detaching various layers without unforeseen system reverberations, but also explain the layers of design (what they are, what they do, what removing them will do to the play paradigm) and how to add new layers (Fate, Burning Wheel Family, Apocalypse World, Cortex+, Strike!, Blades in the Darkness are the exemplars here).  5e aimed for this lofty goal at the beginning but abandoned the project at some point (therefore falling far, far short of it).


----------



## Greg Benage

Reynard said:


> I'm trying to decide if explicit procedures are a thing that would be worth incorporating. I know a lot of OSR folks swear by them but I don't actually recall using them so religiously back in the day. But, it might be harder to keep track of time -- which i do consider a major element of successful dungeon based play -- without them.



We never used the procedures.* I played in AD&D Open tournaments at GenCon in the early 80s and they didn't use the procedures more often than not. In the last few years, procedures have become the key to the whole thing.

I agree with others upthread: The real key is to create interesting adventure locations to explore -- places with stories to discover and secrets to reveal. It's not vastly different from creating a good investigation for _Call of Cthulhu_. It takes a fair amount of work, either on the part of the designer/publisher or the DM if you're DIY.

Circling back to MC: I do think if they want to keep the equipment, they ought to go ahead and design some 5e rules for it. Ten-foot poles give advantage on checks to find pits and large mechanical traps. Bullseye lanterns provide advantage on checks to locate secret doors or other concealed details. Whatever. Like it or not, we put stuff on the character sheet these days. ETA: They do this with some stuff (climber's kit, crowbar, magnifying glass, etc.) and these are the items that actually get used IME.

* I played with a grognard in college in '85-86 (megadungeon mapped out on several sheets of blotter-size graph paper, a dozen or more players at once, PCs always start at 1st level and may be adventuring with 7th levels, etc.). He used callers. I asked him why he didn't use the time-keeping rules and he said, "I have a brain for that." But his dungeon was cool, with a layered story that we uncovered bit by bit the deeper we explored.


----------



## Manbearcat

Greg Benage said:


> We never used the procedures.*
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I asked him why he didn't use the time-keeping rules and he said, "I have a brain for that." But his dungeon was cool, with a layered story that we uncovered bit by bit the deeper we explored.




With respect to your friend, the only work “I have a brain” is doing here is _the game layer of time is either elided or handwaved to such a degree that all the discrete and intersecting decision-points around it are muted to the point of obsolescence and/or play around these things is a GM-directed experience_, my 2 in this post above rather than my 1, rather than directed by players & system collide to create meaty game layer which churns out play outputs.

* Removing Wandering Monsters and Rest per 4 Turns in Moldvay and Torch cost in GP/loadout and Turns of Light (and type of light) matters a ton to Moldvay.

* Removing The Grind, suspending all the various Condition Recovery rules in Camp/Town, and Torch cost in Resources/Loadout and Turns of Light (and type of light) matters a ton to Torchbearer.

Stripping any of those things out of those games and having the GM hand-wave them or elide them has dramatic "game as game" impacts upon play (and fundamentally reorients play toward the GM-directed play of 2 in my post above...which may be exactly what you're going for...which is fine...but 1 and 2 are deeply divergent things so we should recognize that).


----------



## Greg Benage

Manbearcat said:


> With respect to your friend, the only work “I have a brain” is doing here is _the game layer of time is either elided or handwaved to such a degree that all the discrete and intersecting decision-points around it are muted to the point of obsolescence and/or play around these things is a GM-directed experience_, my 2 in this post above rather than my 1, rather than directed by players & system collide to create meaty game layer which churns out play outputs.



That's a lot, but it wasn't our experience. YMMV.


----------



## Manbearcat

Greg Benage said:


> That's a lot, but it wasn't our experience. YMMV.




I edited my post to include the bottom entry:

_Stripping any of those things out of those games and having the GM hand-wave them or elide them has dramatic "game as game" impacts upon play (and fundamentally reorients play toward the GM-directed play of 2 in my post above...which may be exactly what you're going for...which is fine...but 1 and 2 are deeply divergent things so we should recognize that)._

Do you disagree with that?

Maybe, if you would, take a look at my play types 1 and 2 of the post #321 that I linked directly above which also cross-references/links back to post #235 to flesh out play type 1.  Is it your position that these two play types are basically the same?  If you feel they're basically the same, that is probably the biggest difficulty of bridge-crossing in these conversations.  If we can at least agree on some basic, distinguishing structure and principles, we can at least converse about (if not suss out) "how to do the thing."  But if "everything is the thing" vs "this thing is this thing and that thing is that thing", then the question of "what could one D&D do to bring the game back to the dungeon" becomes pretty intractable IMO.


----------



## Greg Benage

Manbearcat said:


> * Removing Wandering Monsters and Rest per 4 Turns in Moldvay and Torch cost in GP/loadout and Turns of Light (and type of light) matters a ton to Moldvay.



So in the "rules" case, the players know that the DM is rolling for wandering monsters every turn (B23) or every two turns (B53). Presumably the DM communicates which rule he's using beforehand. This creates a "decision point" for the players, because they know if they spend a turn moving, entering a room, listening, or searching, they may or may not encounter a wandering monster.

In the "rulings, not rules" case, the DM says, "The more time you spend in the dungeon, the more likely you are to encounter wandering monsters. It may be more likely to encounter wandering monsters in certain well-traveled areas. Making noise or otherwise attracting attention to yourselves may also increase the likelihood of encountering wandering monsters." This also creates decision points for the players, as they consider the time they're spending in the dungeon, signs of activity in the area of the dungeon they're exploring, and the precautions they're taking (or not) to conceal their presence in the dungeon.

The idea that you can't have meaningful decision points without this, to me, is a little odd:



> Order of Events in One Game Turn
> 1. The DM rolls for wandering monsters (Id6; see page B53).
> 2. The party moves, enters room, listens, and searches.
> 3. If monsters are not encountered, the turn ends. If monsters are
> encountered, the DM rolls for the Number Appearing.
> 4. The DM rolls 2d6 to check the distance between the monsters
> and the party.
> 5. The DM rolls Id6 for both the monsters and the party to check
> for surprise.
> The DM and the party roll Id6 or for initiative to see who
> moves first.
> 6. The DM rolls 2d6 for the Monster Reaction.
> 7. The party and the monsters react:
> If both sides are willing to talk, the DM rolls for monster reactions
> and initiative, as necessary.
> If one side runs away, the DM should check the chance of
> Evasion and Pursuit.
> If combat begins, the DM should use the Combat
> Sequence to handle combat.
> 8. End of Turn. Where necessary, the DM should check the character's
> remaining hit points, whether or not they need rest
> (see page B24), any changes in the party's marching order,
> or possessions, their encumbrance (see page B20), their
> sources of light, the durations of any spells in progress, and
> the total time the party has spent in the dungeon.




Again, YMMV. I don't entirely get people who love the procedures, but have no problem with them loving the procedures.


----------



## Manbearcat

Greg Benage said:


> So in the "rules" case, the players know that the DM is rolling for wandering monsters every turn (B23) or every two turns (B53). Presumably the DM communicates which rule he's using beforehand. This creates a "decision point" for the players, because they know if they spend a turn moving, entering a room, listening, or searching, they may or may not encounter a wandering monster.
> 
> In the "rulings, not rules" case, the DM says, "The more time you spend in the dungeon, the more likely you are to encounter wandering monsters. It may be more likely to encounter wandering monsters in certain well-traveled areas. Making noise or otherwise attracting attention to yourselves may also increase the likelihood of encountering wandering monsters." This also creates decision points for the players, as they consider the time they're spending in the dungeon, signs of activity in the area of the dungeon they're exploring, and the precautions they're taking (or not) to conceal their presence in the dungeon.
> 
> The idea that you can't have meaningful decision points without this, to me, is a little odd:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, YMMV. I don't entirely get people who love the procedures, but have no problem with them loving the procedures.




What I would say is there is _a threshold whereby when you remove the table-facing, quantitative components of play which make up the matrix of your decision-space, decision-points go from meaningful (eg they outright inform the gamestate) to somewhere along the spectrum of INHIBITED <<<>>> OBSELETE because player decision-space (and the outputs of the decisions) becomes a kind of, "GM-directed qualitative mush_."

Take all of the below quantitative values of x off the table:

* Check for Wandering Monsters in x turns.

* Roll 1dx for Wandering Monsters.  If x hits, you get an Encounter.

* Wandering Monsters of threat levels x.

* Rest once per x turns or suffer x consequence.

* Torches have x Light for x Turns and take up x Inventory Space/Encumbrance.  Candles the same.  Lanters the same.

* Light works like x, Dim Light works like x, Darkness works like x and has other x consequences.



Just changing all of those x values to "qualitative, GM-facing stuff" has significant impacts on play such that matrix of player decision-space can't help but become some kind of "GM-directed qualitative mush" by comparison.  Which, again, might be exactly the type of play that one is looking for (its the type of play outlined in 2 in my post above).  But it becomes a very different from of play from 1 because player decision-space moves into that INHIBITED <<<>>> OBSELETE spectrum by comparison.


----------



## Charlaquin

UngainlyTitan said:


> Because a lot of people mean a gritty game rule tending toward Free Kriegspiel when they talk about dungeons.



This seems like a weird association to me. Free Kriegspiel just means extreme rules-minimalism, it has nothing to do with level of “grittiness”, unless you’re using the term in a very atypical way.


----------



## Greg Benage

Manbearcat said:


> Just changing all of those x values to "qualitative, GM-facing stuff" has significant impacts on play such that matrix of player decision-space can't help but become some kind of "GM-directed qualitative mush" by comparison.



I think it _can_ feel mushy in the absence of good communication. I think that can be said for most of B/X, since most of the play is not rules-defined. For _this_ portion, I'd say the procedures make the game more mechanical and gamey, while replacing them with judgment and communication makes the game more organic and immersive. Both offer the players meaningful decision points.


----------



## Charlaquin

Greg Benage said:


> I think it _can_ feel mushy in the absence of good communication. I think that can be said for most of B/X, since most of the play is not rules-defined. For _this_ portion, I'd say the procedures make the game more mechanical and gamey, while replacing them with judgment and communication makes the game more organic and immersive. Both offer the players meaningful decision points.



Considering @Manbearcat has expressed interest in what they call “game as GAME,” I don’t think feeling mechanical and gamey is a negative to them.


----------



## Greg Benage

Charlaquin said:


> Considering @Manbearcat has expressed interest in what they call “game as GAME,” I don’t think feeling mechanical and gamey is a negative to them.



Obviously not, and I have no issue with that preference, as I've said.  

Like, is it okay to agree descriptively or conceptually even if we have different preferences?


----------



## Manbearcat

Greg Benage said:


> I think it _can_ feel mushy in the absence of good communication. I think that can be said for most of B/X, since most of the play is not rules-defined.




I think this is a pretty good sticking point of disagreement.  We've got the primary play loop tech as discussed.  We've got action economy/time/space allocation for the primary Exploration action declarations of Searching, Listening, Interacting w/ Doors which includes proto-Ability Check tech (1d6 and 1 or sometimes 2 and maybe ability modifier is add-on like forcing doors open) that can be mapped onto outlier actions as required.  We've got interactions with Traps.  We've got Evasion & Pursuit rules and how dropping various items interacts with that.  We've got Rest, we've got Combat Sequence, we've got Retainers (and Hirelings in Expert).  The least rules that we have is for parley if a Monster Reaction is 3-5 or 6-8 or 9-11, but say yes, say no, or roll the proto-Ability Check tech handles that easily enough (I've always gone 1d6 @ 1 if 3-5, 1d6 @ 1/2 on 6-8, 1d6 @ 1/2 and positive ability modifier adjust on 9-11).



Greg Benage said:


> For _this_ portion, I'd say the procedures make the game more mechanical and gamey, while replacing them with *judgment *and *communication *makes the game more *organic *and *immersive*. Both offer the players meaningful decision points.




These bolded and italicized words are what I'm getting at in my description of 2 upthread (which appears to me like what you're depicting):

2) A heavily GM-directed experience where the crawl features *free play*, *serial exploration* and is more about *performative *aspects, *ephemera *(map and key and *boxed text* and possibly *handouts*), *mood, tone, aesthetic* than what (1) is about. *GM's extrapolate their conception of the dungeon ecology* and *they play their mental model of the simulation* while *players try to suss out the GM's mental model while immersing themselves in all the stuff in that first sentence*. Yes, resources are brought to bear and challenges are undertaken, but it is an extremely divergent experience from (1) above due to a number of reasons, structure and systemization of play + prospective roles and GMing techniques chief among them (both the inputs and the experience of the play).

So, for instance, your _mechanical gamey-ness_ being replaced by *judgement *and *communication *and (your sense of) *organic *and (your sense of) *immersive *might look like this:

*SUB OUT *codified Exploration Turns, Light Duration and Strength, Wandering Monster (Clock), and the weariness that creates Rest requirement of 1 Turn in 6 (or suffer penalties) and *SUB IN:

GM *(reading boxed text or their own text or making it up):  _Your exhausting, squirming climb through the cavernous chimney empties you out onto a dark, stoney landing.  Your muscles and bones ache as you gather yourself.  Your guttering torch shares a kindred protest.  It repels the immediate darkness for now, but the flickering flame will soon be quenched.  A rope bridge that has seen far better days spans a bottomless cavern.  Your light extends only so far, thus what lies beyond is outside of your meager means.  Bats explode from below and exit through the tiniest of fissure in the ceiling.  When the echoing sound finally desists, there are other...ominous sounds.  Scratching, smearing...then nothing.  The dizzying acoustics of this place make it impossible to discern what and from where.  But...something...else...is clearly in these abyssal caverns...and its moving..._

*PLAYERS*_:  <Make action declarations to sort out the action economy of their exploration here, how that resolves, how weary are they and how do they resolve their weariness, how much light is left in this torch + the others and what are the limits of its illumination, does that sound mean that something is drawing near or moving away or is it merely the imagination>_


Again, that looks like my (2) above vs the (1) in my post upthread (which would be Moldvay Basic or, better still, Torchbearer as exemplars).  Deeply different play, different head-space for all participants.  The sense of "meaningfulness" of being able to both assess the present gamestate and confidently move that gamestate in a desired direction (and what moving it in an undesired direction both entails and looks like), as a player, will be quite different from (1) to (2).


----------



## Campbell

Greg Benage said:


> I think it _can_ feel mushy in the absence of good communication. I think that can be said for most of B/X, since most of the play is not rules-defined. For _this_ portion, I'd say the procedures make the game more mechanical and gamey, while replacing them with judgment and communication makes the game more organic and immersive. Both offer the players meaningful decision points.




On what basis are those judgements being made? What principles are at play? Do thematic priorities ever override game priorities? What is being communicated? How can players be assured of what information is correct and what is conjecture?

In what sense are we talking about meaningful decisions here? Decisions in an environment with competitive integrity? Decisions that have an impact on the outcome? Decisions that are personally meaningful? Decisions that show us something about the characters?
_
Judgement and communication _tells us nothing about what play looks like or in what ways and how player decisions are meaningful. Game is game is about more than meaningful decisions in the abstract. It's about decisions made in an environment with competitive integrity - one where the right decisions will lead to victory and the wrong ones will lead to defeat (when we control for randomness). Where if we made different decisions there would be different results.


----------



## Charlaquin

Greg Benage said:


> Obviously not, and I have no issue with that preference, as I've said.
> 
> Like, is it okay to agree descriptively or conceptually even if we have different preferences?



Yeah, of course that’s ok.


----------



## FrogReaver

Manbearcat said:


> I think this is a pretty good sticking point of disagreement.  We've got the primary play loop tech as discussed.  We've got action economy/time/space allocation for the primary Exploration action declarations of Searching, Listening, Interacting w/ Doors which includes proto-Ability Check tech (1d6 and 1 or sometimes 2 and maybe ability modifier is add-on like forcing doors open) that can be mapped onto outlier actions as required.  We've got interactions with Traps.  We've got Evasion & Pursuit rules and how dropping various items interacts with that.  We've got Rest, we've got Combat Sequence, we've got Retainers (and Hirelings in Expert).  The least rules that we have is for parley if a Monster Reaction is 3-5 or 6-8 or 9-11, but say yes, say no, or roll the proto-Ability Check tech handles that easily enough (I've always gone 1d6 @ 1 if 3-5, 1d6 @ 1/2 on 6-8, 1d6 @ 1/2 and positive ability modifier adjust on 9-11).
> 
> 
> 
> These bolded and italicized words are what I'm getting at in my description of 2 upthread (which appears to me like what you're depicting):
> 
> 2) A heavily GM-directed experience where the crawl features *free play*, *serial exploration* and is more about *performative *aspects, *ephemera *(map and key and *boxed text* and possibly *handouts*), *mood, tone, aesthetic* than what (1) is about. *GM's extrapolate their conception of the dungeon ecology* and *they play their mental model of the simulation* while *players try to suss out the GM's mental model while immersing themselves in all the stuff in that first sentence*. Yes, resources are brought to bear and challenges are undertaken, but it is an extremely divergent experience from (1) above due to a number of reasons, structure and systemization of play + prospective roles and GMing techniques chief among them (both the inputs and the experience of the play).
> 
> So, for instance, your _mechanical gamey-ness_ being replaced by *judgement *and *communication *and (your sense of) *organic *and (your sense of) *immersive *might look like this:
> 
> *SUB OUT *codified Exploration Turns, Light Duration and Strength, Wandering Monster (Clock), and the weariness that creates Rest requirement of 1 Turn in 6 (or suffer penalties) and *SUB IN:
> 
> GM *(reading boxed text or their own text or making it up):  _Your exhausting, squirming climb through the cavernous chimney empties you out onto a dark, stoney landing.  Your muscles and bones ache as you gather yourself.  Your guttering torch shares a kindred protest.  It repels the immediate darkness for now, but the flickering flame will soon be quenched.  A rope bridge that has seen far better days spans a bottomless cavern.  Your light extends only so far, thus what lies beyond is outside of your meager means.  Bats explode from below and exit through the tiniest of fissure in the ceiling.  When the echoing sound finally desists, there are other...ominous sounds.  Scratching, smearing...then nothing.  The dizzying acoustics of this place make it impossible to discern what and from where.  But...something...else...is clearly in these abyssal caverns...and its moving..._
> 
> *PLAYERS*_:  <Make action declarations to sort out the action economy of their exploration here, how that resolves, how weary are they and how do they resolve their weariness, how much light is left in this torch + the others and what are the limits of its illumination, does that sound mean that something is drawing near or moving away or is it merely the imagination>_
> 
> 
> Again, that looks like my (2) above vs the (1) in my post upthread (which would be Moldvay Basic or, better still, Torchbearer as exemplars).  Deeply different play, different head-space for all participants.  The sense of "meaningfulness" of being able to both assess the present gamestate and confidently move that gamestate in a desired direction (and what moving it in an undesired direction both entails and looks like), as a player, will be quite different from (1) to (2).



Two things.

1)  Communication was brought up earlier.  Do you believe that if a DM clearly communicates the mechanics he intends to use that such a game different play, let alone deeply different play than a game that spells out such mechanics within the rulebooks?

I don't believe there's a real difference there.

Now one might say, D&D often doesn't play that way and I would say you are absolutely correct.  But this does reveal that it's not 'rulebook mechanics' that are responsible for a given play experience of a game, it's the table rules being used at a particular table - and that's a very important distinction IMO.

2)  It was said earlier that it's easier to remove a mechanic than add 1.  I initially agreed with that as it 'seemed' true but after thinking about it more I don't think it is.


----------



## Manbearcat

FrogReaver said:


> 2)  It was said earlier that it's easier to remove a mechanic than add 1.  I initially agreed with that as it 'seemed' true but after thinking about it more I don't think it is.




I'd be interested in hearing more about this if you have the time to unpack it.  



FrogReaver said:


> 1)  Communication was brought up earlier.  Do you believe that if a DM clearly communicates the mechanics he intends to use that such a game different play, let alone deeply different play than a game that spells out such mechanics within the rulebooks?
> 
> I don't believe there's a real difference there.
> 
> Now one might say, D&D often doesn't play that way and I would say you are absolutely correct.  But this does reveal that it's not 'rulebook mechanics' that are responsible for a given play experience of a game, it's the table rules being used at a particular table - and that's a very important distinction IMO.




I'll relay a little bit more of my thinking on your (2) above while hopefully answering your (1) here:



			anyway: Concentric Game Design
		


So that is Vincent Baker's masterclass of the concentric game design of Apocalypse World.  You've got 4 layers.  The core is the basic engine of the game, very condensed with integrated outer layers that was designed to (as Vincent puts it) "collapse gracefully downwards" (and it certainly does!).  The game has increasingly complexity as you move outward (and it is quite a complex game as you get out to layer 4)...but amazingly, Vince and Meg and the internal playtest group developed a game that both beautifully integrates the outer layers, yet simultaneously allows for their nimble detachment.  In the end, adding each of these layers creates a separate, "complete game" experience. Play with only layer 1 and you are profoundly far afield from a game that uses 3 layers (which is the standard AW experience).

So John Harper's Lasers & Feelings is a Star Trek or Firefly-type romp game that is basically that 1st (core and basic) layer of AW with some very minor changes.  Its not even close to even layer 2 as a "complete game."  You've got:


Vivid color
A few stats
Descriptor tags for PC and vessel creation
Core action resolution mechanic + rider
A "Mad Lib" type process which generates the premise and opening situation for play

It is very primordial and it creates a very particular type of play experience (basically a 1 shot sort of game).

Now let us pretend that Apocalypse World and Lasers & Feelings are dungeon crawl games.  Ok, so I'm running a game of Lasers & Feelings (as dungeon crawl).  Despite a functional back-and-forth (communication and description) between myself and the players, we find ourselves running up against some issues:

* Ok...without Harm, what does attrition look like?  When is someone out of a scene because of physical/mental harm or horror or whatever? How do they recover and when do they get back in play?  When is someone dead?  

* Ok, this mega-lite engine is good enough to create some thematic and minor mechanical distinction...but we need a bunch more basic moves, playbooks, xp triggers, gear & crap to generate finer distinction of thematic and mechanical role.

* Speaking of gear & crap...ok we've got all of these tags and I've run these games enough that I can make this work as a one-shot, fast & furious romp...but this stuff needs to be nailed down, sturdy, robust, distinguishing.  You use_ this thing_ for t_hat effect _and _that other thing_ for _this other effect_.  How difficult is that thing to carry?  Can I carry that and this other stuff?  Probably not.  Ok, what can I carry when I'm also carrying that thing (Inventory/loadout management).

* Ok, you use gear and moves to overcome Threats, right?  I need a whole lot more stuff for Threats.  I need stats, tags, details, assets, moves, instincts.  I need this stuff not just for the denizens in the dungeon but for the dungeon itself; the hazards, the suffocating dankness, the bewildering ruined topography/layout, the maddening drip-drip-drip, etc. 

* Ok, now I've got an attrition model, character stuff, gear & crap, how Threats work and activate.  Now I need some structure to organize play.  I need to figure out how to negotiate the game layer of time spent doing stuff (the basic moves above should cover moving, interacting with things, searching, parley, fighting, evading danger, etc).  That stuff needs to be tracked meticulously because it interacts with (a) gear durability/duration, (b) how the dungeon answers in kind, (c) how the brutal experience grinds down the delvers/expeditionary force down, and (d) how they recover from that grind (camping, resting, recovering in a dangerous environment).

* Ok, I want to pull treasure out of this place.  How much does this stuff weigh/how difficult is it to get out of this ruin/what do I have to sacrifice or leave behind in order to get stuff out?  How dangerous is that sacrifice with a journey home (or not) looming?

* Ok, I got all of this stuff to town.  Can I sell it?  Who to?  What does that look like?  Can I drive up the price?  What is this town anyway?  Who lives here?  Are they hostile to adventurers/out-of-towners?  Is this my hometown with family or friends here?  Can I recover in a nice Inn or is that so costly that I need to stay on the streets (and what is the implication of that)?  Are their cut-throats and thieves lurking around the market?  Is there a religious bastion to alleviate a curse?  A guild-hall to train or repair my stuff?  What are the taxes like here and can I even pay my bills when I leave?

++++++++

So this is my attempt to convey that, by the time I get to the end of this, I have so many questions as GM/players that Lasers & Feelings As Dungeon Crawl isn't remotely sufficient to the task.  It doesn't even come close to having the heft necessary to play to that 1, 3, 4 dungeon play that I outlined upthread.  It can manage my 2 dungeon play upthread but the throughline of play would be an extremely GM-directed experience that mutes Skilled Play priorities down to the nubbins because there is just so much necessary stuff missing.  The game would be heavily color & mood/tone/aesthetic focused.  The only way to get beyond that 2 (if I even care to do so) would be to play the whole Apocalypse World engine, AW layers 1-4, and then Dungeon World-ify the whole thing.

But even then?  I'm not getting that 1 dungeon play out of that nor that 3. Its missing far too much stuff/particular brand of structure for 1 and its not organized structurally around the closed-scene-based paradigm of 3.  Dungeon World at its heftiest produces my 4 above (and it produces it beautifully).

+++++++

So all of this is to say "communication" and on-the-fly rulings (what that conceptual Lasers & Feelings As Dungeon Delve, or AW Layer 1, would require endlessly due to its dearth of system) can only do so much legwork to try to patch over lack of well-developed, stress-tested, tightly-integrated system (and this becomes doubly a problem when Skilled Play or "game as game" requires a continual through line of mechanically-attuned-and-assimilated decision-tree work by players lest the competitive integrity of the dungeon delve be undermined to one degree or another...and _any degree_ is a degree too far for some).  Dungeon World (the pinnacle of 4 dungeon play) can never aspire to be Torchbearer (the pinnacle of 1 dungeon play).  However, if you strip down Torchbearer to its Mouse Guard roots, you've got a nice chunk of the Dungeon World, snowballing-play experience model (Mouse Guard Missions are basically a wilderness crawl)...though they still would diverge a fair bit because of subtle nuance (Playbooks that deeply differentiate theme and role and there is a fair amount of overlap in how Gear is thematically and mechanically handled in both games, but there is some key differences; keyword tech in fact!).


----------



## Greg Benage

Campbell said:


> On what basis are those judgements being made? What principles are at play? Do thematic priorities ever override game priorities? What is being communicated? How can players be assured of what information is correct and what is conjecture?



Fighter: I roll a barrel down the stairs to topple the zombies climbing up to the balcony!
DM [thinking about it a moment]: The zombies are slow and clumsy even when they're not climbing stairs [judgment]. Roll 1d6 and you'll knock 'em down on a 1-4 [communication].
Dwarf: I jump in the barrel!
DM: Yeah, that just works. The dwarf-laden barrel smashes into the zombies and they go tumbling down the stairs [judgment]. 

That's how most of the classic game works. Well, that's the way it works for me, anyway. I don't need different procedures for marching down corridors and avoiding wandering monsters (or not). That "procedure" has always worked really damn well for me, whether I'm playing or DMing. And I don't mean to trigger anyone with the gonzo "rule of cool" example -- it works for most any of the infinite actions a player might try in the game. Maybe throw in an ability roll if appropriate. The communication -- the conversation between player and DM -- means it can be just as transparent as "a wandering monster is encountered if I roll a 1."

Again, YMMV.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Greg Benage said:


> Fighter: I roll a barrel down the stairs to topple the zombies climbing up to the balcony!
> DM [thinking about it a moment]: The zombies are slow and clumsy even when they're not climbing stairs [judgment]. Roll 1d6 and you'll knock 'em down on a 1-4 [communication].
> Dwarf: I jump in the barrel!
> DM: Yeah, that just works. The dwarf-laden barrel smashes into the zombies and they go tumbling down the stairs [judgment].
> 
> That's how most of the classic game works. Well, that's the way it works for me, anyway. I don't need different procedures for marching down corridors and avoiding wandering monsters (or not). That "procedure" has always worked really damn well for me, whether I'm playing or DMing. And I don't mean to trigger anyone with the gonzo "rule of cool" example -- it works for most any of the infinite actions a player might try in the game. Maybe throw in an ability roll if appropriate. The communication -- the conversation between player and DM -- means it can be just as transparent as "a wandering monster is encountered if I roll a 1."
> 
> Again, YMMV.



Yup some DMs ran it that way, but in my experience many more made the fighter make a very difficult to achieve d20 roll then on a fail, adjudicated that the barrel hits the third step and spins throwing the dwarf clear who take 3 falling damage and is attacked and killed by the zombies and the barrel roll sideways off the stairs.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Clearly a new rule is needed.

See One D&D DMG, page 1,107, "Using a Barrel to Knock Enemies Off Staircases"
"A barrel or similarly cylindrically shaped object, weighing no less than 50 pounds, may be rolled down a flight of stairs (see page 884 for definition of 'flight'), causing all creatures on the staircase to make Dexterity saving throws (DC of 8 + PB + Str modifier of the roller) and on a failure will be knocked to the bottom of the staircase (see page 1,372 for "Falling damage on uneven, less-than-vertical surfaces.). If a creature of size S or larger is in the barrel, the saving throws are made with disadvantage."


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Bill Zebub said:


> Clearly a new rule is needed.
> 
> See One D&D DMG, page 1,107, "Using a Barrel to Knock Enemies Off Staircases"
> "A barrel or similarly cylindrically shaped object, weighing no less than 50 pounds, may be rolled down a flight of stairs (see page 884 for definition of 'flight'), causing all creatures on the staircase to make Dexterity saving throws (DC of 8 + PB + Str modifier of the roller) and on a failure will be knocked to the bottom of the staircase (see page 1,372 for "Falling damage on uneven, less-than-vertical surfaces.). If a creature of size S or larger is in the barrel, the saving throws are made with disadvantage."



This was 40 years ago but I would go with strong advice in the DMG to say "Yes and..."


----------



## Reynard

Bill Zebub said:


> Clearly a new rule is needed.
> 
> See One D&D DMG, page 1,107, "Using a Barrel to Knock Enemies Off Staircases"
> "A barrel or similarly cylindrically shaped object, weighing no less than 50 pounds, may be rolled down a flight of stairs (see page 884 for definition of 'flight'), causing all creatures on the staircase to make Dexterity saving throws (DC of 8 + PB + Str modifier of the roller) and on a failure will be knocked to the bottom of the staircase (see page 1,372 for "Falling damage on uneven, less-than-vertical surfaces.). If a creature of size S or larger is in the barrel, the saving throws are made with disadvantage."



"Falling damage on uneven surfaces is 5/8 bludgeoning damage, 1/4 slashing damage, and 1/8 piercing damage, but only if that damage is greater than the falling creature's damage conversion threshold."


----------



## James Gasik

Reynard said:


> "Falling damage on uneven surfaces is 5/8 bludgeoning damage, 1/4 slashing damage, and 1/8 piercing damage, but only if that damage is greater than the falling creature's damage conversion threshold."



That reminds me of the 3e rule for "scalding damage" (which is *not *fire damage, by the way), a rule I never quite understood the reason for, as it was so random, and led to many, many jokes about taking out a red dragon (who can swim in lava!) with boiling water.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Reynard said:


> "Falling damage on uneven surfaces is 5/8 bludgeoning damage, 1/4 slashing damage, and 1/8 piercing damage, but only if that damage is greater than the falling creature's damage conversion threshold."




Unless the stairs are carpeted.


----------



## Greg Benage

UngainlyTitan said:


> Yup some DMs ran it that way, but in my experience many more made the fighter make a very difficult to achieve d20 roll then on a fail, adjudicated that the barrel hits the third step and spins throwing the dwarf clear who take 3 falling damage and is attacked and killed by the zombies and the barrel roll sideways off the stairs.



There's definitely a question of style in this particular example (how zany do you want your game?), but if you have that conversation between the players and DM, it can still be transparent. What does @iserith say, "probabilities and stakes"? Even this "mean" DM can say, "Hey, this isn't Looney Tunes, you can try that but it's going to be tough and risky. You'll need to make a Str ability roll at a -10 penalty and if you fail, the dwarf will be thrown from the barrel and take damage."

IME the "bad" experiences with the classic game come when there isn't this conversation. The player tries something, the DM rolls some dice behind the screen, and then describes the catastrophe that befalls the poor character. Compared to _that_, there is a clear advantage to having rules and procedures in black and white from a player decision-making perspective, even for someone with my preferences.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Greg Benage said:


> There's definitely a question of style in this particular example (how zany do you want your game?), but if you have that conversation between the players and DM, it can still be transparent. What does @iserith say, "probabilities and stakes"? Even this "mean" DM can say, "Hey, this isn't Looney Tunes, you can try that but it's going to be tough and risky. You'll need to make a Str ability roll at a -10 penalty and if you fail, the dwarf will be thrown from the barrel and take damage."
> 
> IME the "bad" experiences with the classic game come when there isn't this conversation. The player tries something, the DM rolls some dice behind the screen, and then describes the catastrophe that befalls the poor character. Compared to _that_, there is a clear advantage to having rules and procedures in black and white from a player decision-making perspective, even for someone with my preferences.



I agree and it is the principle reason that we went overboard in the 3.x era with RAW dominating the conversation.


----------



## Reynard

Bill Zebub said:


> Unless the stairs are carpeted.



Fire damage!


----------



## tetrasodium

UngainlyTitan said:


> I agree and it is the principle reason that we went overboard in the 3.x era with RAW dominating the conversation.



3.5 did have tools baked in for the GM to adjust stuff like Bonus types & dm's best friend.  By comparison 5e leans heavily on expecting the GM to cast the player resentment spell.


----------



## Manbearcat

Greg Benage said:


> Fighter: I roll a barrel down the stairs to topple the zombies climbing up to the balcony!
> DM [thinking about it a moment]: The zombies are slow and clumsy even when they're not climbing stairs [judgment]. Roll 1d6 and you'll knock 'em down on a 1-4 [communication].
> Dwarf: I jump in the barrel!
> DM: Yeah, that just works. The dwarf-laden barrel smashes into the zombies and they go tumbling down the stairs [judgment].
> 
> That's how most of the classic game works. Well, that's the way it works for me, anyway. I don't need different procedures for marching down corridors and avoiding wandering monsters (or not). That "procedure" has always worked really damn well for me, whether I'm playing or DMing. And I don't mean to trigger anyone with the gonzo "rule of cool" example -- it works for most any of the infinite actions a player might try in the game. Maybe throw in an ability roll if appropriate. The communication -- the conversation between player and DM -- means it can be just as transparent as "a wandering monster is encountered if I roll a 1."
> 
> Again, YMMV.




So I'm not @Campbell but looking at your response here reveals some of the differences that we're trying to navigate in this conversation.  What I'm seeing above from you is an improvised action by a player (being resolved using the very straight-forward, proto-Ability Check, action resolution mechanics of Moldvay) being contrasted with the procedures for Wandering Monsters.  These are very, very different kettles of fish that imbue play with very different properties.

The collective of (a) Wandering Monsters + (b) having to Rest 1 every 6 Turns (or face penalties) + (c) the attrition of your light/supplies/spells/HPs + (d) the demands of skillfully navigating the dungeon-scape and its regime of obstacles/puzzles creates an "*engine of pressurized exploration action economy*."  _You are on the clock_ and the game you are playing is navigating a suite of individual decision-points (centered around how to spend your turns, where to go, how to ration your resources, what treasure to pack-out and what to leave behind, what obstacles/puzzles/conflicts to face and what to evade, when to press on and when to turn back) that is informed by many converging parameters that must be considered.  And that entire suite of decision-points faced and resolved make up the through line of the entire delve, which is a speculative risk profile that is yet another overriding parameter to consider in each of these micro-decisions.

A GM improvising Wandering Monsters (something that deeply governs, via an intense and known parameter of pressure) fundamentally changes the delve experience because one of the key components of that "engine of pressurized exploration action economy" suddenly goes from a table-facing, known value that informs players' decision-matrix to "qualitative mush" that can't be acted upon in the same way or to the same degree.  Now players have to spend table time trying to assess that qualitative mush:

* Is this just color, aesthetic, mood, tone (my 2 category of dungeon play)?  Or is the actual gameplay machinery?

* Ok, if it is gameplay machinery, how is the GM operationalizing this equivalent of Wandering Monsters so that we (the players) can turn that qualitative mush into something we feel is sufficiently actionable to inform our individual decisions and our collective through line of decisions as we move through the delve?

* Alternatively, they just passively accept this important lack of game information/understanding and heed forth headlong into the relative (or complete) unknown.  If this becomes the rote dungeoneering approach, play has definitely changed and not by a little.  Play has firmly toward the direction of my (2) category.


This goes equally for my (b) through (d) above.  As key delve parameters become increasingly opaque, inscrutable, unreliable, inconsistent, disconnected, absent, devoid...the nature of delve play changes dramatically.  I'll call back to my most recent Lasers & Feelings vs Apocalypse World post just upthread as a robust example of this.  Same thing for Mouse Guard (proto-Torchbearer) vs Torchbearer.  If you just add onto Mouse Guard two of the great many mechanical layers of game tech that Luke and Thor added onto Mouse Guard to create Torchbearer then you have a profoundly different play experience when running Mouse Guard Missions.  Just the low-hanging fruit of adding The Grind, which is a brutal attrition clock like Wandering Monsters, and making Gear/Inventory as intense as it is in Torchbearer will deeply change play in terms of the cognitive orientation and demanding qualities of play...and that is just scratching the surface.

If a GM freeform operationalizes Wandering Monsters + doesn't enforce Rest 1 in 6 turns + handwaves Inventory/Encumbrance + doesn't actually track light sources with meticulous scrutiny?  Again, the cognitive orientation and demanding qualities of play for Moldvay Basic change significantly.  Play moves from my (1) upthread to my (2) upthread.


----------



## James Gasik

Reynard said:


> Fire damage!



No, it's friction damage, completely different (going by 3e logic).


----------



## Frozen_Heart

aco175 said:


> PCs have become heroes at 1st level



This is one of my main gripes with modern DnD. No one wants the 'zero to hero' trope anymore. It's more 'hero to god' now. Even with discussions about point buy, people want yet more points to put in by default. Everyone wants a 16 or even an 18 on their starting score. With a 14 being considered completely useless.


----------



## James Gasik

Frozen_Heart said:


> This is one of my main gripes with modern DnD. No one wants the 'zero to hero' trope anymore. It's more 'hero to god' now. Even with discussions about point buy, people want yet more points to put in by default. Everyone wants a 16 or even an 18 on their starting score. With a 14 being considered completely useless.



Honestly, it's been heading that way ever since the very beginning, as each new supplement or edition offers bigger and better options.  There's always been players and DM's as well who want to "get to the good part" (as they see it) by starting at levels higher than 1, or using more benevolent methods of generating ability scores.

And sure, there's also players and DM's who want the game to never get beyond level 5, and will happily fight over a bent copper coin for loot, but it seems fairly obvious how the game has trended.

So it's nothing new.  A lot of players have this idea of a character they want to portray in their heads and want to start as that, not be told "one day, around level 6 or so, you'll feel like you're that guy".

I mean, it is a fantasy game, so it takes all kinds.

What I think WotC really should do, is, instead of buffing the low levels, just come out and say "if this is the kind of game you want to play, start at level X and stop at level Y", instead of pointing everyone to start at level 1.


----------



## Micah Sweet

James Gasik said:


> Honestly, it's been heading that way ever since the very beginning, as each new supplement or edition offers bigger and better options.  There's always been players and DM's as well who want to "get to the good part" (as they see it) by starting at levels higher than 1, or using more benevolent methods of generating ability scores.
> 
> And sure, there's also players and DM's who want the game to never get beyond level 5, and will happily fight over a bent copper coin for loot, but it seems fairly obvious how the game has trended.
> 
> So it's nothing new.  A lot of players have this idea of a character they want to portray in their heads and want to start as that, not be told "one day, around level 6 or so, you'll feel like you're that guy".
> 
> I mean, it is a fantasy game, so it takes all kinds.
> 
> What I think WotC really should do, is, instead of buffing the low levels, just come out and say "if this is the kind of game you want to play, start at level X and stop at level Y", instead of pointing everyone to start at level 1.



And then make level 1 actually level 1.  Stretch things out a bit at tier 1, and point people to tier 2 if they want to start more powerful.


----------



## James Gasik

Micah Sweet said:


> And then make level 1 actually level 1.  Stretch things out a bit at tier 1, and point people to tier 2 if they want to start more powerful.



Exactly, yes.  If you want your game to start off with the characters as untrained adolescents going off on an adventure into a cave, then the game should say "START HERE".  If you want the game start off with characters who are established Knights, being sent on a deadly mission by their King, the game should say "START HERE INSTEAD".

If you want the game to start off with everyone as Noble Drow Elven Hexblades who receive visions from a God of Chaos and are equipped with Demon Swords, the game should say "ok, you probably want to start at level X".


----------



## UngainlyTitan

I think that by default the characters should be competent at the basics of what they do. I have no issue if that is level 3


----------



## James Gasik

UngainlyTitan said:


> I think that by default the characters should be competent at the basics of what they do. I have no issue if that is level 3



That's the level I was starting at anyways, so people have their subclass and feel like the character they were wanting to play.  Heck, by the end of 2e, I was always starting at level 2 just because I was tired of watching Fighters go down in two hits and losing Thieves and Wizards to single arrow shots, forcing me to keep running the same low level adventure over and over again until they managed to survive!


----------



## MichaelSomething

Micah Sweet said:


> And then make level 1 actually level 1. Stretch things out a bit at tier 1, and point people to tier 2 if they want to start more powerful.



Sadly all the new players will ignore text that advises starting at higher levels, start at 1 because they think that's the required default, and then complain low levels are no fun and demand they be powered up.


----------



## Smackpixi

MichaelSomething said:


> Sadly all the new players will ignore text that advises starting at higher levels, start at 1 because they think that's the required default, and then complain low levels are no fun and demand they be powered up.



What new players want, expect, can understand, and will enjoy is far more varied than you think.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Smackpixi said:


> What new players want, expect, can understand, and will enjoy is far more varied than you think.



So if I changed "all" to "enough to get WOTC to keep low levels heroic" then it'll be fine?


----------



## pemerton

James Gasik said:


> What I think WotC really should do, is, instead of buffing the low levels, just come out and say "if this is the kind of game you want to play, start at level X and stop at level Y", instead of pointing everyone to start at level 1.





UngainlyTitan said:


> I think that by default the characters should be competent at the basics of what they do. I have no issue if that is level 3



I think it is confusing for new players if they are expected to start at a level other than _first_. Starting at a higher level looks like the sort of thing an _advanced_ player would do.

(I think I'm at least somewhat agreeing with @MichaelSomething.)


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> Removing The Grind, suspending all the various Condition Recovery rules in Camp/Town, and Torch cost in Resources/Loadout and Turns of Light (and type of light) matters a ton to Torchbearer.



It would turn it into Burning Wheel lite! Or, in other words, would bring it much closer to Prince Valiant. (Though in the Vincent Baker concentric design model, it would still have a few more layers than Prince Valiant, which is closer to the Over-the-Edge-ish filament.)



Manbearcat said:


> What I would say is there is _a threshold whereby when you remove the table-facing, quantitative components of play which make up the matrix of your decision-space, decision-points go from meaningful (eg they outright inform the gamestate) to somewhere along the spectrum of INHIBITED <<<>>> OBSELETE because player decision-space (and the outputs of the decisions) becomes a kind of, "GM-directed qualitative mush_."
> 
> Take all of the below quantitative values of x off the table:
> 
> * Check for Wandering Monsters in x turns.
> 
> * Roll 1dx for Wandering Monsters.  If x hits, you get an Encounter.
> 
> * Wandering Monsters of threat levels x.
> 
> * Rest once per x turns or suffer x consequence.
> 
> * Torches have x Light for x Turns and take up x Inventory Space/Encumbrance.  Candles the same.  Lanters the same.
> 
> * Light works like x, Dim Light works like x, Darkness works like x and has other x consequences.
> 
> Just changing all of those x values to "qualitative, GM-facing stuff" has significant impacts on play such that matrix of player decision-space can't help but become some kind of "GM-directed qualitative mush" by comparison.  Which, again, might be exactly the type of play that one is looking for (its the type of play outlined in 2 in my post above).  But it becomes a very different from of play from 1 because player decision-space moves into that INHIBITED <<<>>> OBSELETE spectrum by comparison.



I'm not sure that the dropping of those procedures has to entail "GM-directed mush". There might be other procedures - say like those in Burning Wheel about how action resolution works and binds various participants. (And maybe I'm not really disagreeing with you here - because maybe you're saying at that point I move to your model 3 or perhaps model 4?)

But the game certainly changes from dungeon crawl to something else. To build on the first part of this post, I don't think Prince Valiant is "GM-directed mush", but it is certainly not dungeon crawl! I mean, you can frame the PCs into a dungeon, but the resolution will not be crawl-like.



Manbearcat said:


> So John Harper's Lasers & Feelings is a Star Trek or Firefly-type romp game that is basically that 1st (core and basic) layer of AW with some very minor changes.  Its not even close to even layer 2 as a "complete game."  You've got:
> 
> 
> Vivid color
> A few stats
> Descriptor tags for PC and vessel creation
> Core action resolution mechanic + rider
> A "Mad Lib" type process which generates the premise and opening situation for play
> 
> It is very primordial and it creates a very particular type of play experience (basically a 1 shot sort of game).
> 
> Now let us pretend that Apocalypse World and Lasers & Feelings are dungeon crawl games.  Ok, so I'm running a game of Lasers & Feelings (as dungeon crawl).  Despite a functional back-and-forth (communication and description) between myself and the players, we find ourselves running up against some issues:
> 
> * Ok...without Harm, what does attrition look like?  When is someone out of a scene because of physical/mental harm or horror or whatever? How do they recover and when do they get back in play?  When is someone dead?
> 
> * Ok, this mega-lite engine is good enough to create some thematic and minor mechanical distinction...but we need a bunch more basic moves, playbooks, xp triggers, gear & crap to generate finer distinction of thematic and mechanical role.
> 
> * Speaking of gear & crap...ok we've got all of these tags and I've run these games enough that I can make this work as a one-shot, fast & furious romp...but this stuff needs to be nailed down, sturdy, robust, distinguishing.  You use_ this thing_ for t_hat effect _and _that other thing_ for _this other effect_.  How difficult is that thing to carry?  Can I carry that and this other stuff?  Probably not.  Ok, what can I carry when I'm also carrying that thing (Inventory/loadout management).
> 
> * Ok, you use gear and moves to overcome Threats, right?  I need a whole lot more stuff for Threats.  I need stats, tags, details, assets, moves, instincts.  I need this stuff not just for the denizens in the dungeon but for the dungeon itself; the hazards, the suffocating dankness, the bewildering ruined topography/layout, the maddening drip-drip-drip, etc.
> 
> * Ok, now I've got an attrition model, character stuff, gear & crap, how Threats work and activate.  Now I need some structure to organize play.  I need to figure out how to negotiate the game layer of time spent doing stuff (the basic moves above should cover moving, interacting with things, searching, parley, fighting, evading danger, etc).  That stuff needs to be tracked meticulously because it interacts with (a) gear durability/duration, (b) how the dungeon answers in kind, (c) how the brutal experience grinds down the delvers/expeditionary force down, and (d) how they recover from that grind (camping, resting, recovering in a dangerous environment).
> 
> * Ok, I want to pull treasure out of this place.  How much does this stuff weigh/how difficult is it to get out of this ruin/what do I have to sacrifice or leave behind in order to get stuff out?  How dangerous is that sacrifice with a journey home (or not) looming?
> 
> * Ok, I got all of this stuff to town.  Can I sell it?  Who to?  What does that look like?  Can I drive up the price?  What is this town anyway?  Who lives here?  Are they hostile to adventurers/out-of-towners?  Is this my hometown with family or friends here?  Can I recover in a nice Inn or is that so costly that I need to stay on the streets (and what is the implication of that)?  Are their cut-throats and thieves lurking around the market?  Is there a religious bastion to alleviate a curse?  A guild-hall to train or repair my stuff?  What are the taxes like here and can I even pay my bills when I leave?
> 
> ++++++++
> 
> So this is my attempt to convey that, by the time I get to the end of this, I have so many questions as GM/players that Lasers & Feelings As Dungeon Crawl isn't remotely sufficient to the task.  It doesn't even come close to having the heft necessary to play to that 1, 3, 4 dungeon play that I outlined upthread.  It can manage my 2 dungeon play upthread but the throughline of play would be an extremely GM-directed experience that mutes Skilled Play priorities down to the nubbins because there is just so much necessary stuff missing.  The game would be heavily color & mood/tone/aesthetic focused.  The only way to get beyond that 2 (if I even care to do so) would be to play the whole Apocalypse World engine, AW layers 1-4, and then Dungeon World-ify the whole thing.



I know you've played Lasers & Feelings and I haven't - but I think maybe this is a bit too harsh?

I fully agree that it can't give a type 1 crawl. Or even "moves snowball". But I think it might give a version of 3 in the one-shot context. (I'm drawing here on my own experience with Wuthering Heights and Cthulhu Dark.) The GM has a _lot_ of permission in respect of scene-framing: but once the scene is framed, there are constraints on resolution that make it more than just mush!


----------



## UngainlyTitan

pemerton said:


> I think it is confusing for new players if they are expected to start at a level other than _first_. Starting at a higher level looks like the sort of thing an _advanced_ player would do.
> 
> (I think I'm at least somewhat agreeing with @MichaelSomething.)



I agree, and I would not start beginning players at level 3. Nor would I start inexperienced players in big campaign arcs. I think short adventure modules in a variety of styles would be better for beginning players.


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> It would turn it into Burning Wheel lite! Or, in other words, would bring it much closer to Prince Valiant. (Though in the Vincent Baker concentric design model, it would still have a few more layers than Prince Valiant, which is closer to the Over-the-Edge-ish filament.)
> 
> I'm not sure that the dropping of those procedures has to entail "GM-directed mush". There might be other procedures - say like those in Burning Wheel about how action resolution works and binds various participants. (And maybe I'm not really disagreeing with you here - because maybe you're saying at that point I move to your model 3 or perhaps model 4?)
> 
> But the game certainly changes from dungeon crawl to something else. To build on the first part of this post, I don't think Prince Valiant is "GM-directed mush", but it is certainly not dungeon crawl! I mean, you can frame the PCs into a dungeon, but the resolution will not be crawl-like.
> 
> I know you've played Lasers & Feelings and I haven't - but I think maybe this is a bit too harsh?
> 
> I fully agree that it can't give a type 1 crawl. Or even "moves snowball". But I think it might give a version of 3 in the one-shot context. (I'm drawing here on my own experience with Wuthering Heights and Cthulhu Dark.) The GM has a _lot_ of permission in respect of scene-framing: but once the scene is framed, there are constraints on resolution that make it more than just mush!




No worries, I’m not seeing any disagreement here.

Neither AW layer 1, nor Lasers & Feelings, nor Prince Valiant, nor Cthulu Dark are “GM-directed, qualitative mush” as written or as intended to be played. But they aren’t written or intended to be played as _x-crawl game with players tasked with arresting the tragic undoing of their x-crawl via Skilled Play!_.

And, for clarity’s sake, the aspect of “GM-directed, qualitative mush” (its certainly not _all that_…only parts) of my (2) above is a feature and not a bug for those games (so long as the GM isn’t advertising the gameplay experience of 1,3, or 4) because the focus on tone, mood, aesthetic, ephemera, and performative characteristics relies upon (to some degree) turning the _not-fit-for-purpose_ (the purpose of my 2) quantitative, intricate, and table-facing into the qualitative, abstracted, and GM-facing. But, as I’ve attempted to convey in this thread, there are trade-offs!


----------



## Bill Zebub

In general I don't really give much weight to arguments based on fears of what other people are going to do.  "Newbies won't understand it."  "Powergamers will get 1% more power from it."  "Those kids on my lawn will think it's a video game." "Rules lawyers will abuse it."  Etc.

I'm interested in what _you_ (all of you) like and don't like about rules and options, and what things you want to be able to do in the game that are supported/inhibited by those rules and options.  I can appreciate (and have learned a lot from) those sorts of arguments, even when I don't agree with them, without the bogeyperson of what other people might do.


----------



## tetrasodium

Frozen_Heart said:


> This is one of my main gripes with modern DnD. No one wants the 'zero to hero' trope anymore. It's more 'hero to god' now. Even with discussions about point buy, people want yet more points to put in by default. Everyone wants a 16 or even an 18 on their starting score. With a 14 being considered completely useless.




No I don't think so, Disney has done a good job over the last several years on shining the spotlight on just how bad an overpowered marysue character who begins their heroes' journey already at the end can make a story's health & it gives a good contrast that provides credibility to the years of voices noting for how 5e goes too far into "hero" for the last 8 years or so.


----------



## James Gasik

pemerton said:


> I think it is confusing for new players if they are expected to start at a level other than _first_. Starting at a higher level looks like the sort of thing an _advanced_ player would do.
> 
> (I think I'm at least somewhat agreeing with @MichaelSomething.)



Ok so if "needing to be level 1" is required, then how about this.  

Pathfinder 1e uses point buy, and they have suggested point buy totals based on the kind of game you want to run.  So have "low power" "high power" "godlike" point totals suggested.

Pathfinder also had three xp charts for how fast you want people to level- if you're running a high power game, players level faster than in a low power game.  *For those people who use milestone leveling, it doesn't matter if you don't track xp, you would be leveling players faster or slower based on the kind of game you're running, this is just to show DM's what they can do to capture the feel of the game they want.

Then, if you're running a high power game, players start with a 10 hit point "kicker" at level 1.  If godlike, 20 hit points.

You all start at level 1, but obviously, the difficulty of the game and how quickly you cruise past the early levels and get to the power level you want will vary.


----------



## tetrasodium

James Gasik said:


> Ok so if "needing to be level 1" is required, then how about this.
> 
> Pathfinder 1e uses point buy, and they have suggested point buy totals based on the kind of game you want to run.  So have "low power" "high power" "godlike" point totals suggested.
> 
> Pathfinder also had three xp charts for how fast you want people to level- if you're running a high power game, players level faster than in a low power game.  *For those people who use milestone leveling, it doesn't matter if you don't track xp, you would be leveling players faster or slower based on the kind of game you're running, this is just to show DM's what they can do to capture the feel of the game they want.
> 
> Then, if you're running a high power game, players start with a 10 hit point "kicker" at level 1.  If godlike, 20 hit points.
> 
> You all start at level 1, but obviously, the difficulty of the game and how quickly you cruise past the early levels and get to the power level you want will vary.



Some of that predated PF even.  I don't know about different exp progression speeds but 3.5 had different pointbuy levels too (15/22/28/32) on dmg169, 5e dumped them though


----------



## James Gasik

tetrasodium said:


> Some of that predated PF even.  I don't know about different exp progression speeds but 3.5 had different pointbuy levels too (15/22/28/32) on dmg169, 5e dumped them though



Yeah, well, WotC wants to package D&D as the "game for all seasons", but it really isn't, and pretending otherwise is just going to leave everyone dissatisfied in the end.


----------



## pemerton

James Gasik said:


> Ok so if "needing to be level 1" is required, then how about this.
> 
> Pathfinder 1e uses point buy, and they have suggested point buy totals based on the kind of game you want to run.  So have "low power" "high power" "godlike" point totals suggested.
> 
> Pathfinder also had three xp charts for how fast you want people to level- if you're running a high power game, players level faster than in a low power game.  *For those people who use milestone leveling, it doesn't matter if you don't track xp, you would be leveling players faster or slower based on the kind of game you're running, this is just to show DM's what they can do to capture the feel of the game they want.
> 
> Then, if you're running a high power game, players start with a 10 hit point "kicker" at level 1.  If godlike, 20 hit points.
> 
> You all start at level 1, but obviously, the difficulty of the game and how quickly you cruise past the early levels and get to the power level you want will vary.



Sure. This is like Forbidden Island's flood tracker, which has clear labels like "novice" and "super-hard" (or whatever - my copy's in the cupboard so I'm going from memory).

Tell new players that so many points and such-and-such rate of advancement is for beginners; but if you want to play HARD once you've got a bit of experience with the game, then here are ways of dialling up the difficulty.

Gygax actually says similar stuff (though more wordily) in his DMG for AD&D.


----------



## James Gasik

pemerton said:


> Sure. This is like Forbidden Island's flood tracker, which has clear labels like "novice" and "super-hard" (or whatever - my copy's in the cupboard so I'm going from memory).
> 
> Tell new players that so many points and such-and-such rate of advancement is for beginners; but if you want to play HARD once you've got a bit of experience with the game, then here are ways of dialling up the difficulty.
> 
> Gygax actually says similar stuff (though more wordily) in his DMG for AD&D.



Gary never used three words when 12 would do.  : )


----------



## Clint_L

James Gasik said:


> Yeah, well, WotC wants to package D&D as the "game for all seasons", but it really isn't, and pretending otherwise is just going to leave everyone dissatisfied in the end.



Is it, though? Because D&D's sales and decades-long staying power would suggest otherwise.


----------



## James Gasik

Clint_L said:


> Is it, though? Because D&D's sales and decades-long staying power would suggest otherwise.



Popularity and success as a product does not mean that a given product is the best for all users.  Hence why I don't use Norton antivirus.


----------



## Clint_L

James Gasik said:


> Popularity and success as a product does not mean that a given product is the best for all users.  Hence why I don't use Norton antivirus.




If "everyone is dissatisfied" yet also continuing to buy the products and play the game...why would they do that? That seems like they would have to be very stupid or something. Is it possible that they feel differently about the game than you do? Aren't you sort of implying that the majority of D&D players have an inferior sense of what makes a game good?

Like, I think your implication is that D&D is like Norton Antivirus, and therefore its fans are kind of suckers. Is that what you are getting at? Isn't that super condescending?


----------



## Malmuria

Bill Zebub said:


> Clearly a new rule is needed.
> 
> See One D&D DMG, page 1,107, "Using a Barrel to Knock Enemies Off Staircases"
> "A barrel or similarly cylindrically shaped object, weighing no less than 50 pounds, may be rolled down a flight of stairs (see page 884 for definition of 'flight'), causing all creatures on the staircase to make Dexterity saving throws (DC of 8 + PB + Str modifier of the roller) and on a failure will be knocked to the bottom of the staircase (see page 1,372 for "Falling damage on uneven, less-than-vertical surfaces.). If a creature of size S or larger is in the barrel, the saving throws are made with disadvantage."



“you can throw a barrel down a flight of stairs a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus per long rest”


----------



## Malmuria

After you roll for a random encounter, there’s a procedure to follow for determining the context for that encounter.  You have to role: 1. numbers appearing 2. encounter distance, and 3. reaction roll.  All of those are critical rolls!  I often forget to consider encounter distance, meaning that something that could be avoided for being far away cannot be because it’s right in the party’s face.  So the procedure helps me keep track of what I need to roll for, and rolling (instead of deciding) helps to disclaim responsibility for setting up the parameters of the encounter.


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> I'd be interested in hearing more about this if you have the time to unpack it.



The simple explanation is human nature.  It's easier for me to get the players to accept a new spell that I add to the game, than it is for me to remove one from the PHB that they've been using. The same goes for house rules.  It's easier for me to add in a change or new rule than to remove one that the players have been using.  People are more prone to be upset over something being taken away from them than given to them.


----------



## Maxperson

James Gasik said:


> Honestly, it's been heading that way ever since the very beginning, as each new supplement or edition offers bigger and better options.  There's always been players and DM's as well who want to "get to the good part" (as they see it) by starting at levels higher than 1, or using more benevolent methods of generating ability scores.



It wasn't even new supplements.  The 1e DMG had 6 methods for rolling stats, some of which were much better than others at giving good stats.


----------



## Clint_L

I just glanced through the maps of every single WotC-published adventure book, and they turn out to be chock full of dungeons. Dungeons turn out to be massively over-represented as a play environment in D&D worlds. Like, how much time do explorers spend in dungeons in the real world, as opposed to in D&D worlds?  And I get it - the word "dungeon" is right in the title, and they don't want to be accused of false advertising or something. And the game definitely continues to do a good job of promoting dungeons as the primary adventure setting.

So this thread is really not about bringing the game "back" to the dungeon, but rather about promoting a particular style of dungeon adventuring. Obviously, there are going to be a lot of different tastes, such as the OP's very OD&D preferences. And good on them! So the solution should be some kind of specialized guide that offers different styles for consideration. I think the various adventure books already do a decent job of this (White Plume Mountain, for example, offers a solid 5e version of an old school experience), but they are spread out. So why not do a compilation book that is just dungeons of different sizes and play styles, so that tables can experiment with lots of different approaches? These could also be a handy resource to slot into a campaign when needed.

Do I want to run an old-school dungeon crawl for an entire campaign? Nope! But for a story arc or even a one-shot within a campaign, I think I would love having a resource like that.


----------



## James Gasik

Clint_L said:


> If "everyone is dissatisfied" yet also continuing to buy the products and play the game...why would they do that? That seems like they would have to be very stupid or something. Is it possible that they feel differently about the game than you do? Aren't you sort of implying that the majority of D&D players have an inferior sense of what makes a game good?
> 
> Like, I think your implication is that D&D is like Norton Antivirus, and therefore its fans are kind of suckers. Is that what you are getting at? Isn't that super condescending?



Not really.  Because after all, I'm on this forum talking about the game, which I play as well.

Basically, IMO, the game trying to be all things to all people can't really work, because as this thread points out, major changes would have to be made to approach the very old school dungeon crawl (as it was originally played)- to the point where you'd basically be playing a different game.

D&D's current iteration is made with some odd assumptions about how the game is played- to the point that I've met few people who are 100% happy about.  There's always something that doesn't line up with their expectations or desires.  And "oh you can change it" is still a lot of work you wouldn't expect to have to do if this game was truly a combination of all things D&D over the decades.

Maybe if the designers had offered more suggestions about how to change the rules set around, or that the modularity that people expected from early dev comments had lined up with reality, I don't know.

And then, after summarizing that the game just can't be what everyone wants it to be, you responded with "well it's popular and successful", as if that somehow disproves what I said.  You can reply to this post if you like, I won't be responding back to you, since I have no real desire to continue debating this point.  If the game is everything you want it to be, and you're happy with that, wonderful!

It isn't that way for me, and I don't think I'm a lone voice crying out in the wilderness saying so.  And being told that my opinion must be wrong, because of how much money WotC is making at the moment is not helpful in any way.

I mean, it could be wrong for other reasons, and that's fine, but being told I'm wrong because I have issues with the popular thing, and similar arguments of "it's successful therefore it is the most perfect D&D that could ever exist" didn't carry any weight for me when Oofta was making them, and they won't this time either.

Happy gaming!


----------



## Manbearcat

Maxperson said:


> The simple explanation is human nature.  It's easier for me to get the players to accept a new spell that I add to the game, than it is for me to remove one from the PHB that they've been using. The same goes for house rules.  It's easier for me to add in a change or new rule than to remove one that the players have been using.  People are more prone to be upset over something being taken away from them than given to them.




For sure.

There is a cohort of players out there that don’t like “re-tuning” or “nerfs” even if its demonstrable that it would be for the overall health of the game.

That is the trade-off on the one side of the equation; managing the social dilemma of dealing with that particular player.

The other side of the equation has the trade-off of attempting to assess the extremely large and entangled engineering project of turning 5e into a functional facsimile of something like Torchbearer and then successfully executing that profoundly complex and fraught undertaking (just thinking on the list of things required alone is daunting enough…in the last game I GMed, the Wizard cast 5 total spells through 4 levels of play and spent about 10 x the amount of time managing the combination of Inventory/Light + thematic resources + recovery of Conditions from The Grind than they did their Spellbook!).

Both of these “asks” are significant undertakings with tradeoffs. The designers were clearly going for an Apocalypse World, concentric & collapsible design with 5e. They just didn’t make the core game (AW’s 1st layer/core) nearly basic enough (“The Great Wizard Question” and magic bring so crazily potent, prolific, and reliable is a core component of the issue at hand) and, at some point, they abandoned that project (what Mearls called “modularity” but Vincent called, and executed on, concentric & collapsible design).

Which is why I harkened back to what I was saying back in 2012; build the core game off of the smaller unit (“The Encounter”) rather than the larger (and much more fraught) unit; “The Adventuring Day.” In most every project, it is profoundly easier to engineer from small, contained, tightly-bound and build-out from that platform than it is to do the inverse (AW design is a masterclass of that). If something goes haywire with a design element of layer 3 so you get undesired performance or cascading, you just scrap it and default back to the prior layer. If you do the opposite and try to predict cascading problems from layer 4 to core layer 1…and then troubleshoot and re-engineer…god have mercy on you! (Which is the task before One D&D if it wants to produce the experience I outlined in my 1 dungeon play upthread. 5e D&D has the market cornered for that 2 type dungeon play…but 1 is a deeply different beast).


----------



## Reynard

Manbearcat said:


> The designers were clearly going for an Apocalypse World, concentric & collapsible design with 5e.



This might be the weirdest take i have ever read on ENWorld.


----------



## Manbearcat

Reynard said:


> This might be the weirdest take i have ever read on ENWorld.




You’ll have to explain that then.

Mearls was clearly an admirer of Apocalypse World (as any designer should be of Vincent) as he talked about it back then when it was the hot, new game system after its release on 2010, Vincent’s exceptional article on concentric design was out mid-2011 (of which there is no chance Mearls didn’t read), Mearls surely played it (as he played plenty of games), he trod indie spaces back then despite being RAR TEAM OSR (there is more overlap in the conceptual space between indie branches than their is difference…despite the culture war), and 5e’s designers were constantly branding toward creating the equivalent of increasing complexity that elegantly collapsed into a very simple, robust core.

The idea that Apocalypse World didn’t heavily influence (conceptually) their early articles and modularity design ideas is the weird take imo (especially given the temporal relationships and the aims of a stripped down core and increasing, modular complexity). I mean, the Social Interaction module that made it to live is basically Apocalypse World 101. It could have been cribbed directly from it (Conversation > Read a Person move on NPC > attain NPC Instinct > leverage NPC Instinct mechanically and within fiction for Big Social Move to bring about disposition change).


----------



## Reynard

Manbearcat said:


> You’ll have to explain that then.
> 
> Mearls was clearly an admirer of Apocalypse World (as any designer should be of Vincent) as he talked about it back then when it was the hot, new game system after its release on 2010, Vincent’s exceptional article on concentric design was out mid-2011 (of which there is no chance Mearls didn’t read), Mearls surely played it (as he played plenty of games), he trod indie spaces back then despite being RAR TEAM OSR (there is more overlap in the conceptual space between indie branches than their is difference…despite the culture war), and 5e’s designers were constantly branding toward creating the equivalent of increasing complexity that elegantly collapsed into a very simple, robust core.
> 
> The idea that Apocalypse World didn’t heavily influence (conceptually) their early articles and modularity design ideas is the weird take imo (especially given the temporal relationships and the aims of a stripped down core and increasing, modular complexity). I mean, the Social Interaction module that made it to live is basically Apocalypse World 101. It could have been cribbed directly from it (Conversation > Read a Person move on NPC > attain NPC Instinct > leverage NPC Instinct mechanically and within fiction for Big Social Move to bring about disposition change).



Maybe I misunderstood you? Are you talking about the early playtest game, rather than what ended up in the books?


----------



## Manbearcat

Reynard said:


> Maybe I misunderstood you? Are you talking about the early playtest game, rather than what ended up in the books?




I’m talking about the core concept space that they were carving out in their early articles. The way they branded Next. Their early mission statements around a *slim, sleek, stable core surrounded by increasing complexity via modularity*. (AW 101 and could have come directly from his 2011 article on the subject). The abundance of  conversation (both designers and chatter here and elsewhere) in 2012 was around this design imperative. Very basic engine (like AW’s core) with modular design (like AW’s layers 2, 3, and 4) that was concentric and collapsible (referential inwardly…you could always refer back to the inner core for ruling/handling of play).

You could see various temporal trends in game design emerging throughout the Next designer articles and playtest packets (from OSR aesthetic/DCC to some of 13th Age’s tech and ideas).

Finished product? No. In no way is 5e even close to similar to Apocalypse World (except for something like the aforementioned Social Interaction module and the Success and Consequences section of the DMG having some AW 7-9 result aspiration).


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> For sure.
> 
> There is a cohort of players out there that don’t like “re-tuning” or “nerfs” even if its demonstrable that it would be for the overall health of the game.
> 
> That is the trade-off on the one side of the equation; managing the social dilemma of dealing with that particular player.
> 
> The other side of the equation has the trade-off of attempting to assess the extremely large and entangled engineering project of turning 5e into a functional facsimile of something like Torchbearer and then successfully executing that profoundly complex and fraught undertaking (just thinking on the list of things required alone is daunting enough…in the last game I GMed, the Wizard cast 5 total spells through 4 levels of play and spent about 10 x the amount of time managing the combination of Inventory/Light + thematic resources + recovery of Conditions from The Grind than they did their Spellbook!).
> 
> Both of these “asks” are significant undertakings with tradeoffs. The designers were clearly going for an Apocalypse World, concentric & collapsible design with 5e. They just didn’t make the core game (AW’s 1st layer/core) nearly basic enough (“The Great Wizard Question” and magic bring so crazily potent, prolific, and reliable is a core component of the issue at hand) and, at some point, they abandoned that project (what Mearls called “modularity” but Vincent called, and executed on, concentric & collapsible design).
> 
> Which is why I harkened back to what I was saying back in 2012; build the core game off of the smaller unit (“The Encounter”) rather than the larger (and much more fraught) unit; “The Adventuring Day.” In most every project, it is profoundly easier to engineer from small, contained, tightly-bound and build-out from that platform than it is to do the inverse (AW design is a masterclass of that). If something goes haywire with a design element of layer 3 so you get undesired performance or cascading, you just scrap it and default back to the prior layer. If you do the opposite and try to predict cascading problems from layer 4 to core layer 1…and then troubleshoot and re-engineer…god have mercy on you! (Which is the task before One D&D if it wants to produce the experience I outlined in my 1 dungeon play upthread. 5e D&D has the market cornered for that 2 type dungeon play…but 1 is a deeply different beast).



Being balanced around the Adventuring Day is my single biggest frustration with 5e.  I completely agree with you that it should have been balanced around the encounter rather than a grouping of encounters(the Adventuring Day).


----------



## Reynard

Manbearcat said:


> I’m talking about the core concept space that they were carving out in their early articles. The way they branded Next.



Gotcha. Yeah, I read too fast. My bad.

I didn't engage with Next at all prior to the 5E launch.


----------



## Manbearcat

Alright, so to the main point of the post.  What would I do if I were to try to project doing something like Torchbearer-ifying 5e D&D for One D&D:

*LONG REST *- Short or Medium Dungeons = No Long Rest.  Long Dungeon = 1 x Long Rest.  There should be a formula for each of these lengths with detailed dungeon (dungeon is a generic term here...could be wilderness, could be haunted house, etc) information including # of Obstacles/Problem Areas and associated DCs of Obstacles/Problem Areas.  Intricate guidance on how to build out a dungeon from mapping to theming to stocking.

*TURNS, TESTS, & TWISTS (or Success + Exhaustion) *- Every Ability Check would be a Turn.  Every Turn would be a Test/Contest.  I would nail down DCs to lower, table-facing numbers.  I would then do just like BW/MG/TB and have Factors that elevate that DC by 1 or 2, which are cumulative.  Failure = either (a) Success + a level of Exhaustion or (b) a Twist (the situation changes to present a new Obstacle).

*EXHAUSTION & THE GRIND *- 6 levels of Exhaustion.  6 Conditions (excusing Fresh and Dead) in Torchbearer (which came out 1.2 years before 5e.  Coincidence?  Doubt it.  I would institute The Grind from Torchbearer where every 4 Turns, each PC gets 1 level of Exhaustion and name them in the same fashion; Hungry/Thirsty > Angry > Afraid > Exhausted > Injured > Sick.  You can recover Hungry/Thirsty by eating a Ration or drinking 1 portion of Water from your Skin.  The other levels of Exhaustion are recovered like normal or in Camp where you spend a Hit Dice to make a save against the DC and Ability associated with the Condition/Level of Exhaustion.

*REDO INVENTORY* - Redo it from the ground up and treat it like Torchbearer.  You're effectively loading out sections of your body; Head, Torso, Neck, Hands, Feet, Belt, Pocket, Backpack.  Redo the costs, the durations, the portions of items in a "stack", what various totes can carry.  You'll have to do this with treasure (gems, cutlery, purse of coin vs trunk) etc).  You'll have to change everything to be Coin-based to normalize things.

*CAMP *- Make a Test against The Grind to attempt to establish a safe camp w/ DC of increasing Factors based on amenities you want (Water, Game nearby, Shelter, Concealment).  Everyone has to spend 1 Hit Dice to go into Camp phase to recover conditions, possibly resupply Food/Water, repair broken Proficiency Tools (from Twists) or helms and what not.  Someone has to Keep Watch and they cannot make any Tests to recover et al in camp.  Make a Camp Events Roll (which would need to be made for each subtype of Dungeons; eg Wilderness, Caverns) against a table (level of danger + Concealment + Shelter are Factors).  Spend 1 HD for each thing you want to do in Camp and make a Test.

*COIN *- Normalize it.  No Gold, Silver, Copper.  Just Coin and associated value per items purchased and slot encumbrance for x value of coins (eg 1 Backpack Slot = 30 Coins or whatever).

*MAGIC *- Every_single_spell requires a Test (eg Int and Arcana for Wizards) against The Grind to cast (or a Hit Die spent in Camp rather than The Grind) with + Factor for every odd Spell Level (so +1 Factor for 1, +2 for 3, etc) and the Base DC not being insignificant.  This should yield a high risk profile and volatility for Spellcasters.  Casting Spells will yield a lot of Twists (new Obstacles faced) or Conditions stacked on the Spellcaster.  You'd need to get this base DC right (it should be sufficiently high to trigger at least 50 % Twist or Success/Condition).  This should deeply incentivize Lightbearing because spellcasting = Grind ticked for everyone and Twists/Conditions.

++++++++++++++

I would start with that and see how it fares.  It would need a lot of work and a lot of stress-testing to get it right.


----------



## mamba

Charlaquin said:


> I mean… The need to stipulate those things in session zero is what makes 5e discouraging to such play styles, whereas with another system, there might not be a need to stipulate such things because they’re a part of the core rules.



there are no core rules, we did not track that in 1e already because it was a nuisance to us.

I find the premise of ‘back to the dungeon’ flawed. If you want to be you can now just as well as then


----------



## Reynard

mamba said:


> there are no core rules, we did not track that in 1e already because it was a nuisance to us.
> 
> I find the premise of ‘back to the dungeon’ flawed. If you want to be you can now just as well as then



Just asserting there's no difference between 5E and earlier editions isn't very compelling, especially since it is easily demonstrated as false. Lots of people in this thread has already pointed out a myriad of ways that 5E works against the dungeon crawl.


----------



## Charlaquin

mamba said:


> there are no core rules,



What?


mamba said:


> we did not track that in 1e already because it was a nuisance to us.



I’m not sure what you’re referring to that you didn’t track, but regardless, just because you and your group ignored a rule doesn’t mean that rule had no utility in the context of dungeon delving gameplay.


mamba said:


> I find the premise of ‘back to the dungeon’ flawed. If you want to be you can now just as well as then



Ok, so then are you just here to threadcrap, or do you have something constructive to add?


----------



## mamba

Reynard said:


> Just asserting there's no difference between 5E and earlier editions isn't very compelling, especially since it is easily demonstrated as false. Lots of people in this thread has already pointed out a myriad of ways that 5E works against the dungeon crawl.



I am not saying there is no difference, but in either can you go into dungeons and track stuff (torches / time spent, arrows fired, ….) or not track stuff because you do not like all the bookkeeping

All I am saying is that I am certain that many people did not track it in 1e already.


----------



## mamba

Charlaquin said:


> What?



the group decides the rules they use, just because something is written in a book does not mean it gets used that way or even at all.

There were plenty people not keeping track of torches, feets of rope left or rations / water in 1e.


Charlaquin said:


> I’m not sure what you’re referring to that you didn’t track, but regardless, just because you and your group ignored a rule doesn’t mean that rule had no utility in the context of dungeon delving gameplay.



I did not say it didn’t. I said many ignored it

If you want more than the base game gives you, there are options. The base game is that for a reason and if this thread has shown anything it is that many people want different things, the base game cannot cater to all of them.






						DriveThruRPG.com
					

Your one-stop online shop for new and vintage RPG products from the top publishers, delivered fresh to your desktop in electronic format.




					www.drivethrurpg.com


----------



## tetrasodium

mamba said:


> the group decides the rules they use, just because something is written in a book does not mean it gets used that way or even at all.
> 
> There were plenty people not keeping track of torches, feets of rope left or rations / water in 1e.
> 
> I did not say it didn’t. I said many ignored it



When the book doesn't bother to include the "something" or includes something that deloiberately makes it difficult or implausible to add it easily in a meaningful form as 5e frequently does it's not so simple as sdimply deciding otherwise


----------



## mamba

tetrasodium said:


> When the book doesn't bother to include the "something" or includes something that deloiberately makes it difficult or implausible to add it easily in a meaningful form as 5e frequently does it's not so simple as sdimply deciding otherwise



yes, you have to come up with your own rules or use somebody else’s. Plenty of options out there, including taking things from older editions.

Not sure you can get rid of whatever deliberately interferes though, as chances are WotC won’t get rid of that.
I am not really seeing anything interfering with a dungeon crawl, I do see things getting in the way of requiring micromanagement however.

If that is a core aspect of a dungeon crawl to you I am not sure 5e can help you with that, and more importantly I am pretty sure doing so would be a net negative.


----------



## tetrasodium

mamba said:


> yes, you have to come up with your own rules or use somebody else’s. Plenty of options out there, including taking things from older editions.
> 
> Not sure you can get rid of whatever deliberately interferes though, as chances are WotC won’t get rid of that.
> I am not really seeing anything interfering with a dungeon crawl, I do see things getting in the way of requiring micromanagement however.
> 
> If that is a core aspect of a dungeon crawl to you I am not sure 5e can help you with that, and more importantly I am pretty sure doing so would be a net negative.



That's where you get to the _reason_ why 5e baked in poison pills targeted at making certain playstyles that can't be easily corrected without nerfing PCs to ensure that it's needlessly difficult to diverge from the one true way of 5e's efforts to avoid supporting any style.


----------



## mamba

tetrasodium said:


> That's where you get to the _reason_ why 5e baked in poison pills targeted at making certain playstyles that can't be easily corrected without nerfing PCs to ensure that it's needlessly difficult to diverge from the one true way of 5e's efforts to avoid supporting any style.



that seems an overly negative perspective to me ('poison pills'). I don't think they intentionally sabotaged certain playstyles, rather they intentionally adopted more popular playstyles.

I am also not sure that happened in 5e, but I am not intrinsically familiar with all versions... to me this was de-emphasized in 2e already and even more so in later editions. What is an example of something that 5e specifically did and affects this that is not in 3e already?


----------



## Charlaquin

mamba said:


> the group decides the rules they use, just because something is written in a book does not mean it gets used that way or even at all.



Obviously. There are still core rules. People are of course free to ignore or revise them if they wish, but that doesn’t make them not the core rules.


mamba said:


> There were plenty people not keeping track of torches, feets of rope left or rations / water in 1e.
> 
> I did not say it didn’t. I said many ignored it



Yes, and?


mamba said:


> If you want more than the base game gives you, there are options. The base game is that for a reason and if this thread has shown anything it is that many people want different things, the base game cannot cater to all of them.



Interesting that you claim there are no core rules but still talk about the base game. Anyway, the fact of the matter is that yes, you can go outside of the base game of 5e to add rules that make for more of a dungeon crawler experience. But the fact that you need to do so is what makes it less suited to dungeon crawling _at base_ than some other editions were. The point of this thread is to ask, what rules outside the base would be needed or desirable to make 5e a better dungeon crawler experience than it is at base. If all you have to say is “use house rules or 3rd party,” you’re not contributing anything to the thread. _What_ house rules or 3rd party rules would you recommend for this purpose. If you wouldn’t recommend any, why are you here?


----------



## mamba

Charlaquin said:


> Obviously. There are still core rules. People are of course free to ignore or revise them if they wish, but that doesn’t make them not the core rules.



matter of perspective I guess, what races / classes / skills / spells there are and what combat looks like is much more core to me


Charlaquin said:


> Yes, and?



nothing, I corrected you and you agreed. If you want an 'and' that would be 'and they never were all that popular to begin with, which is why we no longer have them'


Charlaquin said:


> Interesting that you claim there are no core rules but still talk about the base game



none is probably an exaggeration, as I said combat is probably as core as it gets (but can still be adjusted). Some rules that were probably ignored or tweaked on more tables than used them as written are definitely not however.


Charlaquin said:


> _What_ house rules or 3rd party rules would you recommend for this purpose. If you wouldn’t recommend any, why are you here?



to point out that 5e never (fully) left the dungeon / you can do dungeon crawls in 5e, contrary to what the title indicates. And if 'bring back to the dungeon' is a euphemism for 'bring back micromanagement' then that is not the right direction for D&D to go in imo.

The only thing the dungeon needs from my perspective is to be an interesting dungeon. Do less with pure skill checks and care more about the player's descriptions of what they do.


----------



## Charlaquin

mamba said:


> matter of perspective I guess, what races / classes / skills / spells there are and what combat looks like is much more core to me
> 
> nothing, I corrected you and you agreed. If you want an 'and' that would be 'and they never were all that popular to begin with, which is why we no longer have them'
> 
> none is probably an exaggeration, as I said combat is probably as core as it gets (but can still be adjusted). Some rules that were probably ignored or tweaked on more tables than used them as written are definitely not however.
> 
> to point out that 5e never (fully) left the dungeon / you can do dungeon crawls in 5e, contrary to what the title indicates. And if 'bring back to the dungeon' is a euphemism for 'bring back micromanagement' then that is not the right direction for D&D to go in imo.
> 
> The only thing the dungeon needs from my perspective is to be an interesting dungeon. Do less with pure skill checks and care more about the player's descriptions of what they do.



Right, so if all you’re here to say is “don’t,” then you’re not bringing anything of value to the conversation. The topic of the thread is what house rules could be added or existing rules could be changed to better facilitate dungeon delving. If you think dungeon delving is already perfect in 5e, then just go enjoy it as it is instead of butting in to yuck other people’s yum.


----------



## mamba

Charlaquin said:


> Right, so if all you’re here to say is “don’t,” then you’re not bringing anything of value to the conversation. The topic of the thread is what house rules could be added or existing rules could be changed to better facilitate dungeon delving. If you think dungeon delving is already perfect in 5e, then just go enjoy it as it is instead of butting in to yuck other people’s yum.



What about those people yucking up my yum with their proposals (were they acted upon) ?

Only hearing one side in a discussion feels kind of pointless. I do not think that micromanagement adds much of interest to the game, quite the contrary, but that does not mean you cannot find _something_ that would make dungeon delving more interesting. When someone proposes something that does, I'll let you know 

My proposal above was to not just roll dice (skill checks) but instead play it out. Feel free to add to that or argue against it. Give us a list of ideas / obstacles that can be encountered and rules for how to overcome them, something that involves gameplay (kinda like what Level Up did). Turning this into 'inventory management, the game' is not getting people back to the dungeon, it is why they left it.


----------



## Reynard

mamba said:


> Turning this into 'inventory management, the game' is not getting people back to the dungeon, it is why they left it.



As OP I wanted to address this because it has come up a couple of times: the subject of the thread is NOT "what can we do to get people playing 5E to come back to the dungeon?" I don't care one whit what those people do or don't do. The subject of the thread is a hypothetical "what can we do in this new "edition" to make it more friendly to dungeon crawling for those that like that." It isn't about how those changes might upset your non-dungeon crawling game, or about whether some people might or might not like those rule changes. it is explicitly about what those rule changes could be to make 5E for friendly to the dungeon -- because currently, it is not. Rampant cantrips eliminate a number of basic dungeon delving procedures, too fast recovery and healing disrupts the importance of time management, and over reliance on skill checks undermines the player skill aspect.


----------



## Greg Benage

Your thread your rules, but it does feel like you’ve basically loaded the question now to something like, “What could OneD&D do to bring the game back to a certain kind of old-school dungeon-crawling,” and if that’s the case, you’re right, you don’t just need procedures — you need to change most of the game.


----------



## Charlaquin

mamba said:


> What about those people yucking up my yum with their proposals (were they acted upon) ?



I can assure you there is no risk of “micromanagement” being a thing in 5e again.


----------



## Reynard

Greg Benage said:


> Your thread your rules, but it does feel like you’ve basically loaded the question now to something like, “What could OneD&D do to bring the game back to a certain kind of old-school dungeon-crawling,” and if that’s the case, you’re right, you don’t just need procedures — you need to change most of the game.



How to make 5E work for dungeon crawling was the entire premise of the thread. it doesn't necessarily have to be exactly old school procedures, though. I think Five Torches Deep load and supply works pretty well for simplifying material resource management, for example, and there are some other rules I have seen using recharge mechanics or supply dice that might work too. The point is that you can't ignore that stuff if you are doing a dungeon crawl.

It should go without saying, but I will point it out anyway: there is a different between a dungeon crawl and doing a dungeon in an adventure. A dungeon crawl implies the exploration, survival and resource management are important parts of play. 5E does "adventure in the dungeon" just fine because it cares about X encounters per Y time, which contained environments are good at. But it doesn't do dungeon *crawls* well, because it handwaves and/or obviates a lot of the things that are important about crawls.


----------



## mamba

Reynard said:


> The subject of the thread is a hypothetical "what can we do in this new "edition" to make it more friendly to dungeon crawling for those that like that." It isn't about how those changes might upset your non-dungeon crawling game, or about whether some people might or might not like those rule changes.



ok, are we talking about how can we accomplish this for people that like all the micromanagement, screw everyone else, kind of way or in a way that also gets other / new players to want to go there?

Because I feel this is doing the former rather than the latter



Reynard said:


> Rampant cantrips eliminate a number of basic dungeon delving procedures, too fast recovery and healing disrupts the importance of time management, and over reliance on skill checks undermines the player skill aspect.



hey, all of this I can sign on to (details to be ironed out) and none of it really is micromanagement (depending on what exactly you do, it might lead there however)

I’d also add too much darkvision, make that low-light vision and get rid of flying or water-breathing races.

Proposed much of that in another thread a few days ago. Including cantrips / Goodberry / Tiny Hut. Also, slower progression (todays level 15 is tomorrow’s level 20 or so)

I doubt any of it will happen, certainly not the darkvision & races or power curve, but pushing the rest further out is fine.


----------



## Reynard

mamba said:


> ok, are we talking about how can we accomplish this for people that like all the micromanagement, *screw everyone else, kind of way* or in a way that also gets other / new players to want to go there?
> 
> Because I feel this is doing the former rather than the latter



I'm not sure why this is a thing. I'm not in charge of 1D&D development, so I'm not trying to "screw" anyone. Also, it seems like you could include these rules -- whatever they might be -- ina  way that didn't "screw" all the players who weren't as big on it. that is what modular design is for -- it makes the game more broadly appealing.

Why do you assume that folks looking for more dungeon crawling rules are out to get you?


----------



## mamba

Reynard said:


> I'm not sure why this is a thing. I'm not in charge of 1D&D development, so I'm not trying to "screw" anyone.



I get that you are not in charge but I assume you would want to see them in 1DD, or are we talking homebrew only? Not according to the title at least…


Reynard said:


> Also, it seems like you could include these rules -- whatever they might be -- ina  way that didn't "screw" all the players who weren't as big on it. that is what modular design is for -- it makes the game more broadly appealing.
> 
> Why do you assume that folks looking for more dungeon crawling rules are out to get you?



I am not saying they are, I am saying they can. This entirely depends on the changes, which is why I was asking. Are we essentially trying to update the 1e rules to 5e or looking for something new. To me a lot of what is mentioned here is leaning towards the former or something even ‘worse’ (Torchbearer was mentioned repeatedly and while I know little of it, that little makes me think it is the king of micromanagement)


----------



## Greg Benage

Reynard said:


> It should go without saying, but I will point it out anyway: there is a different between a dungeon crawl and doing a dungeon in an adventure. A dungeon crawl implies the exploration, survival and resource management are important parts of play.




Okay, I’ll admit, I’d never heard the proper definition of the term “dungeon crawl.” It’s unfortunate because the usual suspects like Wikipedia and TV Tropes led me to think my general understanding of the term was more or less right, but so did more specialized sources like Sly Flourish.

I certainly agree if those game elements are fundamental to a “dungeon crawl,” then you will need those elements in your dungeon-crawl game.

For me, dungeon exploration is about exploring and discovering cool things, putting the pieces together, connecting the dots (or the lines on the map), figuring out how to deal with the denizens and factions…basically uncovering the story of a place (and probably looting it).

I think it’s worth talking about that kind of dungeon exploration in the context of OneD&D, but I can accept that this isn’t the place for it. I’ll admit I kind of addressed the question in your post title and not so much your actual post.


----------



## mamba

Has anyone here tried 'Survivalist's Guide to Spelunking' and has an opinion on it ? Seems the right group to ask 









						Survivalist's Guide to Spelunking - AAW Games | Underworld Adventures | Supplements & Accessories | 5th Edition | DriveThruRPG.com
					

Survivalist's Guide to Spelunking - Explore the Underworld with New York Times Best-Selling author Douglas Niles.  New tools, tables, and rules for 5E.  The




					www.drivethrurpg.com


----------



## Malmuria

Charlaquin said:


> I can assure you there is no risk of “micromanagement” being a thing in 5e again.



Just wait until you have 6 "you can use this a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus per long rest" things on your character sheet!

On that note, I don't totally get the concern over micromanagement.  5e is a game that benefits greatly from having a digital character sheet because there are so many little abilities to track, and its not even really a crunchy game.  Whereas, you can have a game like Mausritter that makes managing inventory, encumbrance, light sources, and treasure a core part of the game loop through a clever, rules lite design.  It's not a question of tracking things per se, but about _what_ we are tracking.  Tracking arrows and torches is not conducive to heroic, high fantasy, where even the necessity of light--one of the the most important things in our real world--is obviated by magic and darkvision.  So when people talk about "modern design," it reads to me as more a preference for telling different kind of stories.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Reynard said:


> I'd love to see a modern version of D&D refocused on dungeon exploration, and with a new revision/spiffying up/half edition/whatever of 5E in One D&D, I wonder what rule tweaks could they do to the 5E chassis to make it work well as a dungeon crawler (as @overgeeked called it)?
> 
> The biggest issues with 5E as a good dungeon crawl game are that the exploration pillar is essentially ignored, especially in regards to resource management and environmental elements (like lighting). I think shoring up some DCs for common exploration tasks as well as upping the use of tables can help. More importantly though would be the curtailing of a lot of spells and class abilities that obviate dungeon exploration challenges. Light should not be a cantrip, for eample.
> 
> Thoughts?



I think if you try and move D&D towards being Torchbearer (making Light a levelled spell, etc.), what you're going to achieve is the exact opposite of "moving D&D back to the dungeon".

If that stuff was interesting to most players, Torchbearer (and similar RPGs, it's hardly the only one), would be indie mega-hits.

They aren't. None of the "We've made dungeons like they were in pre-3E versions of D&D!!!" RPGs are these days. There was a sort of burst of popularity of them with younger Gen Xers and the like in the early-mid 2000s, but that's gone, and it ain't coming back.

You can't make dungeons more popular by trying to turn back the clock, is what I'm saying.

As @Vaalingrade points out, if you want people back in dungeons, you need dungeons to be fun, not punishment palaces. Most players playing D&D today aren't people who either used to, or interested in, carefully tracking resource usage, or fiddling around with light sources or the like. The average D&D player in 2022 is under 30. Many under 25. Very few over 40. The last time D&D was about carefully tracking resource usage and fiddling around with light sources was basically early 2E. You might stretch it to the end of 2E. That's still 22 years ago. A lot of D&D players weren't even born them.

And it's very much an acquired taste, too. I kind of like that sort of thing, for example, but do most of my players in my main group? Not really, and they've been playing since 2E. One of them is like me, and into it, and he owns a lovely copy of Torchbearer. We tried explaining this game to the other players to get them hyped about it. My wife was like "Ok that's interesting" (because she likes a good resource/logistics challenge), and everyone else was like "Uhhh no thanks?". And these are people in their 40s. You think kids in their 20s want that? Again, if so, why don't those games sell?

So let's move away from what won't work, turning back the clock, to what might work - going forwards.

1) Make dungeons interesting and places you might actually want to spend time in.

This means moving away from the old-school "every room has a random different thing it", towards dungeons with various factions in them, dungeons which can change dynamically (I mean in terms of what's happening, rather than physically, but that could be cool too). Rooms and places which you might want to visit more than once. Not just loot n' forget. Places that are distinctive and memorable, not endless blank corridors and 10x20 rooms with matted straw and a couple of orcs in.

2) Make dungeon challenges interesting.

I might like spreadsheeting our rations and torches, but it's very clear most people do not. So that is not the sort of challenge people want. I hate to say it, but I think we need to think more "Crystal Maze" or "Survivor" on this. Challenges which have interesting solutions, often time pressure, and which are fun to resolve.

And not every DM is going to be good at coming up with that stuff, you need a bigass section in the DMG on that. Maybe a sourcebook later.

3) Traps which are LESS about mechanics.

Not more! Less.

Traps which are just a big bundle of mechanics are boring as hell. Especially if they just have a straight defeat DC. Instead we should have more traps with have simple mechanics, but can't be just defeated by rolling dice, but where you need to either:

A) Think about it and come up with a cute solution.

or

B) Do something heroic like flipping between scything blades to reach the off-switch on the other side of them.

What about Rogues? They're one class in 12. Even with an even split of classes the majority of groups don't even have one. They can disarm the boring traps on chests or whatever.

This doesn't mean traps that are hideously difficult to defeat, either. Just ones that are interesting to defeat and which players enjoy having defeated.

4) Dungeons which actually tell stories.

I know people love Soulslikes, but I think we need to go beyond vaguely implied stories here, at least for most groups, into more focused and involved dungeons which have kind of a beginning, middle and end. Where things are learned as you go along. Where you don't get to the last boss and think "Who the hell is this guy and how did he even get here?!?!?!".



Malmuria said:


> Tracking arrows and torches is not conducive to heroic, high fantasy, where even the necessity of light--one of the the most important things in our real world--is obviated by magic and darkvision. So when people talk about "modern design," it reads to me as more a preference for telling different kind of stories.



Absolutely right.

This is what I see why my main group. Me, one other player (who also DMs another group), and my wife kind of like telling stories about logistics and keeping the last torch burning and trying to drag the loot out of the dungeon. The other three (sometimes four)? Nope. They like their PCs being part of interesting stories and doing cool stuff. That can be very grime-y, grubby, low-end stuff, but not like, resource-tracking stuff. They want to solve problems with panache, not practicality, and I totally get that.

And you're right too that even if you do come with more elegant and rules-light systems for that stuff (which I don't think 5E/1D&D could handle), that's still not going to make the concept/style/vibe fundamentally appealling.

(And yes I'm pretty terrified re: tracking like 6 different prof/day abilities, for god's sake WotC, that won't make it to 7E!)


----------



## Bill Zebub

mamba said:


> you can do dungeon crawls in 5e, contrary to what the title indicates.




I interpreted the title to mean that dungeon crawls no longer seem to be the emphasis, not that you “can’t do them”.  I don’t think anybody is claiming you can’t do them.


----------



## mamba

Bill Zebub said:


> I interpreted the title to mean that dungeon crawls no longer seem to be the emphasis, not that you “can’t do them”.  I don’t think anybody is claiming you can’t do them.



fine, I don’t think they should be either. Support them, sure, but they are not that popular and making them ‘Torchbearer light’ will drop interest, not increase it

As was said before a few times, make the dungeon interesting if you want people in it. That to me still is the main point, and rule changes have little to do with that.


----------



## Yaarel

What would get my characters into an underground "dungeon"?

I cant remember the last time I was in a dungeon. Does Vault of the Drow count?

Everything has been in open-air or built-up areas.

In some ways, an office building is not so different from a dungeon. But the office building of some aristocrat tends to make more sense.

There would need to be a good reason to go there into the dungeon.

Why does the dungeon exist? Who paid the obscene amounts of gold to build it?  Who built it? Who owns it? Who uses it? For what? What purpose does each structure have? Does this dungeon feel plausible?

If the goal is to kill creatures there, there needs to be an unavoidable ethical rationale that justifies this, or better yet, a safe and convenient way to carry out nonlethal combat while doing Home Invasion.

A search for an legendary treasure could happen. Perhaps a McGuffin forces characters to capture it. But it is only interesting for one adventure. It would get grindy fast if every adventure was like this.

Stealing treasure from an Undead may or may not be ethical depending on the Undead.

All classes need to function well underground, especially Druid and Ranger.

I hate "low light vision" because it is a pointless ribbon. I strongly prefer normal dayvision and no low light fiddliness. Maybe if low light (dusk?) vision is useful, it would be ok. Something like if any lightsource whatsoever is in line-of-sight (a single star! someone lights a match a mile away!), you see as if in full light of day. That would be easy for a DM to keep track of, and useful enough for a player to bother with.

Zero interest in bookkeeping mundane inventory. Heh, I can do that in reallife. Not every character needs to be MacGyver − and even he only did cool stuff.



I guess the same things that would get me into any adventure would need to be there to get me into a dungeon adventure.


----------



## James Gasik

You know, whenever I hear someone talk about how things used to be, I never fail to be amazed at how different two people's play experience with the same game could be.  For example, people talking about magic being rare, loot being hard to find, or how poking around in the dark in dungeons for long stretches of game, armed with torches and 10' poles.

Now, when I played 1e AD&D, I went on a lot of modules.  Most of which were stuffed with treasure and magic items of varying rarity.  Take _Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh_, as an example.  Levels 1-3, and you can find the following:

3 rare books worth 150 gp each.
3 rings of protection +1.
plate mail +1.
two spellbooks that each contain first and second level spells.
5 potions of healing.
a potion of neutralize poison.
a potion of cure disease.
a potion of speed.
(a cursed potion of delusion too, lol).
a rare book worth 500 gp.'
a collection of gold objects worth 1150 gp.
(a cursed luckstone)
assorted gold and other art objects (like a bracelet worth 75 gp).
a pirate ship worth 5000 gp.*
long sword +1. 
broad sword +1.

*there are some excise duties on some items, granted, but the ship is exempt from these.

The magical swords are of particular note, because of this paragraph from the DMG:




Now, I'm not calling other people's experience invalid- but this is the AD&D I was familiar with, where you dispensed with torches the instant you found your first +1 dagger, and by levels 5-7 you have more +1 weapons than you know what to do with, and treasure was around every corner.

So I'm not really seeing an immeasurable gap with 5e, with the exceptions that it's harder for characters to die when brought to 0 hit points (which I see as a feature, since it means the adventure isn't as likely to come to a screeching halt until new characters can be added to it), and natural healing has a beat up character ready to go after a night's rest, as opposed to two weeks- again a feature, since you can get back to the action.


----------



## Malmuria

James Gasik said:


> For example, people talking about *magic being rare, loot being hard to find*, or how poking around in the dark in dungeons for long stretches of game, armed with torches and 10' poles.




 Magic being rare is a world building assumption.  It means there aren't a bunch of 1st level characters out there being able to innately spam cantrips.  In such a world magic items would be rare too...hence why characters have to risk death to go into dungeons to find them.  Second, finding loot should involve taking risks but, if you take those risks, should be available.  Moldvay I think says that characters should level up every 4 sessions or so...if you play this out this involves the characters getting absurdly rich very quickly (a separate worldbuilding problem).

What is true is that classic dnd is purposefully not balanced.  You could easily get a +1 sword at first level...or that sword could be cursed.  You could find a lot of gold and level up, only to be drained two levels by an undead.  You might feel really powerful with all the potions you got in the last treasure chest, only to fall into a 300' pit trap and die.   The fact that HP recover slowly means they are precious resource.  Effects from poison/curses/etc last until you get back to town.  That unbalanced risk/reward dynamic persists for several levels.



James Gasik said:


> but this is the AD&D I was familiar with, where you dispensed with torches the instant you found your first +1 dagger, and by levels 5-7 you have more +1 weapons than you know what to do with, and treasure was around every corner.



How does having a +1 dagger mean that you don't need torches?


----------



## James Gasik

Malmuria said:


> Magic being rare is a world building assumption.  It means there aren't a bunch of 1st level characters out there being able to innately spam cantrips.  In such a world magic items would be rare too...hence why characters have to risk death to go into dungeons to find them.  Second, finding loot should involve taking risks but, if you take those risks, should be available.  Moldvay I think says that characters should level up every 4 sessions or so...if you play this out this involves the characters getting absurdly rich very quickly (a separate worldbuilding problem).
> 
> What is true is that classic dnd is purposefully not balanced.  You could easily get a +1 sword at first level...or that sword could be cursed.  You could find a lot of gold and level up, only to be drained two levels by an undead.  You might feel really powerful with all the potions you got in the last treasure chest, only to fall into a 300' pit trap and die.   The fact that HP recover slowly means they are precious resource.  Effects from poison/curses/etc last until you get back to town.  That unbalanced risk/reward dynamic persists for several levels.
> 
> 
> How does having a +1 dagger mean that you don't need torches?



I'll post it again.



All magic daggers shed light when drawn, as per the DMG.

EDIT: That's what I get for not doing research, I forgot daggers were only 10' of light.  I know at some point light generation was improved, but that apparently was 3e, where 30% of magic weapons shed 20' of bright light and 40' of dim light.  Oops!

Though I guess you could wrap one to a 10' pole to see 20' ahead, lol.


----------



## Greg Benage

Malmuria said:


> How does having a +1 dagger mean that you don't need torches?



It might be an exaggeration, since the radius of illumination is only 10 feet for a dagger, and the torches are likely to be useful for other things. But it's clear that the "dungeon survival" aspects of the game go away at a fairly low level. The magic-user has access to _continual light_ at 3rd level, if the party isn't already festooned with magical light sources. You can "world-build" to change that, but the TSR module authors didn't and no one I played with back in the day did either.

The OSR brought those low-level dungeon survival elements back to the forefront, but even then, the "Old School Primer" contemplates the changing dynamic explicitly: "In lower level adventures, food and light sources can be the key to success or failure of an expedition (remember, 0e is about the little guy)" but "higher level adventures shouldn't be about declining food and light sources, they should be about declining hit points and spells."


----------



## James Gasik

Greg Benage said:


> It might be an exaggeration, since the radius of illumination is only 10 feet for a dagger, and the torches are likely to be useful for other things. But it's clear that the "dungeon survival" aspects of the game go away at a fairly low level. The magic-user has access to _continual light_ at 3rd level, if the party isn't already festooned with magical light sources. You can "world-build" to change that, but the TSR module authors didn't and no one I played with back in the day did either.
> 
> The OSR brought those low-level dungeon survival elements back to the forefront, but even then, the "Old School Primer" contemplates the changing dynamic explicitly: "In lower level adventures, food and light sources can be the key to success or failure of an expedition (remember, 0e is about the little guy)" but "higher level adventures shouldn't be about declining food and light sources, they should be about declining hit points and spells."



No I saw "sheds light" and didn't bother to check the PHB, so I assumed "as the spell", but that's a 3e-ism.

Now how about tying a +1 dagger to the end of a 10' pole?  LOL.


----------



## Clint_L

As far as I am aware, every single adventure published by WotC includes significant dungeon content. How much more "back to the dungeon" can the game go?

That said, having recently played through White Plume Mountain again, I am always up for another really good dungeon adventure, so I guess my answer to the OP would be "publish more good stuff like that." I don't think tinkering with the rules in order to enforce a particular play style is the answer.

Edit: thinking more about what made White Plume Mountain fun, but also something I wouldn't do too often, a lot of it comes down to the lack of story. It's almost entirely tactical, so that meant that as a DM it was kind of like taking a break. I got to role-play some fun monsters, but a lot of the time I was just sitting there being entertained by the players' wacky attempts to solve traps and puzzles. Did I really have to worry too much about what the vampire was doing here and the Efreeti there? Nah. Now, I don't want to do a whole campaign like that - I like long-form storytelling. But a good dungeon crawl certainly has its moments!


----------



## Greg Benage

James Gasik said:


> Now how about tying a +1 dagger to the end of a 10' pole? LOL.



My arcane trickster had a coin on a string that he would cast _light_ on when he used his _cloak of the bat_ so as to be in dim rather than bright light.


----------



## Malmuria

5e characters just have more tools on their character sheet to obviate the kind of challenges that face PCs in classic-era editions.  The light cantrip gives perpetual hands-free light for 40', and can be cast on objects (a coin thrown down a pit, for example (or carried by an invisible flying warlock familiar)), and does not require a spell slot.  That plus darkvision means that the characters have a lot of resources to address mundane issues.  Same with finding enough to eat, or resting to recover hp and abilities.  Which is fine...it means the game moves from heroic to superheroic, and does so quicker and starting at first level.  But if you wanted to add in more mundane survival based elements you'll have to start making house rules.


----------



## Greg Benage

Malmuria said:


> Which is fine...it means the game moves from heroic to superheroic, and does so quicker and starting at first level.



I agree with this. The dungeon survival elements start to fade around 3rd level in AD&D, but they're mostly absent from the jump in 5e.


----------



## Malmuria

Greg Benage said:


> I agree with this. The dungeon survival elements start to fade around 3rd level in AD&D, but they're mostly absent from the jump in 5e.



I think levels 4-7 is when you can start adding in wilderness/hex-crawl survival elements


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Greg Benage said:


> The magic-user has access to _continual light_ at 3rd level, if the party isn't already festooned with magical light sources. You can "world-build" to change that, but the TSR module authors didn't and no one I played with back in the day did either.



Yeah seriously. You can't even stop them by not putting it in a spellbook if there's a generic Cleric or Speciality Priest with Sun sphere in the party. We realized how good it was after playing 2E for like, I dunno, 3 months and from then on every PC had multiple Continual Light objects about their person (often in thick cloth so they could be hidden).

TSR's 2E Forgotten Realms worldbuilders actually leaned into it - loads of FR cities were lit by Continual Light and "glowglobes" were everywhere (not the same as driftglobes, note).


----------



## Greg Benage

Malmuria said:


> I think levels 4-7 is when you can start adding in wilderness/hex-crawl survival elements



I guess, but even then, it seems like characters have sufficient resources just on the spell lists that the "survival" elements are rather undermined, at least compared to the dungeon survival elements in low-level classic D&D. You can always trade spell slot(s) for food and water, for example, which I suppose is the point of the Old-School Primer quote.


----------



## Malmuria

Greg Benage said:


> I guess, but even then, it seems like characters have sufficient resources just on the spell lists that the "survival" elements are rather undermined, at least compared to the dungeon survival elements in low-level classic D&D. You can always trade spell slot(s) for food and water, for example, which I suppose is the point of the Old-School Primer quote.



I think the idea is that you wouldn't just be eating for one, but have to manage a whole caravan: mules, horses, hirelings, etc. But even without that, levels 1-4 probably last longer in classic dnd, both because of slower leveling and character death (and level drain, maybe).  I would agree, however, that most dnd-style games do the dungeon-crawling playstyle best at low levels, to the point that some newer games do away with levels all together.


----------



## Reynard

I like the image of the strobe light effect while a party who's [nly light sources are magic weapons engage the enemy.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Reynard said:


> I like the image of the strobe light effect while a party who's [nly light sources are magic weapons engage the enemy.



The thing is it puts out 60' radius light that is "bright as full daylight" in 2E.

So the sheer amount of reflected light from multiple people with weapons like that, bouncing off walls, floors, ceilings, each other, and so on would mean there probably wasn't much of a strobe/jumping shadows effect unless you were in an extremely wide-open area (outdoors or in a truly massive cavern).

But it would look weird as hell, that's for sure.

I'm sure we'll see something similar in a videogame, sooner or later.


----------



## tetrasodium

James Gasik said:


> I'll post it again.
> View attachment 270778
> All magic daggers shed light when drawn, as per the DMG.
> 
> EDIT: That's what I get for not doing research, I forgot daggers were only 10' of light.  I know at some point light generation was improved, but that apparently was 3e, where 30% of magic weapons shed 20' of bright light and 40' of dim light.  Oops!
> 
> Though I guess you could wrap one to a 10' pole to see 20' ahead, lol.



Optional rules are optional.  Also scales changed in 3.x.  It went from one inch to ten fee to one one inch to five feet‡.  2e PHB PG155 reads:  "Weapon**  *5* ft.  As desired
** _Magical weapons shed light if your DM allows this *optional *rule_"

Given that it was 1inch squares=10ft* having a 5ft lightsource is like using a  candle to see with & was literally the same value as a _candle_ on that same table. You are really overselling those free candle equivalents.
*sometimes _yards_.

‡ good discussion on that here


----------



## reelo

James Gasik said:


> So I'm not really seeing an immeasurable gap with 5e, with the exceptions that it's harder for characters to die when brought to 0 hit points (which I see as a feature, since it means the adventure isn't as likely to come to a screeching halt until new characters can be added to it), and natural healing has a beat up character ready to go after a night's rest, as opposed to two weeks- again a feature, since you can get back to the action.




Both of these things can easily be mitigated if the party includes hirelings/retainers: if your character dies, the torchbearer gets "promoted" to PC.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Incenjucar said:


> 2nd level, and can be cast thirty years ago.



Depends on the class. It was on a different level for clerics and magic users.
But yes. You cast it. Put it in a box and open it whenever necessary.


----------



## Bill Zebub

James Gasik said:


> Now how about tying a +1 dagger to the end of a 10' pole?  LOL.




No, you tie it to a 20' rope and swing it in a circle over your head.

But not if you are the only halfling in the party.


----------



## Starfox

In the spirit of the thread's origin, one thing I feel makes a game more dungeon-crawling is to emphasize the loot. In 1E you got xp from gold, which made the game very objective-oriented. You did not want to fight monsters, you wanted to steal their gold, preferably without them noticing. Heist-style play. I thing this is a great angle for dungeons - but perhaps not one where tracking water supplies is what matters.


James Gasik said:


> How, exactly, is darkvision so problematic, when it imposes disadvantage on perception (and -5 to passive perception)?  To see better than this, you still need a light source in 5e.



If everyone interpreted dim light like you do, I would see no problem. But in a level of light that does not in itself let people use Stealth (it merely disadvantages Perception), I see dim light as murk rather than almost darkness. However, your reading, with appropriate penalties in dim light, is almost the same as how I read darkness, so we sort of agree there.




Manbearcat said:


> Alright, so to the main point of the post.  What would I do if I were to try to project doing something like Torchbearer-ifying 5e D&D for One D&D:
> ...
> 
> I would start with that and see how it fares.  It would need a lot of work and a lot of stress-testing to get it right.



To me, this is a dungeon survival boardgame, not a role-playing game. Which is my general issue with procedural games like Mouse Guard (the only game of this type I actually played). To me these are games where you manipulates elements of game mechanics rather than role-playing games. Different takes for different folks.


Clint_L said:


> thinking more about what made White Plume Mountain fun, but also something I wouldn't do too often, a lot of it comes down to the lack of story.



The story was not at all obvious in the older adventures. I recalling meeting the vampire in Lost Caves of Tsojcant and admiring the armor, but not knowing or caring who wore it. It didn't matter, just smite.

I feel this has improved vastly, and much of this was Paizo's Dungeon Magazine's doing. They made adventures where the plot was easily accessible and mattered, and set the style for many adventures.


----------



## Manbearcat

Starfox said:


> To me, this is a dungeon survival boardgame, not a role-playing game. Which is my general issue with procedural games like Mouse Guard (the only game of this type I actually played). To me these are games where you manipulates elements of game mechanics rather than role-playing games. Different takes for different folks.




I don't quite understand how you arrive at this position.

If you played Mouse Guard like that...you were playing it in a way that is outside of not just the spirit of the game, but the actual procedures of the game.  Same thing with Torchbearer.

The fiction matters DEEPLY to resolution in these games.  You don't get to ignore that fiction whether you're a GM framing an obstacle/problem area or creating a Twist in a Mission in Mouse Guard or a Journey/Adventure in Torchbearer.  You don't get to ignore that fiction if you're counting up Factors to determine the Obstacle Rating for a Test.  You don't get to ignore that fiction if you're a player (d) orienting yourself to the obstacle/problem area before you, (b) rummaging through your decision-space to ultimately determine what resources you can bring to bear here and what Skill you're going to Test (and if you can tap Nature or use a Trait etc), or (c) the downstream consequences of your resolved actions (the new fiction fiction/gamestate, your ticks on Advancement, if you've fought for or struggled with your Belief, etc).

Just like in D&D...you know what...MORESO than in D&D, the fiction matters.  Why?  Because the consequences in these games of a fiction evolved in an adversarial way (with an attendant negative gamestate evolution) to your character has MUCH_MORE_TEETH than in D&D.

Consequences in the bulk of D&D are comparatively much more color and performative than they are in Mouse Guard and CERTAINLY MORE in Torchbearer.  Fictional outputs often create significant if not dire changes to characters and the crucible (setting, situation, story) in which they are being tested.

Fundamentally disagree...and I don't even know how you could arrive at such a conclusion to be honest.

EDIT - Question for you and for anyone else who is interested in replying.

When you make the claim "you manipulate game mechanics rather than <play a> roleplaying game" (eg _the fiction doesn't matter as an input to action declaration and resolution and subsequent fiction/gamestate_) are you saying something like this:

*The GM's fiction (their preconceived ideas on setting and/or metaplot or an AP) doesn't have primacy in the trajectory of play (including the authority to suspend rules and impose desired outcomes if the GM feels its more conducive to a "good story") and/or the player's performative color/flourishes aren't their own primary input?  Put another way, the formulation is:

GM provides story/setting

Players provide color and performative flourish.*


----------



## Bill Zebub

Manbearcat said:


> I don't quite understand how you arrive at this position.
> 
> If you played Mouse Guard like that...you were playing it in a way that is outside of not just the spirit of the game, but the actual procedures of the game.  Same thing with Torchbearer.
> 
> The fiction matters DEEPLY to resolution in these games.  You don't get to ignore that fiction whether you're a GM framing an obstacle/problem area or creating a Twist in a Mission in Mouse Guard or a Journey/Adventure in Torchbearer.  You don't get to ignore that fiction if you're counting up Factors to determine the Obstacle Rating for a Test.  You don't get to ignore that fiction if you're a player (d) orienting yourself to the obstacle/problem area before you, (b) rummaging through your decision-space to ultimately determine what resources you can bring to bear here and what Skill you're going to Test (and if you can tap Nature or use a Trait etc), or (c) the downstream consequences of your resolved actions (the new fiction fiction/gamestate, your ticks on Advancement, if you've fought for or struggled with your Belief, etc).
> 
> Just like in D&D...you know what...MORESO than in D&D, the fiction matters.  Why?  Because the consequences in these games of a fiction evolved in an adversarial way (with an attendant negative gamestate evolution) to your character has MUCH_MORE_TEETH than in D&D.
> 
> Consequences in the bulk of D&D are comparatively much more color and performative than they are in Mouse Guard and CERTAINLY MORE in Torchbearer.  Fictional outputs often create significant if not dire changes to characters and the crucible (setting, situation, story) in which they are being tested.
> 
> Fundamentally disagree...and I don't even know how you could arrive at such a conclusion to be honest.
> 
> EDIT - Question for you and for anyone else who is interested in replying.
> 
> When you make the claim "you manipulate game mechanics rather than <play a> roleplaying game" (eg _the fiction doesn't matter as an input to action declaration and resolution and subsequent fiction/gamestate_) are you saying something like this:
> 
> *The GM's fiction (their preconceived ideas on setting and/or metaplot or an AP) doesn't have primacy in the trajectory of play (including the authority to suspend rules and impose desired outcomes if the GM feels its more conducive to a "good story") and/or the player's performative color/flourishes aren't their own primary input?  Put another way, the formulation is:
> 
> GM provides story/setting
> 
> Players provide color and performative flourish.*




As you know, I’ve read, and appreciated, what you and others have taken the time to explain about Mouseguard/Torchbearer. And  I appreciate the elegance of the design.

And yet I also sympathize somewhat with that poster’s position. Not that MG/TB/BW aren’t roleplaying, but they are a very different kind of roleplaying. So much so that I can see how somebody who had only been exposed to one form or the other would say, “That’s not roleplaying!”

In the same way that music fans have, over the years, said the same thing about new music forms. 

Doesn’t mean they are _right_, but it’s an understandable reaction.


----------



## pemerton

Starfox said:


> To me, this is a dungeon survival boardgame, not a role-playing game. Which is my general issue with procedural games like Mouse Guard (the only game of this type I actually played). To me these are games where you manipulates elements of game mechanics rather than role-playing games. Different takes for different folks.





Bill Zebub said:


> As you know, I’ve read, and appreciated, what you and others have taken the time to explain about Mouseguard/Torchbearer. And  I appreciate the elegance of the design.
> 
> And yet I also sympathize somewhat with that poster’s position. Not that MG/TB/BW aren’t roleplaying, but they are a very different kind of roleplaying. So much so that I can see how somebody who had only been exposed to one form or the other would say, “That’s not roleplaying!”



I don't sympathise at all, to be honest. I think it's absurd to describe my Torchbearer play as a dungeon-survival wargame. The fiction has more potency, the characters more vibrancy, and the situations more drama than any of the 2nd ed AD&D RPGing I did in the 90s that absolutely fits the "trad" model that I assume Starfox has in mind when they think of a RPG.

Here's my most recent AP report: Torchbearer 2e - actual play of this AWESOME system! (+)

How is that not an utterly straightforward instance of RPGing?


----------



## Bill Zebub

pemerton said:


> I don't sympathise at all, to be honest. I think it's absurd to describe my Torchbearer play as a dungeon-survival wargame. The fiction has more potency, the characters more vibrancy, and the situations more drama than any of the 2nd ed AD&D RPGing I did in the 90s that absolutely fits the "trad" model that I assume Starfox has in mind when they think of a RPG.
> 
> Here's my most recent AP report: Torchbearer 2e - actual play of this AWESOME system! (+)
> 
> How is that not an utterly straightforward instance of RPGing?




Lots of people thought jazz wasn’t music at first, when in many ways it was (is) more sophisticated than what preceded it.

That’s all I was saying.

(And I suspect that poster didn’t read your thread.)


----------



## Starfox

In Mouse Guard the optional way to advance was to succeed at a number of tests and to fail a somewhat smaller number of tests. As a player, you had an incentive to fail. That is gameism to the level of a boardgame to me.

Then again, 4E was a boardgame to me as well.

As I said , different takes for different folks.

Edit: Browsed the first post in your link, it reads like most any RPG session, perhaps with more rolls than I would  have used. I don't see any impact of the rules to either help or hinder role-playing.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Starfox said:


> In Mouse Guard the optional way to advance was to succeed at a number of tests and to fail a somewhat smaller number of tests. As a player, you had an incentive to fail. That is gameism to the level of a boardgame to me.



In real life it's a well-recorded fact that people learn more from failure than success, so how was that possibly game-ist? If anything rewarding people for success is pure game-ism.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Starfox said:


> In Mouse Guard the optional way to advance was to succeed at a number of tests and to fail a somewhat smaller number of tests. As a player, you had an incentive to fail. That is gameism to the level of a boardgame to me.
> 
> Then again, 4E was a boardgame to me as well.
> 
> As I said , different takes for different folks.
> 
> Edit: Browsed the first post in your link, it reads like most any RPG session, perhaps with more rolls than I would  have used. I don't see any impact of the rules to either help or hinder role-playing.




My understanding, from that thread, and from reading Mouse Guard (which I own) the mechanics tie into the roleplaying more than in a game like D&D.  For example, in D&D you can say your character is fearless, and has a strong relationship with his mentor, but roleplaying that is entirely a matter of choice, both yours and the DMs (who may or may not provide "hooks" into that story.). In Torchbearer and Mouse Guard, on the other hand, those characteristics become part of the mechanics of your character.

Which is one reason you see a lot of dice rolling in the description: in D&D you just narrate going to see your mentor, and the DM just decides if that leads to anything interesting, or _maybe_ the DM will ask you to make a dice roll with a DC and consequences that he/she has made up on the spot. In TB/MG you roll dice, in a pretty pre-defined way, to see what happens as a result of that visit.  (I'm hoping I got that right.  Others can correct that description.)

EDIT: And I can see why, if you're used to "just roleplaying" those kinds of encounters, it can be seem weird and board-gamey to roll dice. But I don't think that's really the case. 

While I admire this from a design perspective, it doesn't actually appeal to me (although I'd love to try it with an experienced GM).  So far, for the last several decades, I've been quite happy with separating RP and mechanics.  That may very well be a less sophisticated form of RPGing, but I'm ok with that.

Then again, I've also never really understand the appeal of jazz music.


----------



## Clint_L

Starfox said:


> In 1E you got xp from gold, which made the game very objective-oriented. You did not want to fight monsters, you wanted to steal their gold, preferably without them noticing. Heist-style play.



This is such a myth about 1e. None of the 1e modules were written like that, as far as I can recall, and I never heard of any campaigns that played like that, either. In 1e, you almost always got the loot by killing monsters. Typical sessions had a lot more combat and a lot less story than 5e, because RPGs in general have evolved to be more story focused.

I think a YouTuber who was way too young to play AD&D noticed that you got most of your EXP from treasure in it, which is true, and then deduced that therefore people must have logically tried to avoid monsters and just made the game about treasure, which is not true at all. Killing the monsters was its own reward...and almost always the best way to get the loot.

Get people back to the dungeon by making really good dungeon adventures. The game has become much more setting agnostic, but there is always room for a great dungeon!

If you build it, they will come.


----------



## pemerton

Starfox said:


> In Mouse Guard the optional way to advance was to succeed at a number of tests and to fail a somewhat smaller number of tests. As a player, you had an incentive to fail. That is gameism to the level of a boardgame to me.



Does this mean that classic D&D, in which the only way to advance your character is to take gold out of the dungeon and to kill monsters, is not a RPG?

I have neither read nor played Mouse Guard, but Torchbearer deliberately sets out to emulate classic D&D.


----------



## Starfox

I won't argue matters of taste - the bottom line is different takes for different folks.


----------



## Starfox

Ruin Explorer said:


> In real life it's a well-recorded fact that people learn more from failure than success, so how was that possibly game-ist? If anything rewarding people for success is pure game-ism.



What makes this gameist is that your motivation is that of the player, not the character. The character wants to succeed, but the player wishes their own character to first fail and only then succeed. The player's role goes from protagonist to author and the game is third person instead of first person. This can happen in any game, but having game mechanics actually reward it is IMO to go too far. It might work both from a gameist and simulationist perspective, but makes a poor narrative.

Since I already failed my resolve as set in my previous post I might as well talk about the other thing that annoyed me in Mouse Guard. More advanced conflicts are resolved in a rock-paper-scissors game where you play multiple rounds. You basically always take at least a little "damage" in this game. Final success is determined by how little damage you have taken at the end. This is achieved by playing a rest-type move in the game in your penultimate move. The task as a player is to clothe this in narrative language. That is, the rules drive the narrative rather than the narrative using the rules to drive the action. Also gamist IMNSHO.  

These are first impressions after one session and subsequently reading the rules. I would not mind trying out Mouse Guard (et al) more to see if these first impressions hold, and this might not be true in similar games like Torchbearer.

No set of game rules can really prevent role-playing. Little kids can role-play the boot in Monopoly. What rules can do is formalize role-play. My  first experience of this was in Pendragon, and I was charmed, especially by passions and inspiration. But after several years of play and introducing a magic system, we left Pendragon behind - we had learned to game the system and the personality traits got to the point where they feel childish. Reading Permeton's log from Torchbearer, I got similar wibes, particularily when Fea-bella read the cursed summoning runes. Then she made a Will check to stop reading. This is where I frown. In a narrative game, it ought to be Fea-bella's player who decides how far to play her obsession. I don't hate that this was decided by a die roll, but it seems like a lost narrative opportunity. I love it when players make self-destructive decisions like this, playing their characters to the hilt - but I would try to avoid having the rules force it on them.

I may use the terms gamist, narrative, simulationist here, but I do so as common language, not in the NTS sense that I never agreed with. I strive to explain my opinions here, not to convince anyone else. Again, different takes for different folks, and that is how it should be. Also, I feel this has become a threadnap, so I think we should call it a day on this subtopic or create a new thread.


----------



## James Gasik

Starfox said:


> What makes this gameist is that your motivation is that of the player, not the character. The character wants to succeed, but the player wishes their own character to first fail and only then succeed. The player's role goes from protagonist to author and the game is third person instead of first person. This can happen in any game, but having game mechanics actually reward it is IMO to go too far. It might work both from a gameist and simulationist perspective, but makes a poor narrative.
> 
> Since I already failed my resolve as set in my previous post I might as well talk about the other thing that annoyed me in Mouse Guard. More advanced conflicts are resolved in a rock-paper-scissors game where you play multiple rounds. You basically always take at least a little "damage" in this game. Final success is determined by how little damage you have taken at the end. This is achieved by playing a rest-type move in the game in your penultimate move. The task as a player is to clothe this in narrative language. That is, the rules drive the narrative rather than the narrative using the rules to drive the action. Also gamist IMNSHO.
> 
> These are first impressions after one session and subsequently reading the rules. I would not mind trying out Mouse Guard (et al) more to see if these first impressions hold, and this might not be true in similar games like Torchbearer.
> 
> No set of game rules can really prevent role-playing. Little kids can role-play the boot in Monopoly. What rules can do is formalize role-play. My  first experience of this was in Pendragon, and I was charmed, especially by passions and inspiration. But after several years of play and introducing a magic system, we left Pendragon behind - we had learned to game the system and the personality traits got to the point where they feel childish. Reading Permeton's log from Torchbearer, I got similar wibes, particularily when Fea-bella read the cursed summoning runes. Then she made a Will check to stop reading. This is where I frown. In a narrative game, it ought to be Fea-bella's player who decides how far to play her obsession. I don't hate that this was decided by a die roll, but it seems like a lost narrative opportunity. I love it when players make self-destructive decisions like this, playing their characters to the hilt - but I would try to avoid having the rules force it on them.
> 
> I may use the terms gamist, narrative, simulationist here, but I do so as common language, not in the NTS sense that I never agreed with. I strive to explain my opinions here, not to convince anyone else. Again, different takes for different folks, and that is how it should be. Also, I feel this has become a threadnap, so I think we should call it a day on this subtopic or create a new thread.



It's funny how some games do feel the need to have a hard rule to keep players roleplaying appropriately.  Vampire the Masquerade can saddle you with a weakness (or you can saddle yourself with a Flaw) that enforces behavior like this.  Ideally, sure, the player should roleplay these traits, but if one can resist the urge to press a red, shiny, candy-like button, when is it appropriate to do so?

A person with an obsession isn't necessarily ruled by it 24-7; they may have the willpower to resist or control their urges.  If we leave this entirely up to the player, then when do you cry foul?

Let's assume we have a kleptomaniac.  Do we cry foul if they are always stealing things?  "I just have poor impulse control!"

Do we cry foul if they only steal irrelevant things?  "Come on, I'm not suicidal, I'm not going to pickpocket Emirikol the Chaotic, he's been known to _magic missile_ people that look at him funny!"

Rather than avoid any arguments about when it is or is not "kosher" to resist one's urges, or try to police someone's roleplay, perhaps a die roll to resist is the most fair solution.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Starfox said:


> What makes this gameist is that your motivation is that of the player, not the character. The character wants to succeed, but the player wishes their own character to first fail and only then succeed.



I've played dozens of sessions of a game with a mechanic were you gain like 70% of your XP from failure (Dungeon World) and this is absolutely false.

The players want their actions to succeed. That they get XP on a fail it's a consolation prize, not a desired result. Half the time they forget to even mark it! So the idea that they're preferring to fail is pretty funny.

You're talking about it like it's a videogame where you get infinite tries with no consequences. In most games which give XP on a fail, if you fail a roll it's bad - sometimes really bad.


----------



## pemerton

James Gasik said:


> It's funny how some games do feel the need to have a hard rule to keep players roleplaying appropriately.  Vampire the Masquerade can saddle you with a weakness (or you can saddle yourself with a Flaw) that enforces behavior like this.  Ideally, sure, the player should roleplay these traits, but if one can resist the urge to press a red, shiny, candy-like button, when is it appropriate to do so?
> 
> A person with an obsession isn't necessarily ruled by it 24-7; they may have the willpower to resist or control their urges.  If we leave this entirely up to the player, then when do you cry foul?
> 
> Let's assume we have a kleptomaniac.  Do we cry foul if they are always stealing things?  "I just have poor impulse control!"
> 
> Do we cry foul if they only steal irrelevant things?  "Come on, I'm not suicidal, I'm not going to pickpocket Emirikol the Chaotic, he's been known to _magic missile_ people that look at him funny!"
> 
> Rather than avoid any arguments about when it is or is not "kosher" to resist one's urges, or try to police someone's roleplay, perhaps a die roll to resist is the most fair solution.



The Dying Earth uses a Resistance attribute. (But attributes in that game are different from, say, a D&D save - you can keep spending down your attribute pool to take rerolls, until your pool is empty. Each attribute has its own fiction-based criteria for refreshing the pool.)



Starfox said:


> Reading Permeton's log from Torchbearer, I got similar wibes, particularily when Fea-bella read the cursed summoning runes. Then she made a Will check to stop reading. This is where I frown. In a narrative game, it ought to be Fea-bella's player who decides how far to play her obsession.



What obsession?

Fea-bella was able to read the runes without taking a turn, in virtue of her Instinct. This is somewhat analogous to the way a 5e rogue/thief can perform various actions as bonus rather than normal actions (Hiding, Sleight of Hand, etc) - I've never heard these called "obsessions" before, as opposed to say "knacks" or "skill tricks". The Will test was to avoid the ensorcelled runes that compel someone to read them. I lifted the trap from an ICE MERP module - in that system it will have been a Resistance Roll, probably based on either EM or PR. In classic D&D it would be a save vs Spells.

Fea-bella's Belief is the result of being cursed by a possessed Elfstone - her Belief is that the stone must be protected. Unfortunately it is currently lost - stolen! Fea-bella's player chose to act on this Belief by trying to bend the seeing throne to her will. The failure to do so is what led to her falling unconscious and hence being dragged off by aptr-gangrs.


----------



## pemerton

Ruin Explorer said:


> I've played dozens of sessions of a game with a mechanic were you gain like 70% of your XP from failure (Dungeon World) and this is absolutely false.
> 
> The players want their actions to succeed.



The same thing is true in Torchbearer play, as I've experienced it.

The fact that a failed test can help advancement encourages players to take risks rather than play it safe - this is not about substituting player for character motivation but rather supporting an overall "adventurous" and even slightly gonzo approach to play, rather than turtling and doing nothing which is a known risk in dungeon-crawl RPGing.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

pemerton said:


> The same thing is true in Torchbearer play, as I've experienced it.
> 
> The fact that a failed test can help advancement encourages players to take risks rather than play it safe - this is not about substituting player for character motivation but rather supporting an overall "adventurous" and even slightly gonzo approach to play, rather than turtling and doing nothing which is a known risk in dungeon-crawl RPGing.



Yeah. To be fair I don't think it would work with something like 5E/1D&D unless you had a DM who really leaned extremely hard into "don't roll unless there are consequences" (like, far, far harder than I've ever seen a DM lean into it IRL or on video, though I've Actual Plays where they did go that hard). With Dungeon World and similar it works so well because every action has consequences because of the soft/hard GM move system


----------



## pemerton

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah. To be fair I don't think it would work with something like 5E/1D&D unless you had a DM who really leaned extremely hard into "don't roll unless there are consequences" (like, far, far harder than I've ever seen a DM lean into it IRL or on video, though I've Actual Plays where they did go that hard). With Dungeon World and similar it works so well because every action has consequences because of the soft/hard GM move system



This takes us back to the notorious "two diagrams" from John Harper!


----------



## Ruin Explorer

pemerton said:


> This takes us back to the notorious "two diagrams" from John Harper!



I'm not actually familiar with those and internet is profoundly failing to show me them. Got any links?


----------



## pemerton

Ruin Explorer said:


> I'm not actually familiar with those and internet is profoundly failing to show me them. Got any links?



Here's a post about them:


pemerton said:


> Upthread @Campbell linked to the following two diagrams, that set out (at a certain level of abstraction) two contrasting approaches to play:
> 
> View attachment 249616View attachment 249617
> The one on the left is "story now" RPGing. The one on the right is "traditional" RPGing.
> 
> To say that _5e D&D has many tools and techniques the GM can deploy to accomplish moving the story forward_ is to say that 5e D&D follows the right-hand diagram.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Conversely, Apocalypse World and Burning Wheel don't just have _processes a GM uses to keep the story moving forward_. They have processes that the table uses to keep events in motion. Those processes tell various participants to say various things under various constraints at various times. They are not just addressed to the GM. The tell us when a situation resolves _without anyone having to decide, of their own motion, that it does_.
> 
> This doesn't really have very much to do with uniformity of resolution system. Burning Wheel doesn't use uniform resolution systems: Steel is different from Resources is different from Circles is different from Wises is different from Duel of Wits is different from Fight! is different from Range and Cover is different from making a Climbing check to see if you can escape by climbing a tree. Classic Traveller doesn't use uniform resolution systems: the Streetwise subsystem is different from the vacc suit subsystem is different from the travelling-from-system-to-system subsystem is different from the evasion-in-a-small-craft subsystem, just to call out a few, but they are all conflict resolution systems. They all tell us when a situation resolves.



The RH diagram illustrates your point - that when resolution (eg rolling the dice for a check) is disconnected from consequences, with the GM-as-glue that sometimes brings them together, then a roll => consequences + advancement mechanic won't work so well.


----------



## Starfox

pemerton said:


> The fact that a failed test can help advancement encourages players to take risks rather than play it safe - this is not about substituting player for character motivation but rather supporting an overall "adventurous" and even slightly gonzo approach to play, rather than turtling and doing nothing which is a known risk in dungeon-crawl RPGing.



I agree this is a good thing. Fail-forward and making failed rolls not catastrophic is important in all styles of RPGs to avoid turtling down. An experienced GM can use such forgiving techniques to encourage players to take chances. What Torchbearer seems to do (from how you describe it) is to formalize and structure this, giving guiderails to both players and GMs. I admit this can be a good thing, but there are other ways to achieve this.

What I am trying to say is that Torchbearer (et al) can help produce a flow in the action, which can be harder (but not impossible) to do without such a rule structure. This comes at the cost of some additional mechanics that sometimes force player or GM actions. If this is a net plus is a matter of taste.

Different takes for different folks.


----------



## pemerton

Starfox said:


> I agree this is a good thing. Fail-forward and making failed rolls not catastrophic is important in all styles of RPGs to avoid turtling down. An experienced GM can use such forgiving techniques to encourage players to take chances. What Torchbearer seems to do (from how you describe it) is to formalize and structure this, giving guiderails to both players and GMs. I admit this can be a good thing, but there are other ways to achieve this.



This is John Harper's two diagrams: does following the game procedures ensure that the situation resolves (in Torchbearer the answer is "yes"); or does following the game procedures leave the question of whether or not the situation resolves unsettled, with the GM enjoying an express or implicit permission to decide one way or another.

@Manbearcat was getting at this contrast upthread when he posted:



Manbearcat said:


> When you make the claim "you manipulate game mechanics rather than <play a> roleplaying game" (eg _the fiction doesn't matter as an input to action declaration and resolution and subsequent fiction/gamestate_) are you saying something like this:
> 
> *The GM's fiction (their preconceived ideas on setting and/or metaplot or an AP) doesn't have primacy in the trajectory of play (including the authority to suspend rules and impose desired outcomes if the GM feels its more conducive to a "good story") and/or the player's performative color/flourishes aren't their own primary input?  Put another way, the formulation is:
> 
> GM provides story/setting
> 
> Players provide color and performative flourish.*



The bit I've italicised is the LH diagram. The bit I've underlined is the RH diagram.



Starfox said:


> What I am trying to say is that Torchbearer (et al) can help produce a flow in the action, which can be harder (but not impossible) to do without such a rule structure. This comes at the cost of some additional mechanics that sometimes force player or GM actions. If this is a net plus is a matter of taste.



Well, all mechanics sometimes force player actions - if the 5e GM says to the players "roll initiative" or "make a saving throw", the players don't have the authority to express a preference not to do so.

But Torchbearer's systems also constrain the GM, in a variety of significant ways. This is how it ensures that rolls resolve situations, which as has been discussed over the past handful of posts is what makes its advancement system work.

Those constraints on the GM also relate back to an earlier Manbearcat post in this this thread:


Manbearcat said:


> By my reckoning, there are four types of "crawls":
> 
> 1)  The kind I posted about prior that features tight systemization and procedures that exert extreme and consistent downward pressure on the "crawlers" toward a Skilled Play paradigm, decision-point-intensiveness around a myriad of both discrete and converging parts.   Moldvay Basic and Torchbearer are the exemplars here.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 2)  A heavily GM-directed experience where the crawl features free play, serial exploration and is more about performative aspects, ephemera (map and key and boxed text and possibly handouts), mood, tone, aesthetic than what (1) is about.  GM's extrapolate their conception of the dungeon ecology and they play their mental model of the simulation while players try to suss out the GM's mental model while immersing themselves in all the stuff in that first sentence.
> 
> <snip 3 and 4>



The constraints on the GM are what makes Torchbearer type 1 rather than type 2.


----------



## Starfox

At this point I am trying to not be adversarial, just to understand.


pemerton said:


> Well, all mechanics sometimes force player actions - if the 5e GM says to the players "roll initiative" or "make a saving throw", the players don't have the authority to express a preference not to do so.



What I mean when I say "force action" is that the rules compel choices. Initiative rolls generally do not involve choices. Failed willpower rolls to stop reading an inscription do.

Edit: Forcing the GM - more on that below.

@Permeton refered to a post by @Manbearcat, I quote the original post directly.


Manbearcat said:


> When you make the claim "you manipulate game mechanics rather than <play a> roleplaying game" (eg _the fiction doesn't matter as an input to action declaration and resolution and subsequent fiction/gamestate_) are you saying something like this:
> 
> *The GM's fiction (their preconceived ideas on setting and/or metaplot or an AP) doesn't have primacy in the trajectory of play (including the authority to suspend rules and impose desired outcomes if the GM feels its more conducive to a "good story") and/or the player's performative color/flourishes aren't their own primary input?  Put another way, the formulation is:
> 
> GM provides story/setting
> 
> Players provide color and performative flourish.*



What I mean by "manipulate game mechanics" is that there are metagame elements (hero points, scene framing) that allow the player to determine the action rather than relying strictly on in-world factors such as character skill, tools, and the complexity of the lock to be picked. In certain games we use hero points, but it feels your style rely more on metagame elements?

The way we play the results of  a successful or failed action is outside the scope of the skill test itself. So the result could be (using secret GM resources now revealed) that behind the door the corridor just continues, empty, and nothing further happens. I guess that part of the reason we want to play like this is that it makes the game world more persistent and in a way more "real". The heroes are not progressing through a story, they are exploring an actual place (even if it is just a map the GM sketched on a notepad). The place existed before the PCs came here and is only affected by their actions, not story needs. But my style of game can lead to a lot of "nothing much" and potential boredom.

If I understand things right, in the type of game you are talking about, what is behind the door is determined by the check to open the door and to a degree on the scene framing done by the player, as well as the GM. In this way, the play is guaranteed to progress, there is no "nothing much" option. Or have I misunderstood?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

pemerton said:


> Here's a post about them:
> 
> The RH diagram illustrates your point - that when resolution (eg rolling the dice for a check) is disconnected from consequences, with the GM-as-glue that sometimes brings them together, then a roll => consequences + advancement mechanic won't work so well.



Aha, thank you, that's an interesting take!


----------



## pemerton

Starfox said:


> What I mean when I say "force action" is that the rules compel choices.



If it's compelled then it's not chosen, so I'm not sure I follow.



Starfox said:


> Failed willpower rolls to stop reading an inscription do.



I'm not sure what RPGs you play, and so am not sure why you find this unusual. Saving throws to avoid unhappy consequences are pretty common in many RPGs. In a recent post of yours in another thread you gave the example of failing a Perception check and hence having one's PC fall down a bit. Is that an example of a rule compelling a choice (ie because check was failed, the player is compelled to have their player choose to walk on the bit of floor with a pit)?



Starfox said:


> What I mean by "manipulate game mechanics" is that there are metagame elements (hero points, scene framing) that allow the player to determine the action rather than relying strictly on in-world factors such as character skill, tools, and the complexity of the lock to be picked. In certain games we use hero points, but it feels your style rely more on metagame elements?



In Torchbearer, the only significant difference in allocation of scene-framing authority from D&D is the Circles check - in town, a player can make a Circles check to see if their character is able to meet a helpful NPC.

The earliest version of this mechanic I know of is the Streetwise skill in 1977 Traveller.

A much bigger difference from D&D is that a Torchbearer GM is expected to have regard to key elements of the PCs -their Beliefs, their friends and enemies, their goals - in framing scenes and in narrating consequences.



Starfox said:


> The way we play the results of  a successful or failed action is outside the scope of the skill test itself. So the result could be (using secret GM resources now revealed) that behind the door the corridor just continues, empty, and nothing further happens. I guess that part of the reason we want to play like this is that it makes the game world more persistent and in a way more "real". The heroes are not progressing through a story, they are exploring an actual place (even if it is just a map the GM sketched on a notepad)



There seems to be some confusion here. The characters explore things in the fiction, and my fiction is as "real" as your fiction. What is different though is that you, the player, explore what the GM has sketched on their notepad. That is not as big a component of Torchbearer play, although it is not absent - the GM is expected to prepare a map and a key for an area to be explored by the PCs.



Starfox said:


> The place existed before the PCs came here and is only affected by their actions, not story needs.



As I just said, this is equally true of Torchbearer. Duran's prison existed before the PCs arrived at it. The shadow caves where Celedhring carried out his devotions to the Outer Dark existed before the PCs entered them. Etc.

Whatever "story needs" might be, they are not part of the fiction. They seem to be something that might exist in the real world inhabited by the game participants - the players and GM.



Starfox said:


> If I understand things right, in the type of game you are talking about, what is behind the door is determined by the check to open the door and to a degree on the scene framing done by the player, as well as the GM. In this way, the play is guaranteed to progress, there is no "nothing much" option. Or have I misunderstood?



You seem to have misunderstood, or at least to have not grasped the techniques in play.

Again, speaking for Torchbearer, you can look at my AP thread and see my write-up of Mim's Dell. You will see that it looks very similar to any D&D module map-and-key.

And as I posted, with the exception of Circles players in Torchbearer do not frame scenes.

But when consequences are narrated, and when scenes are framed, the GM is expected to have regard to certain PC elements. I didn't roll on a random table to see whether or not Duran would request the sacrifice of Megloss - as soon as one of the player raised it as an option, I seized on it, because of the way it pushed the buttons of the characters as played by their players: will Fea-bella agree to such an awful thing to rid herself of her enemy? Will Golin try and cultivate his budding friendship with Megloss? Etc.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Take cues from one of the most popular video games that has dungeons in it???


----------



## ehren37

James Gasik said:


> Rather than avoid any arguments about when it is or is not "kosher" to resist one's urges, or try to police someone's roleplay, perhaps a die roll to resist is the most fair solution.



I prefer Fate's compel rules over a roll myself, as it puts the choice still in the player's hand. You spend a chip to ignore, you get a chip if you follow through. If Inspiration's impact wasn't so trivial there might be something worth building upon in D&D.


----------

