D&D 5E Do you like dungeon crawls?

[DemonSlayer]

Dungeon Crawls are part of the D&D dna since the early B modules. As someone who started in 1981 with B/X, at first we were very enthousiastic about «dungeons». Kick the door, kills the monsters, take the loot. We spent many evenings and weekends dungeon crawling. That is how we learned the rules. But at some point during B4 The Lost City something happened. We were all very confused. Someone asked «why are we doing this again?» And as the DM I couldn't remember... we, as a group, couldn't remember what the mission was. We did finish B4, which had a original idea to start with but had a disappointing ending. After that when I bought a TSR modules I would read it and remove all the excess crawl and only use the essentials.

Since that day, in my own creations, I made a conscious effort to reduce underground/cavernous locations to a minimum. They are playable in a single evening and with only one level. I prefer using castles ruins, ancient druidic circles, lost towers, villages, cities, etc, as locations for adventures.

Do YOU like dungeon crawls?

Yes. They are a yardstick to see how much can be accomplished before being forced to rest. There's always something to do, and the constraints of the room layout make for interesting tactics.

Not remembering why you are there is not the dungeon crawl's fault. That requires good note taking, good recaps, and a good reason to be there. You might want to consider alternate tactics to vary it up, like diplomacy, or stealth, to help get out of the rut.

This can be done without being in a dungeon, but I have not found that DMs do this. Any place that has 6-8 encounters per day is dangerous to travel through, and would take forever, so it doesn't happen. Maybe a couple encounters per trip.

 

[DND_Reborn]

As a beginning GM, I didn't like running them at all. Much prefer a sprawling city, even if the players can go anywhere, than spend hours describing corridors, rooms and weird traps.

So, I am going to bring this up just to challenge the mindset: how is a sprawling city really any different, though?

You spend hours describing streets, buildings, and weird inhabitants.

When you are doing overland adventures you are also describing paths/roads/waterways, features of nature such as mountains, waterfalls, or other locations, and strange places or monsters you find.

This is what I mean about the mindset of the exploration pillar.

Although not as direct a comparison, you can even "go where you want" in a dungeon. You can go forward, back, left, right, up, down, just as you can in a sprawling city or wilderness region. One might argue "well, I can go where I want in the city, but the dungeon has direct passages, etc." Well, cities have direct streets. People would look at a party strangely if they started scaling Ferkid's Merchant Shop to get to the tavern on the other side instead of just walking around the street to get there.

And while @Arilyn makes an excellent (and funny) point about the nature of old-fashioned dungeon crawls, I say the same often holds for cities and wilderness as well. How many times do you go to the inn or tavern, or have the local mayor or whatever bring you in for an adventure hook, or shop for armor, weapons, spells, or whatever, and let's not forget the clerics and thieves who might lead you to adventure? In the wilderness, you often do the same sort of things (explore this area or that, etc.).

That is why it never matters to me what sort of adventure I do. As far as exploration goes, it is pretty much the same if you think about it. A good DM can also have the inhabitants of a dungeon be just as interesting as the inhabitants of a sprawling city or the features of a wilderness.

If the plot is good, the purpose good, the adventure exciting and challenging, and the rewards of success and fun play are there, it's all the same to me and I have just as good a time with my friends.

 

[Sacrosanct]

One thing that I've always noticed ... no matter how much care and construction goes into the MegaDungeon, the designer always forgets to put in bathrooms.

Orcs are designed to be pinatas for XP, but they still have needs, man.

Well then, I'm proud to say that in my superdungeon, there are bathrooms


To the OP, I really like them. I learned early on (in KotBL and reinforced with ToEE), that one of the best ways to tackle a dungeon crawl is to form alliances and/or sow discord between the various groups in the dungeon. There are almost always ways to add more RP than people realize in a dungeon crawl.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So, I am going to bring this up just to challenge the mindset: how is a sprawling city really any different, though?

You spend hours describing streets, buildings, and weird inhabitants.

When you are doing overland adventures you are also describing paths/roads/waterways, features of nature such as mountains, waterfalls, or other locations, and strange places or monsters you find.

This is what I mean about the mindset of the exploration pillar.

Although not as direct a comparison, you can even "go where you want" in a dungeon. You can go forward, back, left, right, up, down, just as you can in a sprawling city or wilderness region. One might argue "well, I can go where I want in the city, but the dungeon has direct passages, etc." Well, cities have direct streets. People would look at a party strangely if they started scaling Ferkid's Merchant Shop to get to the tavern on the other side instead of just walking around the street to get there.

And while @Arilyn makes an excellent (and funny) point about the nature of old-fashioned dungeon crawls, I say the same often holds for cities and wilderness as well. How many times do you go to the inn or tavern, or have the local mayor or whatever bring you in for an adventure hook, or shop for armor, weapons, spells, or whatever, and let's not forget the clerics and thieves who might lead you to adventure? In the wilderness, you often do the same sort of things (explore this area or that, etc.).

That is why it never matters to me what sort of adventure I do. As far as exploration goes, it is pretty much the same if you think about it. A good DM can also have the inhabitants of a dungeon be just as interesting as the inhabitants of a sprawling city or the features of a wilderness.

If the plot is good, the purpose good, the adventure exciting and challenging, and the rewards of success and fun play are there, it's all the same to me and I have just as good a time with my friends.

There are typically more constraints on dungeons than on cities and wilderness areas. There are generally going to be fewer options, fewer sub-locations in a dungeon than in a city. Getting from point A to point B is done in very specific routes, usually limited in number.

But, a dungeon and a city are both locations, and so there are similarities. I think the main difference is in how they are typically presented, and the perception that's given people.

Dungeons are typically presented as static. This is room 32, there's a Roper within, it has recently devoured an adventurer whose +1 dagger remains near the grisly remains. There's usually a key that indicates where everything is.

Cities and wilderness areas are typically presented more dynamically. There are set locations of course (the keep, the inn, the guild house, etc.) but the occupants are expected to roam about and be found at different locations, just like the occupants of an actual city.

Of course, dungeons can be dynamic, and often are.....I think very often great pains are taken to make them so. And cities can be static.....very often no matter when the PCs might step into the Sunken Barrel Tavern, there's Olaf behind the bar, wiping it down with a greasy rag.

I think it's just a matter of how things are usually, or had traditionally been, presented, and how that's flavored things going forward.

 

[DND_Reborn]

There are typically more constraints on dungeons than on cities and wilderness areas. There are generally going to be fewer options, fewer sub-locations in a dungeon than in a city. Getting from point A to point B is done in very specific routes, usually limited in number.

But, a dungeon and a city are both locations, and so there are similarities. I think the main difference is in how they are typically presented, and the perception that's given people.

Dungeons are typically presented as static. This is room 32, there's a Roper within, it has recently devoured an adventurer whose +1 dagger remains near the grisly remains. There's usually a key that indicates where everything is.

Cities and wilderness areas are typically presented more dynamically. There are set locations of course (the keep, the inn, the guild house, etc.) but the occupants are expected to roam about and be found at different locations, just like the occupants of an actual city.

Of course, dungeons can be dynamic, and often are.....I think very often great pains are taken to make them so. And cities can be static.....very often no matter when the PCs might step into the Sunken Barrel Tavern, there's Olaf behind the bar, wiping it down with a greasy rag.

I think it's just a matter of how things are usually, or had traditionally been, presented, and how that's flavored things going forward.

I agree. It is an excellent point and that is why I wanted to post about the mindset.

For instance, when I DM a dungeon, things change when the party moves through it, depending on what they do. There is another thread about having encounters not placed, but simply there in whatever spot they are needed when the time comes.

One time, I DMed a dungeon without having it mapped out. I had a list of about 15 encounters IIRC. The players' mapped it out (roughly) as they went along, and I just randomly put in different elements to describe it. Then the next encounter on the list was likely, I put it in. That way, the players got to experience every encounter that I wanted them too, and no more. I worked out well IMO.

But yeah, in a lot of games, Olaf is always behind the same bar with the same greasy rag. How cool would it be to walk in one time and have Sven there instead? Suddenly, the question comes up, "Where is Olaf!?" and the players think maybe this is an adventure hook... until you drop on them the reality of life: it is Olaf's day off.

 

[Shiroiken]

Dungeon crawls either need a purpose or a group that enjoys "kick in the door" style of play. My last attempt at a mega-dungeon was a forgotten hill dwarf stronghold, where the goal was exploring it to reveal its history, and the monsters were just an impediment.

 

[Don Durito]

Yes. But preferably not somewhere other than dungeons.

 

[LordEntrails]

I think some of 'us' hit upon the way I view things; a "dungeon" is just a location. You can use the same mechanics and techniques (mostly) to run an underground location as you can a wilderness, city, or extra-planar location. It's just a matter of descriptions and 'fluff' changing. How linear/open, dynamic/static, etc/etc it is, depending upon the DM.

One can design an adventure setting with 5 different factions, 100 locations, and 1000 NPCs and make them dynamic with motivations, actions, reactions and place them in any of those location types.

 

[jayoungr]

I prefer having several meaningful short dungeons instead of one long dungeon with filler encounters to help the PCs gain levels.

It sounds like what you're really asking is "Do you like megadungeons?"

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Well then, I'm proud to say that in my superdungeon, there are bathrooms

For some reason, this brings to mind this quote:

"The view looking down through the toilet seat is still breathtaking."

, referring to privies in Conisbrough Castle in northern England, from a link provided by someone in an ENWorld thread about weird dungeon architecture in the last couple months.

I guess I'm just easily impressed.