D&D (2024) What could One D&D do to bring the game back to the dungeon?

[Charlaquin]

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.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.