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

[Bill Zebub]

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]

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]

Shirtless Kobolds in form fitted cargo shorts you say?

thinking ....

I'm not saying no!

 

[Manbearcat]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.