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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.