D&D General Hot Take: Dungeon Exploration Requires Light Rules To Be Fun

[Charlaquin]

I ran Abomination vaults for a little bit as a method to learn PF2E, and found that the the complex rules made dungeon delving a chore. I ran and played in a 5E Rappan Athuk game with similar results, plus incongruities of matching that system to old school sensibilities. There were other attempts at dungeon crawling with PF1 and 3.x era D&D, all failures to some degree or another.

Upon discovering 5 Torches Deep, Shadowdark and other rules light D&D inspired games, i have come to the conclusion that dungeon crawling requires a rules light approach in order to be fun. Unwieldy, complex systems are slow, and turn the crawl into a grind. The juice isn't worth the squeeze, as the saying goes.

Do you agree? What are your thoughts on dungeon crawling versus rules complexity?

I don’t know as I necessarily agree that a light system is required, it’s just that most heavier systems aren’t designed to facilitate dungeon exploration. What a lot of lighter systems tend to have in common is that the rules they do have must necessarily be tightly focused, and when it comes to D&D imitators, especially old-school-D&D imitators, that tight focus tends to be on dungeon exploration. Whereas crunchier, heavier systems don’t need to be as dedicated to creating a specific feel. Also, a lot of them take more cues from WotC D&D than TSR D&D, so the focus tends to be more on combat than exploration.

But I do think one could theoretically create a heavier, more involved system that was highly focused on dungeon exploration. Darkest Dungeon is a good example of that in the video game space. I’m not sure, but I think maybe Torchbearer would be a decent tabletop analogue?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don’t know as I necessarily agree that a light system is required, it’s just that most heavier systems aren’t designed to facilitate dungeon exploration. What a lot of lighter systems tend to have in common is that the rules they do have must necessarily be tightly focused, and when it comes to D&D imitators, especially old-school-D&D imitators, that tight focus tends to be on dungeon exploration. Whereas crunchier, heavier systems don’t need to be as dedicated to creating a specific feel. Also, a lot of them take more cues from WotC D&D than TSR D&D, so the focus tends to be more on combat than exploration.

But I do think one could theoretically create a heavier, more involved system that was highly focused on dungeon exploration. Darkest Dungeon is a good example of that in the video game space. I’m not sure, but I think maybe Torchbearer would be a decent tabletop analogue?

It's been done, for certain. One of my favorite games works exactly that way: rules systems that cover any situation the PCs might want to do, to use or ignore as you see fit.

 

[AnotherGuy]

@Reynard I'm not sure I agree with your premise. I find that whatever issues one has with dungeon play likely also exist outside of the dungeon.

Recovery, Tracking (includes Time Management) and Random Encounters.

 

[Reynard]

@Reynard I'm not sure I agree with your premise. I find that whatever issues one has with dungeon play likely also exist outside of the dungeon.

Recovery, Tracking (includes Time Management) and Random Encounters.

Dungeon exploration is significantly denser than other kinds of exploration, so the "grind" caused by the system is exacerbated.

 

[vagabundo]

In 4e I usually "zoom out" to some extent, treat each dungeon area with an encounter budget with notable features, and let them wander around in it and if combat happens then the whole area can be involved. Or if there are interesting features they can interact with them, a group stealth check will do for the area. It works well with with the five room dungeon method and if I'm converting older modules that don't suit 4e for space, combine rooms/caverns makes the difference in creating a tactical battle space.

I don't usually manage time, but that would be easy to bake in, having it depend on the physical size of the abstraction and what they do there - I'd probably just use normal time rather than Turns.

But for foot by foot dungeon crawling B/X would be my go to, with its simplified procedures and rules make it easy to run, so you can focus on the Dungeon and not the rules as much.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is the first time I've heard anyone say dungeon exploration in 1e can't be fun.

 

[Reynard]

This is the first time I've heard anyone say dungeon exploration in 1e can't be fun.

I'll bite: who said that?

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'll bite: who said that?

Whoever said that dungeon exploration needs to be rules light. AD&D 1e wasn't

 

[Remathilis]

This is the first time I've heard anyone say dungeon exploration in 1e can't be fun.

The only true edition for dungeon crawling is Basic (B/X or BECMI).

 

[Reynard]

Whoever said that dungeon exploration needs to be rules light. AD&D 1e wasn't

See, this is one of those things that always makes me laugh.

You have an opinion that "AD&D was not rules light" but that opinion is built around your particular set of experiences and how you play(ed) AD&D. It is entirely subjective.

AD&D is rules light when compared to WotC era D&D. PCs have limited capabilities, the rules are straight forward, and while it relies on charts a lot, those charts aren't complex. Where AD&D gets "rules heavy" is when people read Gygax's DMG and fail to understand that everything in it was an experiment and an optional rule. It was a collection of Gygax's thoughts on specific things. If you CHOOSE to integrate everything from the DMG into your AD&D campaign, of course it is complex (and at times contradictory).

So, no, saying "a system needs to be light for it to be good for dungeon crawling" is not the same as saying "AD&D isn't good for dungeon crawling." That's just you interpreting the statement in a way that allows you to be offended and feel attacked.

Congratulations, I guess.