A Return to the Dungeon

[I'm A Banana]

By that, I mean, a return to the dungeon as the basic element of gameplay.
(forked from here)

Most of 3e and all of 4e specifies the encounter as the basic element of gameplay. Encounters are designed in detail, and played out in detail (especially combat encounters). Encounters are what you need resources for, and what consumes resources. Encounters are where you do things that need to be done. Encounters are where you play the game.

In this thread, I'd like to brainstorm what it takes to change that to the dungeon. So that the dungeon is designed in detail, and played out in detail. So that you use resources in the dungeon, and the dungeon is what consumes them. That the dungeon is where you do things, that the dungeon is where you play the game. Rather than balance characters within the encounter, we balance them within the dungeon. We can still have encounters, but the encounters make up part of the dungeon, rather than being complete in and of themselves. The dungeon is the main threat, the dungeon, overall, is what risks your character's lives.

I mean, by that, both literal dungeons, and also things that aren't literal dungeons, but can play like them: plots, stories, wilderness exploration, dealing with NPC's....almost anything you can envision as a "point A to point B" kind of mission. Essentially, "Adventures." Some of these may risk a different kind of failure than your character's lives, of course.

I've got a lot of ideas about this -- too many to probably put in an opening post. I'm very interested in the ideas that others have about this.

Keep in mind that this is a brainstorming session, which means this must be a safe place to post potentially dumb ideas. I want every idea that you think might be out there and wacky, or weak and unrealized. And if you come across a post you think is utterly stupid, you have two choices: (1) ignore it, or (2) think of a way to improve the idea, and post the improved idea. No shooting down, and no posts that are just criticism. If you've got a criticism, please think of a way to work that into a positive suggestion, and post that positive suggestion. If you can't, keep it to yourself, or start a new thread about it if it bothers you so much. I want this thread to be a place for sharing everything out-there and wacky you might have bubbling in your brain about this. I want to take in every idea, and see how ENWorld's great community might envision a D&D that balances itself based on the entire adventure, rather than just each encounter within the adventure. We'll worry about separating wheat from chaff at some later point: this is a free-form thought-association experiment idea mine.

The central problem: In what ways do you think D&D would change if it was designed to make the central challenge the dungeon (or the Adventure, or the Story, or whatever) instead of the encounter? What kind of rules might emerge?

(my first thoughts in the next post)

 

[I'm A Banana]

One fairly minor thing that I think might have big repercussions is that I think a dungeon-based game would focus more on the choices made at the table than the choices made at character creation.

In an encounter-based game, choosing the right class, race, feat, power, and spell combos when generating your character are all vitally important. To a certain extent, they tell you what your choices in game play should be: if you play a defender, you should choose to get up into enemies' faces and make them hit you. Your choices should be geared toward being effective at that. If you choose to use a ranged weapon and run away from combat, this is probably the wrong choice.

In a dungeon-based game, I see choosing Door A or Door B being more key than choosing to be a dwarf fighter or a gnome wizard. If Door A leads to fabulous treasure, and Door B leads to a deathtrap, choosing Door B is probably the wrong choice, but being a fighter or a wizard shouldn't matter either way. If you're a defender, you might have a different way of dealing with the deathtrap, but ultimately, you still made the wrong choice in play (and now your party is closer to being killed before the dungeon is "beaten").

I can see this having big effects on how strictly balanced character creation can be. Characters become more like one another, more similar, because the differences in play are not so dramatic (more about how they do something, than about whether or not they do something at all). This can lead to lighter character creation rules, lighter builds, lighter restrictions. If the major difference between the fighter, cleric, thief, and wizard, is how they deal with the deathtrap (fighter negates the damage, cleric heals the damage, thief avoids the damage, wizard bypasses the damage), role protection and specific powers become less heavily weighted. It's easier to multiclass, or to gain new powers, because ultimately, what matters is the player's choice during play, not what tools you bring to the show. Your preparation only goes so far.

 

[AllisterH]

Interesting topic....

I'm not sure one can simply eliminate class choice so easily. Remember, in your example of choosing door A and door B, the wizard player has actual class abilities (divination for example or even certain alteration spells) that can help in making the "right" choice.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So how would you improve it? (remember, try not to just criticize! Add to the conversation! What's your idea?)

 

[AllisterH]

So how would you improve it? (remember, try not to just criticize! Add to the conversation! What's your idea?)

I think the best method is actually to eliminate the thief/rogue.

Basically all the thief functions/abilities would be rolled into the fighter so that a person that chooses the fighter has "GOOD" non-magical skills...

Basically, you would have the 2e fighter with the 2e thief in one class

 

[caudor]

I hope I'm understanding the questions correctly.

I think making The Dungeon the central focus of an adventure can be accomplished by design. It should not be uncommon for Dungeons (and natural underground caves/formations as well) to be a hazard unto themselves. For example, various traps and hazards can be more memorable than the monster encounters if setup carefully.

I remember running through The Sunless Citadel and thinking...wow, I hope the PCs remembered to bring those ropes and pitons along. Player's may make different choices if "The Dungeon" can kill them just as easily as any monster encounter.

A dungeon design that creeps players out--with tools such as darkness, illusions, assaults on the senses, tight places, deadly chasms, questionable routes can go a long way.

I may be off-target, but that's my take on it.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Interesting topic....

I'm not sure one can simply eliminate class choice so easily. Remember, in your example of choosing door A and door B, the wizard player has actual class abilities (divination for example or even certain alteration spells) that can help in making the "right" choice.

From what I've been following of KM's theories, any class would be able to use their own talents in similar ways:

The Hermetic Wizard: "Hmm.....the essaence flows in one path carry a strong flavor of necrotic and negative emotional resonance, while there's a high concentration of Earth and Craft energies along the other."
The Grizzled Warrior: "There's signs of a lot of traffic both directions on one path, but the signs of everything on the other path goes only one way. Doesn't look like anyone who goes that way comes out again."
The Grubby Rogue: "I smell gold!"
The Jedi Knight: "I have a bad feeling about that way."

Class choice becomes less about 'what you can do' and more 'how you do it/what you're better or worse at.'

 

[Reynard]

I think the best method is actually to eliminate the thief/rogue.

Basically all the thief functions/abilities would be rolled into the fighter so that a person that chooses the fighter has "GOOD" non-magical skills...

Basically, you would have the 2e fighter with the 2e thief in one class

Interesting. It begs another question, to me at least: what if everyone was a 2E fighter/thief?

Obviously, you have issues with healing and dispel magic (which would require some modifications, but we'll leave that for later) but otherwise you'd basically have a party of Indiana Jones', each with the players' preferences for where the skill points go and what NWPs they have, but otherwise everyone capable both in combat and out.

I've been trying to put together an interesting way to do a post-apocalyptic dungeon crawl (more fallout than GW) with AD&D (but not fantasy) for a mini-con. Maybe I'll give it a try.

 

[RangerWickett]

I posted this in the original thread. I'm not sure if it's in line with the new direction, though.


If you do go for a game focused on adventure/dungeon-based resources, how would that work? It sounds like we're making a sort of narrative-gamist system, which will irk folks who like simulationism.

Theoretical:
The DM gets an adventure challenge budget, and the PCs get a plot agency budget. The Challenge budget works kind of like the XP-based encounter budget of 4e.

The DMG would explain, "There are two primary ways to approach adventure design -- as a game, or as a simulation. In gamist design, the PCs will almost always deal with situations they are equipped for and capable of defeating, though they will be challenged in the process. In simulationist design, the world has challenges of many different sorts, some of which will be easy or too hard for the PCs.

"In a gamist adventure, you'll want to use the suggested Adventure XP budget for your party's level. This will ensure a fair challenge for the group.

"In a simulationist adventure, first determine what the challenge is, then tally the XP value of that challenge. This will reveal the adventure's level. During the course of the game, you should provide strong clues to the players about how hard an adventure will be. The PCs can still choose to go on a difficult adventure, but with these rules you won't be surprised when the PCs are overwhelmed."

Sound good?


In 4e, encounters have a sort of inherent rising action because PCs have fewer HP than monsters, so early in a combat it can look like the monsters are winning. But PCs get healing surges whereas monsters do not, so the tide will usually turn in the PCs' favor.

5e would probably have a mechanic similar to this for whole adventures. The DM gets the Adventure budget, while PCs get Plot Agency, which are like healing surges for plot.

Hm, say for a 1st level party of 5, the GM gets an Adventure Budget of 2000 XP. This represents the total resources aligned against the PCs during the course of the adventure - monsters, traps, and 'skill challenges' (or whatever supersedes them).

Likewise, the PCs get some sort of Plot Agency, say 300 per person, with Plot Surges that they can use to get more. These are a weird mix of physical health, social standing, luck, pluck, and cunning. They replace hit points and healing surges, and instead of representing how close to death you are, they represent how close to failure you are.

Every time a PC does something -- makes an attack, makes a check for a skill challenge, etc. -- he can just make the roll, or spend some of his Plot Agency to ensure a success. (And maybe when you design your PC, you could choose a few dramatic conventions, one of which you activate whenever you spend a Plot Surge -- allies show up, or you turn an enemy to your side, some environmental threat appears, you suddenly become a bad-ass, etc.)

The trick is balancing a GM's threats against the PC plot agency. The way a session would generally go, though, is that the PCs would be doing well, but they'd be slightly outmatched by the challenges. As they spend Plot Agency to stay alive, things get more and more dire, but then at just the right moment, the PCs start spending their Plot Surges, and they turn things around.

Of course, it's a tall order to take a system like that and make it feel real. You'd need to have attacks that can cause actual wounds with consequences; the PCs could spend Plot Agency to avoid those wounds, but still, they'd be aware of the threat. That way it would feel less like "the monster's claws bounce off you for 15 damage," and more like "the monster's claws graze you, but you avoid getting disemboweled by spending 15 PA."

That's probably too out there, though.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Seems like the focus of such a game would not be "overcome the obstacles", but rather "make the right choices, and deal with the consequences of wrong choices". Skills/abilities/etc should be more heavily oriented toward staying out of trouble (perception, trap detection/disabling, divination, orienteering, etc) and surviving (healing, sneaking, defense). Combat would be less important, obviously, in favor of utilitarian skills.

Reynard mentions a party of Indiana Joneses-- and I think this is pretty much on target. I think a classless system would actually be more appropriate to handle all the different flavors of Indiana Jones in the Party.