"Back to the Dungeon" aiming for the wrong target?

[Jody Butt]

So what? This thread isn't really about whether we as individuals really like dungeon crawls or not. Obviously, there IS a market for such games, and it remains a popular form - the evidence of that is everywhere. Equally obvious is the fact that not everyone enjoys it. These facts are all assumed in the premise of this thread, and I have no argument them.

However, I do take issue with other assumptions. First off, WotC doesn't publish adventure products anymore. That includes DUNGEON, which is now published by Paizo. The adventure scenario content they are generating now is all subsidary to specific supplements or small stuff on the website. I could be wrong, but i don't recall any future product announcements for anything resembling the classic "dungeon module". Secondly, the "Back to the Dungeon" marketing campaign is what, 3 years old now? It was used to push the 3E launch and Sunless Citadel and such. It's old news. It obviously struck a nerve (good or bad) with a lot of people, and therefore was probably a pretty successful way of promoting the revived D&D brand. It may still resonate somehow for some people, but it's ancient history for WotC marketing.

I don't think there's much to argue about here, and I'm not in the least surprised that this thread has blurred into arguments about personal opinion and style. Welcome to 2003, wave bye-bye to 2000.

I will support one tangent by saying that role-playing in a dungeon-based adventure is not self-contradictory, and so I believe that there is lots of opportunity for PnP games to provide gameplay that cannot be reproduced in software.

There's also an interesting inter-mixing of Hack-n-Slash vs. Dungeon Crawl terminology here. IMO, not all hacking takes place in dungeons, and dungeons are not exclusively hacking (but always have some element of hack, by definition). Way off topic, I'd say that Diablo is a much better dungeon crawl simulator than EQ (although the next EQ expansion may change that), even though EQ is a much better mass combat vs. beasties sim.

I agree.

If dungeon crawls are so popular, then why doesn't WotC produce them anymore? They obviously aren't selling as well as they would like.

This is a sad era in history. D&D with no modules. What's the point of playing D&D if you can't have D&D modules? Isn't D&D all about convenience?

No more Forgotten Realms modules. No more Greyhawk modules. Sigh. It's all third party stuff, these days.

I'd like to see WotC step up to the plate and support their official settings with official modules. Either that, or sell D&D to a company that can reclaim the original vision of system+module.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I see your point.
But...
In a one on one game the possibilty for intra-party roleplaying is very limited I agree. But actually there was problem solving. Robilar knew the traps would kill him so he sent in the red shirts to suck up the punishment so he could waltz through. But if say a thief and a fighter entered alone without a horde of minions to use a bullet shields? I'd think that the majority of people who played it didn't send an army in to clean it out first. Would they be able to just waltz though without using thier brains? I really doubt it. There are several puzzle traps that would kill the unthinking quickly. My point was simply that my favorite dungeoncrawls had more to them than just, kill monster in room 5 and take loot...move to room 6 and repeat. Sure there was that, but I think there were some very well done dungeons that would stress the noggins of the players as well as thier dice hands.

And I disagree that a CRPG does a better job of portraying the action than a PnP. It will probably be 50 years before I see graphics in a game that match what goes through my head when I'm rolling dice and putting Flexor's life on the line in battle. It's not even close. For example Neverwinter Nights is a boring game, the graphics are nice and the comat is well portrayed, but that's hollow compared to me and three buddies sitting around the table doing something similar with pens and paper. No amount of CG flash can match the flash my brain generates when I am visualizing a battle of whirling swords and flashing magic. The mental images I had last night when the group battled a drow wizard and cleric would have required a P12-1000Ghz processor and a Nvidia GeForce 19 videocard with 2 GB of RAM.

This isn't a shot at anyone, but I think that people who don't think a tabletop can compete with a CRPG dungeoncrawl due to the lack of visual flash need to excercise thier imagination some more.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Flexor, I see your point regarding the relative excitement between a p&p combat and a CRPG. The thing is, and I'm betting you'll see my point, the relative slowness of p&p combat means that much of the drama of combat comes from the actual roll of the dice, not entirely from the player imagining what his character is experiencing. Combat in p&p RPGs slows proceedings down so much (in just about any RPG), that it's the immediacy of something quick and concrete like a dice roll that sustains that sense of heart-pounding action. That's where CRPGs shine - combats (and, to be honest, I much prefer starship combat computer games) often take place in real time, and one can find oneself winning a battle one moment (literally), and losing the next. P&P combats almost never have that much immediacy.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Flexor, I see your point regarding the relative excitement between a p&p combat and a CRPG. The thing is, and I'm betting you'll see my point, the relative slowness of p&p combat means that much of the drama of combat comes from the actual roll of the dice, not entirely from the player imagining what his character is experiencing. Combat in p&p RPGs slows proceedings down so much (in just about any RPG), that it's the immediacy of something quick and concrete like a dice roll that sustains that sense of heart-pounding action. That's where CRPGs shine - combats (and, to be honest, I much prefer starship combat computer games) often take place in real time, and one can find oneself winning a battle one moment (literally), and losing the next. P&P combats almost never have that much immediacy.

Yeah, I see that. I'd rather play the first two Star Fleet command games than Star Fleet battles, which they are based on. But for RPG's I'm the opposite.

P.S. - I'm conditioned to think in rounds, not seconds. When my boss asks me when my price estimate will be done and says he needs it in 20 seconds I find myself converting that to rounds. The peril of 20 years of gaming I suppose.

 

[Gizzard]

Going way back in the thread, is "Back to the Dungeon" a bad idea?

No, for one basic reason. A Dungeon Crawl is easier to DM well for a beginning DM, its easier to play for beginning players. Its a heck of a lot of fun for most of the D&D players out there to get together with their buddies and slay some Orcs. So WotC is marketing "fun" in it's simplest and most accessible form. Bad idea? No, it's a good idea.

Now some experienced players may look down their noses at Dungeon Crawls and sniffle, "A real role-player doesn't find such hack-n-slash play compelling anymore." Fair enough for you, but that doesn't mean WotC is going to cater to the tastes of what is by definition a minority. It's like asking Ford to replace their Focus with their Formula One car in showrooms because, "A real driver would learn to appreciate such a fine automobile." No, a "real" driver is going to get annoyed when they can't get that thing into first gear.

"Back to the Dungeon" is Wizards way of doing everything they can to make your first few years playing D&D fun.

 

[Jody Butt]

"Back to the Dungeon" is Wizards way of doing everything they can to make your first few years playing D&D fun.

Yeah, everything except actually giving us dungeon modules!

 

[spacecrime.com]

<i>Rounser asked if WotC focusing on dungeon crawls is shortsighted...</i>

Short answer: no.

Medium answer: I'm going to be very interested in comparing the reviews and sales of <i>The Last Dance</I> (offbeat puzzleish adventure) and <i>Last Hero in Scandinavia</i> (all out Viking hackfest campaign) once the latter is released.

Long answer: As somebody pointed out, most of the still-beloved adventures of early D&D are well-done dungeon crawls. As adventures go, they seem to have at least as much shelf life as anything else.

The other thing to remember is that WotC is not trying to cover all the gamer activity bases. They want to sell every gamer his first three or four books, not sell every book for every gamer. Just about everyone takes the occasional trip through a dungeon, and not everyone wants to play story-based adventures. Open gaming lets folks like David Chart do neat books like <i>Splintered Peace</i> (vote for it at the Ennies!), and WotC doesn't need to chase that segment of the market as long as Atlas and other smaller publishers put out nice stuff for it.

Do CRPGs have an inherent advantage over paper RPGs for dungeon crawls? Maybe. I think the jury's still out on that one, to tell you the truth.

But I think part of the appeal of a low-tech RPG is that there isn't a lot of hardware between you and the other players. A mountain of cheeze doodles and dice, maybe, but you're interacting through gesture and expression and voice instead through computer equipment. It makes a difference.

I play a lot of go on the internet, and a computer client can replicate the mechanics of go play perfectly. In many ways it's better than the original, because you can easily step back through moves, clean up is a breeze, and you can face opponents of any skill level from across the world. But I don't have as much fun playing online as I do as playing a friend face-to-face.

When it comes right down to it, if "efficiency of the game engine" were what we really wanted, would we even play these insanely baroque games?

cheers,

 

[Henry]

I rarely deconstruct posts any more, but yours, Jody, had a few questions I was wondering if you'd answer for me.

If dungeon crawls are so popular, then why doesn't WotC produce them anymore? They obviously aren't selling as well as they would like.

This is true; however, even the worst-selling straighforward dungeon seems to sell better than the best plot-driven one. I suggest this is because most DM's feel they are capable of setting up their own plots in their own homebrews, and are more interested in challenging encounters than in intricate plots - the plots almost never map well to their home settings.

This is a sad era in history. D&D with no modules. What's the point of playing D&D if you can't have D&D modules? Isn't D&D all about convenience?

No more Forgotten Realms modules. No more Greyhawk modules. Sigh. It's all third party stuff, these days.

What do you see as the big difference in the 3rd party modules and the official ones, other than brand naming? Most of these modules are produced by some top named talent that used to be associated with WotC or TSR.

I'd like to see WotC step up to the plate and support their official settings with official modules. Either that, or sell D&D to a company that can reclaim the original vision of system+module.

While I'd like to see the "golden days" return, I also realize that I myself and many others have outgrown the need for official modules because of the growth of the Internet. There are many d20 publishers and fan sites available who turn out top-notch quality supplements and modules, and a plethora of fan sites to review these, and offer sufficient critique for the gamer to make an informed shopping decision.

Now, the advent of personal desktop publishing means that those projects not affordable by a large corporation can make modules that appeal to smaller and more discerning audiences, instead of for the majority who play on a more casual basis and who do not need in-depth characterization in their games.

Instead of lament for a period (Pre-1990) that I enjoyed quite well in D&D history, I rejoice in what I see is the gaming renaissance for D&D, when publishers with a few spare dollars and a marvelous idea can legally introduce that idea, to sink or swim on its own merits. Whether you enjoy Necromancer Games' "Old School" feel, or whether you are more into the offerings of Fiery Dragon or Sword & Sorcery, then there are many publishers besides WotC that fill the niche previously filled by a TSR that according to Ryan Dancey could not read its customers, and died seemingly catering to a minority.

 

[Ranger REG]

Re: Non-Combat Interaction

The balance? WOTC should come out with a book for NON-COMBAT. For example, IMHO, non-combat ability checks for Wis/Int/Cha should be rolled in secret by the DM. Why should the player know that the character is being perceived as a fool? He should play according to what the character believes -- so only tell him what the character would know. After all, you know if you can lift the gate or bend the bar, but you should never be completely sure that you've convinced the dragon to help you. Maybe he sees through your diplomatic attempts to persuade him and is just playing along. You shouldn't see the die roll that says the dragon is persuaded.

Do you mean we need a fourth core rulebook on how to properly handle non-combat situations?

Does any other RPG core rules products (please name at least five) that does the same thing?

I mean the new 3e Skill System is right there. The DM should be able to handle it in their own way. At the same time, a lot of gamers and designers are continuing to offer new tips on using the current skills (i.e., "New Uses").

And what about the Book of Challenges? Are those the kind of products you want for your own game?

Heh, as for CRPGs, even they uses "dungeon" like environment even in the outdoor. Look at Wizardry 8 or Might & Magic IX.

 

[rounser]

Heh, as for CRPGs, even they uses "dungeon" like environment even in the outdoor. Look at Wizardry 8 or Might & Magic IX.

I think that there's nothing wrong with that, and that there's little to prevent D&D doing much the same. Guidelines in the DMG for handling the wilderness like a dungeon might lead to more use of the wilderness, more relevancy of the druid and ranger classes, and also more use of setting, in that the wilderness usually seems to represent the "road trip" side of the campaign in getting from A to B. Assumedly, a campaign based almost solely on dungeoneering is unlikely to stray too far without extended romps through the underdark, portals, or skipping over travel bits.

However, I think the DMG is right in that the dungeon is a flowchart which restricts PC options down to a choice of corridors and rooms which is easy for a newbie DM (and experienced DM alike, who surely likes to "switch off" sometimes) to handle. This paradigm can be partially moved towards in the wilderness through the use of hex maps, which allow discrete parts of the wilderness map to be numbered with static encounters, taking a similar role to the numbering of rooms on dungeon maps.

The problem as I see it with the wilderness-as-dungeon is that it usually has no walls, and few other barriers (apart from impassable mountains, sea, perhaps swamps etc) which makes it difficult to channel PCs into areas which are appropriate for their CR and not go wandering at will all over the map, and bumping into status quo static encounters that will either lead to their deaths, or have to be either avoided after in-character hints from the DM that they're out of their depth, or fudged on the fly to something more appropriate to their level. If anyone has any solutions for this I'd be interested to hear them.

Also, a clarification - I love well constructed dungeons which offer a good mix of different types of play, but have noted what is perhaps an overemphasis on combat in the 3E WotC dungeons. "Back to the Dungeon" doesn't necessarily have to mean this, but it seems to have been borne out that way.