D&D 5E Blog Post by Robert J. Schwalb

[pemerton]

I think this is a good description of what GMs do in RPGs in general--give the players something to want (or guide them in choosing it) and then put obstacles in their way (or bring new implications of the thing they want to light so they have to reconsider whether/how badly they want it). It makes sense to me how you do that with 4e but I like how a lot of that is "baked into" classic D&D in a certain form. The players want XP, which they get mostly by finding treasure. To get it they have to go through a dungeon, and the game includes rules for building dungeons (better in Basic than AD&D).

<snip>

The disadvantage, of course, of baking these things into the game, is that it's the same thing every time you play. You can give the PCs other goals and things to care about (and I do), but long stretches of the dungeon-crawl treasure-hunting game will reduce the focus on those things. I think if someone dislikes 4e because too much time is spent on combat rather than developing "the story", they would probably be even more frustrated in my game, because dungeons in my game do the same thing and take even longer to resolve.

For what it's worth, here's my take on "story" and advancement in 4e.

PCs in 4e advance from heroic to epic tier. This has a mechanical dimension - XP lead to levels lead to power-ups that support the change in the story - as well as a story dimension. The necessary XP are earned for engaging the encounters that the GM frames. (This is a pretty big difference from classic D&D - you don't get XP just for taking your PC into the dungeon.)

So as long as the GM frames encounters that speak to that default story, earning XP equals developing the story. For instance, heroic PCs deal with goblins, but those goblins presage something about Bane and his role in the Dusk War. By the time the PCs reach epic tier, they are key players in the Dusk War (whether working with or againt Bane).

If the GM is using the default MM, then it's easy to frame encounters that are linked in this sort of way to the default "story" of 4e D&D.

I mostly stopped paying attention to the WotC modules after the early ones, but I think some of their weakness can be explained in terms of departures from the above: using monsters that have no link to the default story, so the enconters have no non-mechanical stakes or interest. Given how easy the game makes it to avoid this, it's kind of odd how badly they fell into this trap. (Just one example: in the module E1 they introduce a new primordial who has no prior standing in the 4e or broader D&D canon, and whom the players won't even learn the true story of until part way through the module. And then a good chunk of the encounters in the module are with the minions of this tractionless primordial.)

On this approach to 4e, I'm not sure about its replay value. There are multiple ways to play the game's default story, but they're probably not unlimited. 4e Dark Sun tries to put forward a different default, but I'm not sure there's 30 levels worth of material there. (I've often thought that if I were to run 4e Dark Sun I'd do it vignette-style, skipping by 2 or 3 levels at the end of each scenario.)

 

[Neonchameleon]

Then Diablo happened and the tagline for 3e was "Back to the Dungeon"...

That didn't last. And 3.5 added the Sunrod to the core rules - the single biggest rejection of logistics based dungeon crawling that there's ever been. 2GP for 6 hours of brighter-than-torchlight with none of the drawbacks of a torch.

For that matter, most of the 3.0 adventures were dungeon based - but very few of the 3.5 ones (and especially not the early 3.5 ones).

I can see how using the forced movement to impale a beholder on a stalactite involves creative use of the fiction. That sounds cool. It just seems like such poor judgement to limit the Command spell in this way though. If 4e supports pushing monsters into stalactites with Command, I can't imagine that it would break anything to also allow the spell to force them to grovel or drop what they're holding, etc.

I'll agree with that

 

[Hussar]

That didn't last. And 3.5 added the Sunrod to the core rules - the single biggest rejection of logistics based dungeon crawling that there's ever been. 2GP for 6 hours of brighter-than-torchlight with none of the drawbacks of a torch.

For that matter, most of the 3.0 adventures were dungeon based - but very few of the 3.5 ones (and especially not the early 3.5 ones).



I'll agree with that

That's a bit disingenuous though NeonC. For one, Continual Light was available to 3rd level parties in AD&D and rejected the logistics based dungeon crawl pretty well. Light was generally only an issue for the first two levels. Not a bit issue. There were many other logistical elements of dungeon crawling. Secondly, that list in Wikipedia is only for WOTC stand alone modules. WOTC never actually produced that many modules for 3e that wasn't their focus. So, pointing at WOTC modules as an edition rejecting the "back to the dungeon" approach isn't really proving much.

Compare, for example, the popularity of Paizo Adventure Paths for 3e and 3.5, which featured a boat load of dungeon crawls. Or Goodman games which built an entire line out of dungeon crawls. I really don't think the dungeon has been rejected in any real way.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's a bit disingenuous though NeonC. For one, Continual Light was available to 3rd level parties in AD&D and rejected the logistics based dungeon crawl pretty well. Light was generally only an issue for the first two levels. Not a bit issue. There were many other logistical elements of dungeon crawling. Secondly, that list in Wikipedia is only for WOTC stand alone modules. WOTC never actually produced that many modules for 3e that wasn't their focus. So, pointing at WOTC modules as an edition rejecting the "back to the dungeon" approach isn't really proving much.

Compare, for example, the popularity of Paizo Adventure Paths for 3e and 3.5, which featured a boat load of dungeon crawls. Or Goodman games which built an entire line out of dungeon crawls. I really don't think the dungeon has been rejected in any real way.

Continual Light I'll grant as being pretty destructive to logistics based dungeon crawls. On the other hand it wasn't part of the basic equipment - I don't think it was a deliberate rejection of logistics based dungeon crawls in the same way I don't think that the impact of the Wand of Cure Light Wounds was foreseen.

And Paizo go for dungeon-stomps in which you go in and beat everyone up rather than anything remotely logistics based in my experience. (Currently playing Curse of the Crimson Throne converted to Pathfinder). It's a different playstyle.

 

[Hussar]

Continual Light I'll grant as being pretty destructive to logistics based dungeon crawls. On the other hand it wasn't part of the basic equipment - I don't think it was a deliberate rejection of logistics based dungeon crawls in the same way I don't think that the impact of the Wand of Cure Light Wounds was foreseen.

That I'll disagree with. There's a reason it's a second level cleric spell. By the time the group is 3rd level, you should be descending into the third (or maybe 4th) level of the dungeon. Which, if you are keeping strict time, means that you'd have to carry so much oil for your lamps that it becomes rather unpractical and, more importantly, not much fun. While accounting is important, there are limits.

So, we see a 3rd level party no longer needing light. A 5th level party no longer needs to carry food. A 7th level party can now summon campsites (Leomund's Tiny Hut is a 4th level spell IIRC). And so on. As the party progresses up the levels, the logistical elements become less and less important.

And Paizo go for dungeon-stomps in which you go in and beat everyone up rather than anything remotely logistics based in my experience. (Currently playing Curse of the Crimson Throne converted to Pathfinder). It's a different playstyle.

I'm not sure I agree with that. The first Shackled City adventure (whose name I'm blanking on right now) features a sprawling dungeon crawl where you can avoid most of the encounters and you are given a goal (rescue the orphans) at the outset which isn't clear and loot. Maure Castle and it's add ons are certainly renowned for their old school approach (obviously so). There were quite a few Dungeon adventures where logistical approaches were certainly implied, if not absolutely needed.

To be fair, the "story dungeon" is very common as well, so, you can certainly find lots of examples of that sort of thing too - particularly the "lair dungeon" where the dungeon crawl is only a half a dozen encounters spread across dozen rooms. It's more just a single lair than a true dungeon.

But give credit where credit is due, 3e and 3.5 are very good systems for doing logistical dungeon crawls. They're just so detailed mechanically, that you can easily do old school type mega-dungeons with logistical approaches. Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil is a prime example here, although that's 3e, not 3.5. World's Largest Dungeon. DCC. Rappan Athuk. On and on. Granted, I pretty much ignored WOTC's stand alone modules, so, I really don't know much about them other than what I've read. From impressions, I'd say that they are more story based, but, that's not unusual either.

 

[Nikosandros]

Actually, continual light is a 3rd level spell in AD&D so it requires a 5th level cleric.

 

[D'karr]

Actually, continual light is a 3rd level spell in AD&D so it requires a 5th level cleric.

IME when we played AD&D, the logistics were up front, and in your face all the time. Nobody used spells to remove/reduce the logistics as they were a limited resource with a much higher opportunity cost than simply purchasing the equipment. Encumbrance was an issue because a lot of times you had limited capability to take the loot home, and consequently gain XP. So hirelings were used to haul all that crap back. And if you were doing that (hiring hirelings) there was no reason not to buy the oil, torches, etc.

In 3.x we did a lot of dungeon crawling but the logistics were minimized by things like the sunrod. It also eliminated the interminable discussions about lighting. Since 3.x did not have XP for Gold as a reward mechanism having to haul every last bit of loot became irrelevant/insignificant.

When we started playing 3.x we did a lot of logistical planning. As we started to play more we ended up not even caring about it anymore, it was a waste of effort for us. Our game patterns evolved. Eventually the logistics of it did not matter anymore, they were not the focus at all, or even used. Environmental books like Frostburn, Sandstorm, and Stormwrack brought logistics back to the forefront, but eventually spells did eliminate the majority of those hassles.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

IME when we played AD&D, the logistics were up front, and in your face all the time. Nobody used spells to remove/reduce the logistics as they were a limited resource with a much higher opportunity cost than simply purchasing the equipment. Encumbrance was an issue because a lot of times you had limited capability to take the loot home, and consequently gain XP. So hirelings were used to haul all that crap back. And if you were doing that (hiring hirelings) there was no reason not to buy the oil, torches, etc.

Sounds like you guys were kinda questionable at logistics (I mean that in a non-insulting, literal way), because that logic doesn't make sense with a lot of 2E spells. Continual Light in particular is a "cast on an iron rod once, have a super-torch forever" spell. It's crazy to uses torches if you have that available. Hirelings simply can't go into some situations, too.

 

[D'karr]

Sounds like you guys were kinda questionable at logistics (I mean that in a non-insulting, literal way), because that logic doesn't make sense with a lot of 2E spells. Continual Light in particular is a "cast on an iron rod once, have a super-torch forever" spell. It's crazy to uses torches if you have that available. Hirelings simply can't go into some situations, too.

All valid assumptions from a certain perspective but when you play with a RBDM for a long time you tend to be careful what you wish for. It might be "crazy" but oil and torches were resources we had access to with little DM intervention. We used them quite a bit for much more than simply lighting the way. In 1e the spell lists were restricted by the DM (bestowed by the gods or intermediaries for clerics, found or copied by M-Us). Just because a cleric prayed for Continual Light it did not mean he was going to get it. Specially after the first DM did give it and the cleric gave us a "super-torch forever". When that cleric actually died do you think the DM ever gave out that spell again?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

All valid assumptions from a certain perspective but when you play with a RBDM for a long time you tend to be careful what you wish for. It might be "crazy" but oil and torches were resources we had access to with little DM intervention. We used them quite a bit for much more than simply lighting the way. In 1e the spell lists were restricted by the DM (bestowed by the gods or intermediaries for clerics, found or copied by M-Us). Just because a cleric prayed for Continual Light it did not mean he was going to get it. Specially after the first DM did give it and the cleric gave us a "super-torch forever". When that cleric actually died do you think the DM ever gave out that spell again?

Fair enough, but that situation has relatively little to do with AD&D logistics, and everything to do with a real nasty RBDM.