Darkvision Ruins Dungeon-Crawling

[Reynard]

Of course as I noted, the choice is almost never an either-or unless the GM is being particularly precious about what he lets you see with the darksight (since, after all, the things that naturally have that have to get around too); you use the darksight to navigate the corridors and such (and to be able to fight effectively if you lose your light), and the light to search the interesting places.

(Honestly, anything so hidden that the sense that allows you to navigate rough footing and such in caves but won't pick up that hidden items strikes me as being pretty likely to miss with non-magical lighting anyway; torches and oil lamps (both of which I've used) aren't all the best lighting in the world anyway. Almost no flame based lighting will be).

Part of it is what the "dungeon" is and what is its purpose. Is it a vast complex that has been inhabited by different factions over the course of hundreds of years, leading to all kinds of weirdness, danger and accidental treasure? that is a totally different than than an orc stronghold or dragon's lair -- and as such, what light may or may not reveal will be different.

 

[Bill Zebub]

(Honestly, anything so hidden that the sense that allows you to navigate rough footing and such in caves but won't pick up that hidden items strikes me as being pretty likely to miss with non-magical lighting anyway; torches and oil lamps (both of which I've used) aren't all the best lighting in the world anyway. Almost no flame based lighting will be).

That's a realism argument, but in game design I'm with @Reynard: it should all be about interesting choices. So unless the realism finds expression in rules that cause interesting decisions, I wouldn't bother.

In this case the interesting decision could be time vs. treasure, or more explicitly the risk of a having an unexpected encounter versus the possibility of finding something interesting. Sure, the heroes can spend the necessary time to search the rough cavern floor (and here is where "and with only one of you carrying a flickering torch, that's going to be a challenge..." can add some realism-based flavor) but it's going to use time, and time comes with risks.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's a realism argument, but in game design I'm with @Reynard: it should all be about interesting choices. So unless the realism finds expression in rules that cause interesting decisions, I wouldn't bother.

In this case the interesting decision could be time vs. treasure, or more explicitly the risk of a having an unexpected encounter versus the possibility of finding something interesting. Sure, the heroes can spend the necessary time to search the rough cavern floor (and here is where "and with only one of you carrying a flickering torch, that's going to be a challenge..." can add some realism-based flavor) but it's going to use time, and time comes with risks.

Well, while I'm not Micah, at the point where the rules for both darkvision and light are set up explicitly for the game play arc, its gone a bit far for me to feel like engaging with it--and I'm not exactly the least gamist person around here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, while I'm not Micah, at the point where the rules for both darkvision and light are set up explicitly for the game play arc, its gone a bit far for me to feel like engaging with it--and I'm not exactly the least gamist person around here.

I am Micah, and I endorse this message.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Well, while I'm not Micah, at the point where the rules for both darkvision and light are set up explicitly for the game play arc, its gone a bit far for me to feel like engaging with it--and I'm not exactly the least gamist person around here.

Sure.

All I meant was that arguing, "You wouldn't be able to notice that (insert thing) on the rocky floor by torchlight..." isn't very compelling from a game design perspective unless it factors into a set of interesting choices made by the players.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure.

All I meant was that arguing, "You wouldn't be able to notice that (insert thing) on the rocky floor by torchlight..." isn't very compelling from a game design perspective unless it factors into a set of interesting choices made by the players.

I find realism and logical consequence following from setting design quite compelling, and only deviate from it when the alternative is impractical at the table.

 

[cranberry]

We played Shadowdark for a while, but the whole torch mechanic got old quickly.

They snuff out your torch (or it goes out due to time), and the monster massacre you. Rinse and repeat.

Just isn't fun after a while. More tedious than tracking encumbrance.

 

[Argyle King]

No, it does not, because it just results in the party using light sources... and at a base mechanical level using light sources does not impact anything much more than looking out in the "dim light" of darkness with darkvision. Characters without darkvision and a torch will see things out in the "dim light" just like characters with darkvision and no light source will. The only difference is that the party's light source will "alert" potential enemies out there that see the torch. But then again... even in a party with all darkvision, there will probably be party members who are going to be wearing armor that will preclude using stealth, which means light source or no-- other creatures will usually know where the party is. It doesn't matter if there's a light source to see or not... the sounds of the party will mean they won't be able to sneak their way through the entire dungeon (which I think seems to be the thing that people who hate darkvision always seem to think is going to happen... all the "tricks" of the dungeon are bypassed by the party "sneaking their way" through the entire thing.)

On top of that... attacking someone while hiding or being hidden only gives you advantage on your attack... which means most monsters who are "hiding" out there in the darkness aren't really gaining a whole lot. We don't consider Rogues who hide with their Cunning Action every round and then attacking from hiding to gain advantage to be that big a deal or some overpowered thing... so why would we believe it's such a big deal when monsters can attack from "the darkness" and get advantage? Not to mention the fact that a tremendous number of dungeon creatures that would attack the party are melee creatures and thus have to run up to the characters and their light sources-- thereby leaving their precious "darkness" behind and losing its bonus anyway. Attacking from the darkness isn't really all that big of a gain all things considered.

This idea that the darkness can be "scarier" is true... but only from a narrative perspective. The DM narrating things to fire the player's imaginations to instill some bit of fear. But from a game mechanics perspective... being in the darkness is no different than being invisible or using Dexterity (Stealth), and those mechanics can be annoying to work around-- but work around them we do. And it ends up not being all that big a deal. But if we are talking the narrative perspective of dungeon crawling... then no DM needs to or should be relying on the singular "fear" of being attacked from the darkness as their one way of creeping out the players, because you can only go to that well so many times before the PCs "being attacked by monsters in the darkness" becomes an overused trope and it loses all its power. The DM will need to use their imagination and come up all manner of other ways to make things scary-- and those ways won't be impacted by characters with darkvision or not.

TL-DR: Monsters attacking from "the darkness" is not the end-all-be-all schtick DMs think it is... which means parties made up of nothing but characters with darkvision that reduce the effectiveness of that schtick are actually forcing DMs to be more creative. And that's a good thing.

I agree that being more creative is good.

I strongly disagree with some of the sentiment behind the overall post in general.

For both pitched combat and overall strategic command, being able to see in conditions that others cannot is a force multiplier.

That's why night vision is/was a gamechanger in modern combat and things like thermal optics are valuable items.

 

[Bill Zebub]

We played Shadowdark for a while, but the whole torch mechanic got old quickly.

They snuff out your torch (or it goes out due to time), and the monster massacre you. Rinse and repeat.

Just isn't fun after a while. More tedious than tracking encumbrance.

No surprise, but it seems like experiences differ. In the Shadowdark games I've played in, when torches have gone out during combat the results have been chaotic and scary, but no TPKs.

It sure beats my experiences with a lot of other RPGs, where nobody ever feels like they are in real danger.

 

[Reynard]

No surprise, but it seems like experiences differ. In the Shadowdark games I've played in, when torches have gone out during combat the results have been chaotic and scary, but no TPKs.

It sure beats my experiences with a lot of other RPGs, where nobody ever feels like they are in real danger.

Yeah, I'm not sure what the GM was doing but I have run a lot of SD and a torch going out has never turned into a TPK.