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

[payn]

But it is an example of a crunchier game working in a dungeon crawl style of play.

Personally I think the amount of rules doesn’t make the playstyle better or worse, my group is 9 levels into Abomination Vaults and has mostly enjoyed it as an intro to PF2e. The 2 complaints I have about Abomination Vaults is the monster placement is sometimes so close together that at times I had to remove an encounter until the group passed back through that area to have it make sense why the 2 encounters wouldn’t have just linked together due to noise and the small corridors at times hindered the tactical combat experience the system does so well. If I wasn’t playing on Foundry, that would be an easy fix just drawing wider hallways on a dry erase battlemap.

I still think a lighter ruleset make for much more enjoyable dungeon crawling, but to each their own. I definitely wouldn't want to run a real dungeon crawl in SR.

My issue is the veiled encounters based PF2 system. The little, "do we have ten min to rest GM? Do we have ten min more to rest GM??" minigame means that either the GM does just drop randos on the PCs, which will wipe them becasue of the hidden encounters based system expected recovery, or it takes that rando bit out of the GM tool kit. My other issue is the level banding of the math in the system. Its pretty tight meaning you cant face things more than a few levels higher than the party. Meaning the PCs have a much lower above the weight punch ability, meaning the must be this tall to ride level is pretty low for a traditional megadungeon and/or open sandbox. YMMV.

 

[Reynard]

My issue is the veiled encounters based PF2 system. The little, "do we have ten min to rest GM? Do we have ten min more to rest GM??" minigame means that either the GM does just drop randos on the PCs, which will wipe them becasue of the hidden encounters based system expected recovery, or it takes that rando bit out of the GM tool kit. My other issue is the level banding of the math in the system. Its pretty tight meaning you cant face things more than a few levels higher than the party. Meaning the PCs have a much lower above the weight punch ability, meaning the must be this tall to ride level is pretty low for a traditional megadungeon and/or open sandbox. YMMV.

Yeah, one important component of dungeon crawling (to me anyway) is the PCs having choices about how much they are willing to risk in hopes of big rewards. And that means accesses to deeper levels, knowing there is a possibility of a very tough monster or deadly trap, but also possibly very valuable treasure. I feel like that is harder to do in games with tight design.

 

[Gus L]

The dungeon crawl is a style of play in which tense exploration is the primary mode of play. The situation, potential dangers, routes and occupants are all mysteries to be discovered.

I'm with you so far, but...

Explicitly, you can't predict what you'll find or run into because of the nature of the dungeon crawl: the place is ancient and weird and has been occupied and abandoned a hundred times over. It's unpredictable and in some cases nonsensical.

By contrast, the heist or B&E is not an exploration of the unknown. If it is, you failed to do your research before trying to pull off the job. Of course the unexpected might occur, but that isn't the point.

I think here you're placing the typical fantasy genre dressings in the front rather then the underlaying mechanics that make classic Dungeon Crawls work. Nonsensical "Funhouse" or "Mythic Underworld" style dungeons are one way to design for dungeon crawls - but so are archeological, highly coherent Jaquays style locations.

A Dungeon Crawl is distinct even from location based adventure because it centers the exploration element of play, largely navigation of the space. It's built largely around a spatial understanding of the the adventure rather then a narrative one. One could run a Dungeon Crawl in other genres - such as cyber-fantasy like Shadowrun, but the locus of play would need to remain exploration and the mechanics of the game would need to support that. I don't know if Shadowrun does (can't really say - I have only a passing familiarity, though since it's a 90's game I'd guess it's more scene/narrative based).

I think these concepts also work to explain the idea that lighter rules are better. Rules heavy games tend not to be exploration rule heavy ... they tend to focus a lot on tactical combat and character variety (tend - I'm not trying to say they all do) which often makes combat the central activity of the game, where all the risk happens and where all the time at the table gets spent. Exploration rules (mechanics and procedures both) tend to be fairly simple because so much of it is A) navigating a map, making connections and unpuzzling the layout, secrets and alternate entrances B) negotiating obstacles through interrogating the fictional space (asking the referee about details and finding out what they mean or how they are resources for the party). This can be done purely with skill checks, but that's not a big part of classic exploration play and it tends to get boring fast.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Sure. I didn't say you could only do a dungeon crawl in D&D. I just said that the dungeon crawl is a distinct style of play and kind of adventure. You can do it in Call of Cthulhu or Star Wars if you want. But most Shadowrun jobs are not dungeon crawls.

Except they very much are.

Running around a cramped environment full or traps and things that want to kill you, trying to locate a Macguffin while bleeding health and wealth in the hopes of making more than what it cost to explode the carefully laid out puzzles while one character plays an entire different, easier game than everyone else and yet is indispensable to succeeding in anything because their class is the lynchpin of the genre.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Let's see if I can articulate this in a way that gets my meaning across.

The dungeon crawl is a style of play in which tense exploration is the primary mode of play. The situation, potential dangers, routes and occupants are all mysteries to be discovered. Explicitly, you can't predict what you'll find or run into because of the nature of the dungeon crawl: the place is ancient and weird and has been occupied and abandoned a hundred times over. It's unpredictable and in some cases nonsensical.

By contrast, the heist or B&E is not an exploration of the unknown. If it is, you failed to do your research before trying to pull off the job. Of course the unexpected might occur, but that isn't the point.

Does that make sense?

It helps, but a couple things:

1. You might have a broad understanding of what you'll run into in a typical cyberpunk heist, but the unexpected not only might occur, you expect it; while you need to do your research, the other side is doing the best to keep at least some of their security below the radar, too, and some of it can't be determined at least within what's often a limited time frame.

2. Not all the things I saw in "dungeon crawls" 40 years ago were completely opaque; it was rarely the case you were the first people to stick your nose in in centuries. Yeah, you wouldn't know all the details but neither were you completely in the dark.

So at least I hope you understand why I think your definition here is very specific, and not clear from just the term "dungeon crawl".

That said, I'm afraid I still don't see, even when using your definition, why game system simplicity is necessary to make it work. The only way I can see that being a thing is if the GM is making it up as he goes along rather than hard coding it in advance, and frankly, that seems a bit suspect for that type of game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But it is an example of a crunchier game working in a dungeon crawl style of play.

Personally I think the amount of rules doesn’t make the playstyle better or worse, my group is 9 levels into Abomination Vaults and has mostly enjoyed it as an intro to PF2e. The 2 complaints I have about Abomination Vaults is the monster placement is sometimes so close together that at times I had to remove an encounter until the group passed back through that area to have it make sense why the 2 encounters wouldn’t have just linked together due to noise and the small corridors at times hindered the tactical combat experience the system does so well. If I wasn’t playing on Foundry, that would be an easy fix just drawing wider hallways on a dry erase battlemap.

I suspect the best way to do those in PF2e is to treat them as one encounter when calculating them, perhaps with a little bit of adjustment since you hit them with a gap before the reinforcements. That's what 13th Age suggests in a similar situation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I still think a lighter ruleset make for much more enjoyable dungeon crawling, but to each their own. I definitely wouldn't want to run a real dungeon crawl in SR.

That's fine, but I'm not sure why you've managed to convey why its more of a problem for that style specifically.

 

[Reynard]

That said, I'm afraid I still don't see, even when using your definition, why game system simplicity is necessary to make it work. The only way I can see that being a thing is if the GM is making it up as he goes along rather than hard coding it in advance, and frankly, that seems a bit suspect for that type of game.

I don't know that I can, or should even try to, convince you, but I'll put it this way:

When you have a lot of exploration ahead of you, light rules (meaning things are concise and systems are employed efficiently) allows you to cover more ground more quickly, which keeps the dungeon crawl from turning into a boring slog.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, one important component of dungeon crawling (to me anyway) is the PCs having choices about how much they are willing to risk in hopes of big rewards. And that means accesses to deeper levels, knowing there is a possibility of a very tough monster or deadly trap, but also possibly very valuable treasure. I feel like that is harder to do in games with tight design.

That's probably true, unless the design is also compressed (which is to say where you don't expect to see things that wide apart in power level anyway.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think these concepts also work to explain the idea that lighter rules are better. Rules heavy games tend not to be exploration rule heavy ... they tend to focus a lot on tactical combat and character variety (tend - I'm not trying to say they all do) which often makes combat the central activity of the game, where all the risk happens and where all the time at the table gets spent. Exploration rules (mechanics and procedures both) tend to be fairly simple because so much of it is A) navigating a map, making connections and unpuzzling the layout, secrets and alternate entrances B) negotiating obstacles through interrogating the fictional space (asking the referee about details and finding out what they mean or how they are resources for the party). This can be done purely with skill checks, but that's not a big part of classic exploration play and it tends to get boring fast.

I think this is only true when they don't also have heavy mechanical support for exploration.

The one thing you probably won't see in a cyberpunk game is the somewhat traditional (but often kind of dumb) completely independent problems, which might make what you're talking about a problem. Basically, the first time you trigger a real alarm or encounter, unless you can find a way to spoof the situation you're now on the clock to finish what you want to do and get out before everything the place has to deploy comes after you; you're not going to get "Well you've fought with the ogres but the trolls on the other side of the area neither know nor care". I'm not sure that seems likely in any modern game (though it can happen in post-apocalypse games).