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

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

I think that's more a function of era. it took a while for folks to realize that RPG rules did not need to look like stereo instructions.

absolutely, but my point is calling a game from 1981 "rules light" on a account of its lower page-count isn't much of an argument.

 

[Reynard]

absolutely, but my point is calling a game from 1981 "rules light" on a account of its lower page-count isn't much of an argument.

Saying that it isn't for the same reason seems a bit argumentative, though. You could probably put a modern Moldvay Basic together in, say 32 pages, making it clean and concise as easily understood.

Look -- my thesis is tautological. I said "dungeon crawls need rules light systems like B/X and Shadowdark be be fun" and therefore, by definition, for the purposes of this discussion, B/X and Shadowdark are "rules light" games compared to the ones I mentioned -- 5E and Pathfinder 2E. There certainly are games lighter than B/X or Shadowdark, but I did not make the argument they were the lightest possible games -- only that they were light compared to specific other games.

And I even started a whole thread on defining a light versus crunchy game, just to avoid having this argument over and over in this thread. but here we are.

That poor horse.

 

[Mannahnin]

Saying that it isn't for the same reason seems a bit argumentative, though. You could probably put a modern Moldvay Basic together in, say 32 pages, making it clean and concise as easily understood.

Probably; OSE has more pages in part due to adding white space and using "control panel" layouts aiming for maximum clarity as a reference work. Moldvay Basic also includes tutorial information, examples of play, etc. I do think you're probably right that a better editor could trim Moldvay Basic down and organize it better without really losing anything, though.

Look -- my thesis is tautological. I said "dungeon crawls need rules light systems like B/X and Shadowdark be be fun" and therefore, by definition, for the purposes of this discussion, B/X and Shadowdark are "rules light" games compared to the ones I mentioned -- 5E and Pathfinder 2E. There certainly are games lighter than B/X or Shadowdark, but I did not make the argument they were the lightest possible games -- only that they were light compared to specific other games.

Sure, but a fair point was raised earlier that while B/X may be lighter than 5E, 5E is lighter where dungeon-crawling rules in particular are concerned, because it basically has none. The counter was raised that by having actual structured rules and procedures for this style of play, ie: by being rules heavier for this use-case, B/X provides a better dungeon crawl experience.

If I understand your counterargument correctly, you'd say that while that's true, the fact that the COMBAT rules are simpler and quicker means that B/X and Shadowdark are supporting the dungeon crawl better by putting more focus on exploration, and less rules weight/depth into other stuff like combat. Yes?

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

I said "dungeon crawls need rules light systems like B/X and Shadowdark be be fun" and therefore, by definition, for the purposes of this discussion, B/X and Shadowdark are "rules light" games compared to the ones I mentioned -- 5E and Pathfinder 2E

I fundamentally disagree with the premise that B/X is a lighter ruleset than 5e. It is just as, if not more complex, particularly in the rules sections which interact specifically with running dungeon crawls.

 

[bloodtide]

Put another way, absence of key rules/procedures can be just as confounding and labor intensive to play as presence of rules/procedures (and L&F exemplifies this imo).

Like I said, it is how you play the game...nothing about the rules.

If I understand your counterargument correctly, you'd say that while that's true, the fact that the COMBAT rules are simpler and quicker means that B/X and Shadowdark are supporting the dungeon crawl better by putting more focus on exploration, and less rules weight/depth into other stuff like combat. Yes?

I've said this is true. Games with few combat options other then "attack" are quicker then ones where each character has pages of abilities.

I would also add in the power levels too...the whole 'build' of the math of the game. The game where monsters have "low" hit points and character's do "low" damage. A powerful monster might only have 30 HP, with characters only doing 5 damage per round most of the time, with an occasional 10. This made combat much faster.

And I would add the play style where combat is NOT a focus. Like in D&D, before 3E, several character classes were NOT expected to get into combat much. Combat, even more so melee combat, was just for the Fighters and Clerics(and Rangers, Paladins and Barbarians). The other classes, notably the Wizard and Thief(aka rouge), were not made for combat. And even more so with Specialty Priests of each God, 2E added many 'clerics' to non combat classes. Before 3E, the Thief was a sneaky stealth class, not the all powerful monster slaying STRIKER of 3E and beyond. And all the spellcasters, most notably the wizards and clerics had a LOT less direct attack spells. Clerics had few or no attack spells per level, And even wizards, if you combined the PH, Wizards Handbook and Tome of Magic(assuming you had the last two), had only a couple attack spells per level.

And this has a HUGE impact on the game play: most of the time half the characters don't get directly involved in combat and fights.

Also....my Shadowdark rulebook has like five pages of "dungeon exploration rules"....is there some expansion book that has super detailed pages of dungeon exploration rules?

 

[pemerton]

I learned how to play RPGs from the Moldvay rulebook. It was not the first RPG rulebook that I read and tried to play from - that was Classic Traveller - but it was the first I could truly make sense of.

The key difference between the two was that Moldvay clearly set out a goal and a process of play: the GM maps and keys a dungeon, and the players move their characters through it, which prompts the GM to tell them stuff about what their PCs see/encounter, which then prompts the players to say what their PCs do.

I don't think I played or GMed Moldvay D&D particularly well, but I (well, we - me and my fellow participants) got a functional, playable game out of it.

I think there is a clear contrast to be drawn, here, with 5e. I have two kids who have played 5e with their friends. All are older than I and my co-players were when we started with Moldvay. Yet they have struggled to get a functional, playable game going. And I don't think that's because we were geniuses back in 1982. It's because I don't see that 5e provides the same clarity of structure to play. It doesn't have the same clear process for structuring the relationship between the "moves" the players make - ie what do they say about what their PCs are doing? - and the "moves" that the GM makes in response - ie what does the GM say about what the PCs experience and encounter? This all seems to be left in quite an amorphous state.

 

[pemerton]

Caller? What role is that/what is their purpose?

You've had some answers to this. I would sum it up as somewhere between - or some combination of - leader, chair person and minutes secretary.

 

[Remathilis]

I still say it is how you play the game, not the rules.

Dungeoncrawls work best with the Tyrant all powerful DM, not any of the other ways of running a game.

With things like Timed Actions. In my game it's three seconds, but most 'classic' game have a short time, often less then a minute, for the player to act. And the Tyrant DM does not give the player even a single extra second.

No take backs...another classic. The player says their character does an action....and it happens. And if something bad happens the Tyrant DM firmly lets it stand and says "no take backs".

This also covers the "expert" problem from a couple threads ago. "Wait!" says the Clueless Player, "My Super Smart Character would know better!". And the DM just shrugs "you stated the action...it happened, no take backs".
=====

And, unrelated to the above, is just the general Zeal for gaming you will find in some players....nearly always Old School gamers:

The DM describes a dungeon room...and the players have their characters go right in an interact with the room and it's contents. The characters do things, try things and are very active.

No thanks .I play D&D to relax. I have to listen, parse and declare my action in three seconds? And if I misunderstood you, there is no takebacks so every action is potentially a gotcha? Absolutely no. I don't want to take Xanax just to play your game. I'll pass.

 

[Remathilis]

See, this is definitely an issue of using definitions. Compared to modern D&D Moldvay is exceedingly light. It fits in a 64 page rulebook, just for a start.

Character levels: 1- 3.

Of course, you have to add the Expert rules to advance further, which doubles the rule size. Then you get Companion, Master and Immortal rules. By the time you get to the Rules Cyclopedia (which covers most of BECM rules and a little of I) you have a nearly 300 page tome, including additional classes, weapon mastery, skills, dominion rules, wilderness exploration and 36 levels of play.

It's not 5e dense, but that's not exactly light unless you only play the first three levels on repeat.

 

[bloodtide]

I think there is a clear contrast to be drawn, here, with 5e. I have two kids who have played 5e with their friends. All are older than I and my co-players were when we started with Moldvay. Yet they have struggled to get a functional, playable game going. And I don't think that's because we were geniuses back in 1982. It's because I don't see that 5e provides the same clarity of structure to play. It doesn't have the same clear process for structuring the relationship between the "moves" the players make - ie what do they say about what their PCs are doing? - and the "moves" that the GM makes in response - ie what does the GM say about what the PCs experience and encounter? This all seems to be left in quite an amorphous state.

This makes me wonder....

As a new gamer in the '80's...and a self taught one.....I never had the problem of getting a game going. Players would just play.

But I watch some kids, young adults or adults sit down all excited to play 5E....and the game goes nowhere. I have seen this so many times...

Was it that age old Structure of Play? I can't say I did it in any offical way...but did I just read it and adsorb it?