D&D General Taking the "Dungeons" out of D&D

[Asisreo]

Really? After all these years, you don't get where that's coming from? I find that very hard to believe.

I know where it came from. I don't know why it's still even being said. An encounter a day is 100% fine and it can be fun and interesting to every class involved while also being balanced amongst themselves.

 

[Stalker0]

No one has to prove they can really fight to play the heavy, why should a player have to be charming to play the face? That sort of thing.

Its the eternal problem, and the reason many social mechanics exist in dnd and other games, sometimes complex ones. In general, my experience with a number of social systems is that they create more problems than they solve. The rules just tend to get in the way of roleplaying and people getting in to character. You are absolutely right that the note above is an issue... its that no solution I have ever mechanically seen has solved it without diminishing or hindering the roleplaying of others.

 

[Catolias]

I agree that encounters need to be re-jigged.

Also, whereas dungeon environments place characters into a predefined and organised space that limit options, non-dungeon environment are a sandbox and can be very difficult to run. Some clear rules, with some simple tips and tricks, would not go astray.

I’m also not sure that the skills are balanced enough for conducting extended non-dungeon games, particularly for cities and towns. Some skills, for instance, do a lot of heavy lifting and are the focus of use in those places (eg investigation).

 

[Scott Christian]

I realize that a lot of people play D&D without much if any dungeon exploration, so bear with me.

Many of the rules of D&D, including 5E, are artifacts of the dungeon exploration mode of play. The thing is, very little fantasy beyond D&D (and those things directly inspired by it) does dungeon exploration. Even the original inspirations for the dungeon were much less onerous than actual dungeon exploration. Vast Moria was basically a 5 room dungeon connected by a few skill challenges.

So, what does D&D look like if you presume that you will be emulating not dungeon crawls but Game of Thrones and The Wheel of Time or Lord of the Rings? What mechanical elements, specifically, need to change, be removed or added to make D&D a general fantasy RPG rather than a genre unto itself? And can you do that and still have the game*be* D&D.

A quick note: "Play another game" is not a helpful response. Nor am I asking you for advice on how I can make my game like this. I am just starting a conversation. We're just brainstorming for fun.

I think for all three examples, you would need to expand D&D roleplaying aspects. A game within a game, much like combat or skill challenges. Those rules would have to be heavily modified, because in all those settings, so many pivotal moments relied on not combat, but interplay between characters (or NPC's).

 

[Oofta]

I am of two minds on out of combat mechanics. I agree with you in many respects, but I also feel like when you have fewer mechanics for, say, "social combat" you end up punishing players who aren't necessarily good at that thing even when they want to play a character that is. No one has to prove they can really fight to play the heavy, why should a player have to be charming to play the face? That sort of thing.

It's great if someone is good at the social aspects of the game, but if there is uncertainty on how an NPC will react I still rely on die rolls. The target DC may be affected by the content of what is said and I take into consideration what the PCs have done previously but how they say it has no impact. I want the abilities and proficiencies of the PC to matter more than the abilities of the player.

But ultimately, yes, you will "punish" people who aren't good at figuring out the right things to say or the right approach. But the same can be said of combat. I've DMed for multiple groups at the same time with the same assumptions, rules, and general campaign style. One group could handle significantly tougher combat than the other.

So if the group (or an individual) isn't good at the social aspects I adjust the difficulty so that they still have fun. I may go as far as giving them insight or intelligence checks and giving them hints or direction. I just don't think having a set of rules would make much of a difference.

I don't think it's possible to make rules for out-of-combat resolution* that will not ultimately negatively impact the RP aspects of the game. To me, having free form and free flowing, non-combat aspects to the game is part of D&D's appeal.

*Skill challenges in 4E were a valiant attempt, but honestly I don't think they worked very well. Use them too much and RP doesn't matter. Use them sparingly and why even have them in the first place?

 

[TwoSix]

I know where it came from. I don't know why it's still even being said. An encounter a day is 100% fine and it can be fun and interesting to every class involved while also being balanced amongst themselves.

It's totally fine....as long as you play a caster. If I know going in to a game that the DM is the type who gives frequent lost rests, I always play long-rest based characters. I'd be foolish not to.

 

[Umbran]

Something like combat, IMO, needs more of that than politics or interpersonal relations.

Why?

 

[ART!]

If you want the players to engage with politics, social positioning, war, and interpersonal relations, you should have robust rules for that and... in D&D, we don't. We have hand-waving. There should be ways for them to plan tactics and have special abilities around persuasion and intimidation, for example. In general there should be feats and class abilities that relate to these areas of play. There should be rules for use of resources on larger scale than small squad battles. And so on.

Our rules systems help assure that players have reasonable and interesting things to do within the context of whatever the action is, which effectively helps make sure everyone gets a bit of spotlight time. No rules? Unless the GM is very attentive, the bulk of play is apt to go to the most personally persuasive player, which is kind of bogus. The GM should have tools that help them organize play in a way where spreading the action comes out of the process of play.

I basically agree with this 1000%, but see below.

I don't really agree with this. Rules and robust structures are more useful for some things than others. Something like combat, IMO, needs more of that than politics or interpersonal relations. Larding those areas of play up with more rules and robust structures is, to me, detrimental to the game. OTOH, I think we could use some more rules and structure around exploration--I know these are all subjective preferences.

Yeah, there are plenty of games that can provide rip-roaring, intense, satisfying combat without robust or detailed structures for combat.

The frustration for some is that D&D does provide that for combat, but not for much else. "Provide" is the wrong term, really, because it's clearly the game's mechanical focus.

Something just occurred to me: some games focus on combat mechanics because that's something we can't simulate at the gaming table very well. We can, however, simulate social interaction, and we've all probably spent at least some time out int he woods or what have you, so we can kind of extrapolate exploration. But most people have not been in even a safe and protected combat with swords and such. So we have all these rules for it, in games like D&D.

However, it's a good point about how some people are not outgoing or have acting skills, and how in 5E those players have a disadvantage compared to the more dramatic, role-playing, actor-y players. That's not the case with game combat: a less active or athletic player has no real disadvanatge compared to an athletic player with vast martial arts and weapons experience.

Anyway, it's interesting.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, there are plenty of games that can provide rip-roaring, intense, satisfying combat without robust or detailed structures for combat.

Yes. So, as I already asked - why not take out all those draggy details of D&D combat? We don't need them!!!

 

[ART!]

Yes. So, as I already asked - why not take out all those draggy details of D&D combat? We don't need them!!!

I would be all for that. In the past 20 (+?) years people have gotten very used to combat in D&D being fairly crunchy (by my standards - YMMV). Given time, we could steer away from that, toward a system that has - let's say - moderate (yes, I know, it's relative!) crunch in all three pillars of the game.