The Spycraft method to Dungeons-what do you think?

Gundark

Explorer
For those who play spycraft I am talking about streamlined assault and streamlined inflitration. For those who don't play spycraft or haven't used these rules what I am talking about is more of an abstract way of entering a location. The GM doesn't have to make a map, only key areas in the location. Traps and puzzles still exist in this model. With streamlined inflitration sneaking thru the location is made up of opposed rolls. Both sides make what's called a complex skill check, both sides have a DC and the DC is usually pretty high (ie. 200) each side adds their skill checks together until their DC is reached. With streamlined assault there is still no map the GM rolls for random location and rolls to see if the party encounter patrols On the one hand this speeds up location inflitration, on the other hand it's not very flavourable.

If your DM used this method or something similar in D&D would you hate it? Would speeding up dungeons at the cost of the details be worth it (remeber the important sites/events are still detailed, its the mudane encounters that you would be missing out on). Or do you enjoy the dugeon crawl? What's your opinion?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Gundark said:
If your DM used this method or something similar in D&D would you hate it? Would speeding up dungeons at the cost of the details be worth it (remeber the important sites/events are still detailed, its the mudane encounters that you would be missing out on). Or do you enjoy the dugeon crawl? What's your opinion?

If these are high-level characters in D&D and they are entering a fortress a la Mordor where there's lots of little critters to avoid--Orcs--and they only really have to fight Trolls--and they have to run away from one of The Nine, then that would be okay.

Or if it's a more modern game and they can just brush the lesser mooks aside with their uber kungfu/suppressed SMGs/psychic powers/unearthedly spells/etc. then that's okay...if this is the third time they've done this kind of thing. After a few times, seeing the same stuff over and over e.g. in a series of hidden labs or something, then streamlining is okay. The differences can be highlighted and described, but the mooks guarding the place can be brushed aside.
 


This method sounds like a good one for PbPs, though it leads to situations where "Hey, we stoped in this room, so something interesting is here" thoughts with some players.
 


How about going one step further; streamline the entire dungeon into one roll.

DM: The Caves of Chaos stand before you. If you choose to enter, roll a party level check. This dungeon is DC 11.

*clatter-clatter*
Player1: 18! Yee-ha, we beat that dungeon easy! How much XP and treasure did we get?
 

The purpose of the early rooms in most dungeons is to use up party resources: hit points, spells, potions, etc. This softens up the party so you don't have to create a BBEG at the end of the dungeon who is much more powerful than the party in order to challenge them.

I doubt Spycraft's system takes this into account since in a spy game you do not want to engage the guards, you want to get past them to the primary target. In some cases you don't want to see anyone during the mission. (And in most modern games if you soften up the party you end up putting them in body bags.)

It might be more useful when the 'dungeon' is the king's bed chamber or private council room. Basically anywhere the party is not supposed to just take out the opponents.
 




Remove ads

Top