D&D (2024) What could One D&D do to bring the game back to the dungeon?

[pemerton]

I think you may be mislead by my word choice (I do not choose words as carefully as you, nor read texts as closely as you do).

No probs. I wasn't setting out to disagree (let alone start a fight!), just responding to what I saw in your post.

By "with out interaction" I mean that the challenge is overcome with the use of a power or other game mechanic that can abstract quite a lot in the fiction.

I think at a certain point, that "abstraction" means that what is happening is less action resolution and more scene re-framing. The borderline here is not precise, but I think that the core of action resolution is that the player character has done some relatively definite thing in the fiction, and we're now working out what flows from that; whereas scene reframing is more about changing the parameters of the situation in which the PC finds themself, as a precursor to actually declaring and resolving actions.

I think that 3E's Perception and Diplomacy skills - at least by reputation - are often used in a scene-reframing way. Rather than the player declaring what their PC is doing in the fiction, they declare "I make a Perception check" or "I use Diplomacy", and then the dice are rolled, and the upshot (if the check succeeds) is a new scene - eg instead of their being an empty room, the room is one in which the PC can see a (would-be) hidden doodad; or instead of their being an angry NPC, the situation is one in which the PC is dealing with a compliant NPC.

I'm not exactly sure which PC abilities you've got in mind in the 5e context - my familiarity with 5e is not hopeless, but is limited - but the picture I've got is similar to what I've described in the previous paragraph, whether that is based around ability/skill checks, or the use of spells (eg casting LTH means that the situation is changed from one of risky camping to one in which the PCs are safe in a magical redoubt), or similar.

Torchbearer has a little bit of player-side stuff that can permit scene-reframing - mostly the use of Circles to trigger encounters with useful NPCs - but not on the scale of modern D&D. And I do think this is relevant to the dungeon-crawl style of play.

My experience of old school play was that sometime opening a door could be an hour long conversation between the DM and the player about the nature of the door (the material it is made of, the manner of construction), its placement in the wall. Whether it was locked or not and the placement of the hinges. The door, eventually being opened by popping out the pins holding the hinges.

I think too much of this is what can give classic D&D dungeon crawling a bad reputation. Or at least can narrow its appeal.

I think it's helpful if a RPG gives a sense of the degree of "granularity"/detail expected for action declarations to be resolved. Torchbearer follows its parent game Burning Wheel in this respect - by having fairly comprehensive difficulty lists under its skills and attributes, and related rules for what gear gives what sort of bonus, it gives a good sense of the level of detail expected in action declaration. It also encourages the GM to "say 'yes'" to "good ideas" - like, say, removing a door from its hinges once their make has been successfully inspected (which might be a Carpenter or Scout check - TB has no issue with overlapping competencies in particular situations). It uses a separate part of the system - the rules for advancement - to encourage the players to aim for checks as well as "good ideas", and so avoids the problem of "GM says 'yes'" = "easy mode".

I think it is possible (not necessarily probable) that a revised version of 5e D&D could - through its skill descriptions, its advice on setting DCs, its advice on narrating failures, and its spell descriptions - articulate a consistent approach to the granularity/detail of action declarations. Dealing with the issue that "saying 'yes'" = "easy mode" might be harder, as it's not clear what the incentive would be for players to sometimes want to make checks instead.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

No probs. I wasn't setting out to disagree (let alone start a fight!), just responding to what I saw in your post.

Not a bother but we have ad the miscommunication thing before and I wanted to head it off. I respect that generally you are trying to elucidate meaning not merely "winning an argument". I just did not want to mislead.

I think at a certain point, that "abstraction" means that what is happening is less action resolution and more scene re-framing. The borderline here is not precise, but I think that the core of action resolution is that the player character has done some relatively definite thing in the fiction, and we're now working out what flows from that; whereas scene reframing is more about changing the parameters of the situation in which the PC finds themself, as a precursor to actually declaring and resolving actions.

yes Scene reframing is a good phrase and I should try an thing of thinks more in that fashion.

I think that 3E's Perception and Diplomacy skills - at least by reputation - are often used in a scene-reframing way. Rather than the player declaring what their PC is doing in the fiction, they declare "I make a Perception check" or "I use Diplomacy", and then the dice are rolled, and the upshot (if the check succeeds) is a new scene - eg instead of their being an empty room, the room is one in which the PC can see a (would-be) hidden doodad; or instead of their being an angry NPC, the situation is one in which the PC is dealing with a compliant NPC.

I'm not exactly sure which PC abilities you've got in mind in the 5e context - my familiarity with 5e is not hopeless, but is limited - but the picture I've got is similar to what I've described in the previous paragraph, whether that is based around ability/skill checks, or the use of spells (eg casting LTH means that the situation is changed from one of risky camping to one in which the PCs are safe in a magical redoubt), or similar.

Yes, this is more or less hat I had in mind.

Torchbearer has a little bit of player-side stuff that can permit scene-reframing - mostly the use of Circles to trigger encounters with useful NPCs - but not on the scale of modern D&D. And I do think this is relevant to the dungeon-crawl style of play.

I think too much of this is what can give classic D&D dungeon crawling a bad reputation. Or at least can narrow its appeal.

I think it's helpful if a RPG gives a sense of the degree of "granularity"/detail expected for action declarations to be resolved. Torchbearer follows its parent game Burning Wheel in this respect - by having fairly comprehensive difficulty lists under its skills and attributes, and related rules for what gear gives what sort of bonus, it gives a good sense of the level of detail expected in action declaration. It also encourages the GM to "say 'yes'" to "good ideas" - like, say, removing a door from its hinges once their make has been successfully inspected (which might be a Carpenter or Scout check - TB has no issue with overlapping competencies in particular situations). It uses a separate part of the system - the rules for advancement - to encourage the players to aim for checks as well as "good ideas", and so avoids the problem of "GM says 'yes'" = "easy mode".

I think it is possible (not necessarily probable) that a revised version of 5e D&D could - through its skill descriptions, its advice on setting DCs, its advice on narrating failures, and its spell descriptions - articulate a consistent approach to the granularity/detail of action declarations. Dealing with the issue that "saying 'yes'" = "easy mode" might be harder, as it's not clear what the incentive would be for players to sometimes want to make checks instead.

I think so, also, and I think that DM advice from multiple perspectives and with multiple gaming styles/aesthetics in mind.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

For what it's worth, always wanted them to do a Celestial Nadir megadungeon.

 

[Clint_L]

Moldvay Basic was not a niche game, and was oriented around @Manbearcat's desiderata. (Although frequently not played in that style.)

It's very much a niche game in 2022. And back then, most folks saw Basic as the kiddie version of AD&D; I got mine from an aunt who heard I was into D&D and picked it up at a toy store, which was lovely of her but the game was mostly an object of amusement for me and my AD&D-playing cohort (I have the dice from it to this day). Basic was not originally written to be a dungeon crawler, it was written to be a simple version of the game targeted at younger players. Moldvay sort of adapted it to play more like original D&D. Emphasis on sort of, as it was still being marketed as a beginner game.

But citing Basic (and the Moldvay version in particular, which was already backward-looking in 1981) sort of illustrates what bothers me about a lot of these threads: the premise that the contemporary game is doing it wrong and needs to get back to where it started. Things evolve, and to me it makes no sense to try to go backwards when the game has become as incredibly successful as it has. I don't think anything should be added to the core rules to make the game more dungeon friendly because I think it is plenty dungeon friendly as is, and if you try to push it too hard towards that one old school style of play you start making it a niche game...which already exist. Including the Moldvay books, which are easily available.

I can see adding a new dungeon setting like an Underdark source book, and including optional rules there for if players want to play it more like an old school dungeon crawler. But this is the OneD&D sub-forum, and I think the emphasis in OneD&D should be on looking forward, not back.

 

[pemerton]

Basic was not originally written to be a dungeon crawler, it was written to be a simple version of the game targeted at younger players.

Given that the game has rules only for dungeon crawling, states that the adventure begins when the PCs arrive at the dungeon and ends when they leave it, and has (excellent) GM instructions aimed solely at explaining how to design and stock a dungeon, and then adjudicate play in it, I don't agree with this.

But citing Basic (and the Moldvay version in particular, which was already backward-looking in 1981) sort of illustrates what bothers me about a lot of these threads: the premise that the contemporary game is doing it wrong and needs to get back to where it started.

No one has said this. Not me, nor the OP, nor the other posts I've read. The OP states a preference - "I'd love to see . . ." - and then asks about changes that might be made to support that preference. That's all.

the game has become as incredibly successful as it has. I don't think anything should be added to the core rules to make the game more dungeon friendly because I think it is plenty dungeon friendly as is

OK. So you don't share the OP's preference, and you don't want any changes made. Noted.

 

[Malmuria]

Basic was not originally written to be a dungeon crawler, it was written to be a simple version of the game targeted at younger players.

How are these things contradictory or related at all? Younger players can't play dungeon crawling games? I started with the 1991 black box, where you started you inside a dungeon as prisoners and used that constrained environment to teach successive aspects of the game.

But citing Basic (and the Moldvay version in particular, which was already backward-looking in 1981)

What? They kept releasing stuff for basic dnd into the 90s.

Things evolve, and to me it makes no sense to try to go backwards when the game has become as incredibly successful as it has. I don't think anything should be added to the core rules to make the game more dungeon friendly because I think it is plenty dungeon friendly as is,

- you seem to be of the opinion that 5e both a) works great for dungeon crawling and b) has "evolved" past being a game that features dungeon crawling. So 5e both is and is not a dungeon crawling game?

- There's nothing nostalgic or "backward-looking" about 5e? They just rereleased dragonlance.

I can see adding a new dungeon setting like an Underdark source book, and including optional rules there for if players want to play it more like an old school dungeon crawler. But this is the OneD&D sub-forum, and I think the emphasis in OneD&D should be on looking forward, not back.

What does that mean to you?

 

[Jack Daniel]

Just reading through this thread, it's fairly clear to me that bringing D&D "back to the dungeon" is a ship that has sailed. Without some key, fundamental changes to the mechanics — changes unlikely to be made in the foreseeable future — it won't work. Not that WotC should even bother trying: the bulk of their player base obviously doesn't want to go back to the dungeon.

The codename for OneD&D might as well be & Dragons for all that matters at this point.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's very much a niche game in 2022. And back then, most folks saw Basic as the kiddie version of AD&D; I got mine from an aunt who heard I was into D&D and picked it up at a toy store, which was lovely of her but the game was mostly an object of amusement for me and my AD&D-playing cohort (I have the dice from it to this day). Basic was not originally written to be a dungeon crawler, it was written to be a simple version of the game targeted at younger players. Moldvay sort of adapted it to play more like original D&D. Emphasis on sort of, as it was still being marketed as a beginner game.

But citing Basic (and the Moldvay version in particular, which was already backward-looking in 1981) sort of illustrates what bothers me about a lot of these threads: the premise that the contemporary game is doing it wrong and needs to get back to where it started. Things evolve, and to me it makes no sense to try to go backwards when the game has become as incredibly successful as it has. I don't think anything should be added to the core rules to make the game more dungeon friendly because I think it is plenty dungeon friendly as is, and if you try to push it too hard towards that one old school style of play you start making it a niche game...which already exist. Including the Moldvay books, which are easily available.

I can see adding a new dungeon setting like an Underdark source book, and including optional rules there for if players want to play it more like an old school dungeon crawler. But this is the OneD&D sub-forum, and I think the emphasis in OneD&D should be on looking forward, not back.

I've been in a number of Moldvay campaigns that made for exceptional dungeon crawls. And basic was pretty popular through AD&D's run (I don't know the numbers but it always struck me as much more palatable for mainstream audiences than AD&D: and I was more of an AD&D person personally).

I don't think any of this is about the game having to go back to some version of the game from 1982, but there is such a thing as going back and examining periods where the game did things well, asking why, asking if things have been added that have taken away from the game, or if things have been taken away that made the game better. That doesn't mean you can't be forward looking but with RPGs especially it is easy for design decisions to compound over time and start to introduce problems.

Personally I don't know where D&D needs to be mechanically. I am not the target audience at this point and I doubt my preferences reflect the preferences of what most D&D players want. But when asked the question what can D&D do to bring back the dungeon, my instinct is what I posted earlier: simplify, make character creation faster and easier. Now maybe that kind of simplification would take away other important elements they want to preserve (because the game isn't only about dungeons). I would also say its worth going back and looking at the successful dungeon adventures and dungeon advice over the years and trying to learn what can be learned from that (again if the aim is to bring back the dungeon).

In terms of old school stuff. I don't know there is a bit of old school inspiration I can discern in 5E and I think that seemed to have some appeal to people. I don't think everything in old school gaming is going to appeal to mainstream players but as a mainstream RPG, with a very broad kind of appeal, WOTC probably is going to want to examine the different style incubators in the hobby and draw on tools that help GMs achieve what they want. That might include old school exploration techniques but also could involve more of the story driven stuff coming from some of the indie games.

I do agree their aim shouldn't be to make a niche product, so any of these ideas need to be incorporated into One D&D in a way that feels organic and adds to play (not in a way that imposes on the game or takes away from it).

One thing I will add: simplification is probably good for having more mass appeal. D&D is very challenging, and I think the difficulty of the game, its complexity can be a hurdle to reading a wider audience (and even if that wider audience is reached, it can be a hurdle to retaining them). So the more user friendly the system the less niche I think it will be.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Given that the game has rules only for dungeon crawling, states that the adventure begins when the PCs arrive at the dungeon and ends when they leave it, and has (excellent) GM instructions aimed solely at explaining how to design and stock a dungeon, and then adjudicate play in it, I don't agree with this.

This is my memory too. Obviously there is more than one version of basic but I think largely this was true I do also think it helped a bit with reaching a larger audience: the packaging of basic I think had broader appeal than the core AD&D books did. And basic also had the rules cyclopedia version which has some pretty strong hardcore fans to this day. Though that got more into wilderness exploration (if I recall with the boxed sets the wilderness version was a whole separate boxed set)

 

[Reynard]

This is my memory too. Obviously there is more than one version of basic but I think largely this was true I do also think it helped a bit with reaching a larger audience: the packaging of basic I think had broader appeal than the core AD&D books did. And basic also had the rules cyclopedia version which has some pretty strong hardcore fans to this day. Though that got more into wilderness exploration (if I recall with the boxed sets the wilderness version was a whole separate boxed set)

Basic was dungeons, Expert was wilderness, Companion was domains and war, and Master was the search for immortality. It's the version of the game that gave each tier its most distinct function within the overall campaign.