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

[Clint_L]

No one has said this. Not me, nor the OP, nor the other posts I've read.

It's literally the title of the thread.

 

[pemerton]

It's literally the title of the thread.

Huh?

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

the premise that the contemporary game is doing it wrong and needs to get back to where it started.

That question doesn't rest on any normative premise, about what is right or wrong, or what needs to be where.

EDIT: The verbs could and should are not synonyms.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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.

This post reinforces to me that it is not really about dungeons at all but a style of play based on the early game.
5e does dungeons fine, in the literal sense. You can take any classic dungeon and run it in 5e. It will work for a certain sense of work. 5e does inventory management just as D&D always did it. All the information about the cost of things and the relevant things are still there.
What you cannot do is explore the dungeon in the same way as in older versions of D&D. Not without ignoring the mechanics and that can be difficult because races are mechanically different.
To take a look at extremes of approaches; consider entering a room and checking for traps. In 5e it is an investigation check to search for traps. when the trap is found it is a thieves tools check to disarm the trap.
in the old style that process would be (as @pemerton put it) a process of scene reframing, as the search process was described in detail and then onto the mechanical nature of the trap where the information acquired was used to disable it with perhaps no dice involved at all.

Could 5e emulate that style of play. I believe it could but you would have to agree up front to never invoke the skill process until the scene had resolved to the resolution level where use of the skill system would (probably at the DMs call) become appropriate. That is the skill system or abity checks would never be invoked on the player side. No "I make an investigation/insight check" calls, it is at DM discretion only.
Passive skills would have to be dropped completely and the group would have to agree that most traps cannot be spotted with low light vision.
It would also probably need some magic exhaustion mechanic. Something that restricts cantrip use. This latter element could be the most difficult to implement but may not be a deal breaker in all groups.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This post reinforces to me that it is not really about dungeons at all but a style of play based on the early game.
5e does dungeons fine, in the literal sense. You can take any classic dungeon and run it in 5e. It will work for a certain sense of work. 5e does inventory management just as D&D always did it. All the information about the cost of things and the relevant things are still there.
What you cannot do is explore the dungeon in the same way as in older versions of D&D. Not without ignoring the mechanics and that can be difficult because races are mechanically different.
To take a look at extremes of approaches; consider entering a room and checking for traps. In 5e it is an investigation check to search for traps. when the trap is found it is a thieves tools check to disarm the trap.
in the old style that process would be (as @pemerton put it) a process of scene reframing, as the search process was described in detail and then onto the mechanical nature of the trap where the information acquired was used to disable it with perhaps no dice involved at all.

Could 5e emulate that style of play. I believe it could but you would have to agree up front to never invoke the skill process until the scene had resolved to the resolution level where use of the skill system would (probably at the DMs call) become appropriate. That is the skill system or abity checks would never be invoked on the player side. No "I make an investigation/insight check" calls, it is at DM discretion only.
Passive skills would have to be dropped completely and the group would have to agree that most traps cannot be spotted with low light vision.
It would also probably need some magic exhaustion mechanic. Something that restricts cantrip use. This latter element could be the most difficult to implement but may not be a deal breaker in all groups.

I don't play 5E so I wasn't commenting on that editions ability or inability to manage dungeons I would use different language than pemerton but I broadly agree that one feature of the older approach is more direct interaction with the environment. This is I think a dividing line between TSR D&D and WOTC D&D. This isn't a commentary on what the game ought to be, but something I've noticed generally and I think it goes beyond dungeon play as you point out. I used to run almost exclusively Ravenloft campaigns and most of my adventures tended to fall into the monster hunt or investigation category (not all but that was the easiest pattern for me to plan for as a GM). When I switched to 3E, something felt radically different about the setting. For years I chalked that difference up to nostalgia but around 2008, I ran a Ravenloft campaign using the old 2E rules and I pretty immediately understood what the difference had been, as the old feel also came back. While 2E had optional NWPs and had mechanics for interacting with the environment (it still has abilities like Detect Traps after all), it also left a lot of that to the players describing what they do, the GM figuring out what worked. Also you didn't have skills like bluff, Perception, diplomacy, etc (the closest you have in the PHB is Etiquette but that is a knowledge skill you don't use it as a verb like Bluff, you simply use it so the GM can tell you what you know about what etiquette is called for in that situation. I think the combination players interacting more with their environment, not being able to rely as much on stuff like Bluff had a pretty big impact on the game. I am not saying it is better, but I personally enjoyed the game a lot more. Granted technically a lot of these things were still present in the system if you pulled certain levers (for instance you could call for a perception check to see if players know something-----I even have a 2E module where a wisdom check is called for to see if players are awakened in the night by a threat). But they were generally not buttons players pressed like bluff, the standard was for the GM to call for the wisdom check if it felt appropriate. There were many other things as well that impacted the feel but these seemed to be the big ones.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

There is a lot to unpack here: paragraphs please.

I don't play 5E so I wasn't commenting on that editions ability or inability to manage dungeons I would use different language than pemerton but I broadly agree that one feature of the older approach is more direct interaction with the environment. This is I think a dividing line between TSR D&D and WOTC D&D. This isn't a commentary on what the game ought to be, but something I've noticed generally and I think it goes beyond dungeon play as you point out.

I largely agree, I was using 5e because I am more familiar with it (I have not played TSR D&D in over 30 years) and because the thread tile is to bring the game back to the dungeon and that would be a thing starting from 5e (the current edition).

As I say I largely agree as to your point about the nature of the divide and that it is most stark in the change from AD&D 2e to D&D 3.x. However, I would note that elements of the change were appearing in AD&D (as you also note). I think the split in (lets call it) level of abstraction of environment is the divide and it is independent of dungeons. So, could it be invoked in 5e (or 3,x) by a culture of play where skill/ability checks are never called by the players and only called by the DM once the appropriate level of interaction has been reached.

Is this enough to restore player skill in to the game.

I used to run almost exclusively Ravenloft campaigns and most of my adventures tended to fall into the monster hunt or investigation category (not all but that was the easiest pattern for me to plan for as a GM). When I switched to 3E, something felt radically different about the setting. For years I chalked that difference up to nostalgia but around 2008, I ran a Ravenloft campaign using the old 2E rules and I pretty immediately understood what the difference had been, as the old feel also came back. While 2E had optional NWPs and had mechanics for interacting with the environment (it still has abilities like Detect Traps after all), it also left a lot of that to the players describing what they do, the GM figuring out what worked. Also you didn't have skills like bluff, Perception, diplomacy, etc (the closest you have in the PHB is Etiquette but that is a knowledge skill you don't use it as a verb like Bluff, you simply use it so the GM can tell you what you know about what etiquette is called for in that situation. I think the combination players interacting more with their environment, not being able to rely as much on stuff like Bluff had a pretty big impact on the game. I am not saying it is better, but I personally enjoyed the game a lot more. Granted technically a lot of these things were still present in the system if you pulled certain levers (for instance you could call for a perception check to see if players know something-----I even have a 2E module where a wisdom check is called for to see if players are awakened in the night by a threat). But they were generally not buttons players pressed like bluff, the standard was for the GM to call for the wisdom check if it felt appropriate. There were many other things as well that impacted the feel but these seemed to be the big ones.

Would this play the same if the skill/proficiencies and the ability to call for ability checks was explicitly agreed at the table was reserved for the DM only?
To what degree are cantrips an issue?

 

[Bedrockgames]

There is a lot to unpack here: paragraphs please.

I largely agree, I was using 5e because I am more familiar with it (I have not played TSR D&D in over 30 years) and because the thread tile is to bring the game back to the dungeon and that would be a thing starting from 5e (the current edition).

As I say I largely agree as to your point about the nature of the divide and that it is most stark in the change from AD&D 2e to D&D 3.x. However, I would note that elements of the change were appearing in AD&D (as you also note). I think the split in (lets call it) level of abstraction of environment is the divide and it is independent of dungeons. So, could it be invoked in 5e (or 3,x) by a culture of play where skill/ability checks are never called by the players and only called by the DM once the appropriate level of interaction has been reached.

I agree elements like this were present in AD&D. It is primarily a matter of degree and prevalence. For example by the mid 90s if you used the skills and powers books, that would feel a lot more like some of the things you had in 3E.

And a wide variety of optional rules appeared throughout supplements, dragon, etc. and you even had the complete books in the 90s (though very different flavor to crunch ratio and different mechanical benefits from the 3E complete books.

I think a big difference was optional really meant optional abd more often than not, at least in my experience, options were not widely used. In my campaigns we did use NWPs as presented in the 89 PHB, but no table I played at allowed skills and powers.

Is this enough to restore player skill in to the game.

Would this play the same if the skill/proficiencies and the ability to call for ability checks was explicitly agreed at the table was reserved for the DM only?
To what degree are cantrips an issue?

I can’t speak to cantrips as I don’t play 5E and don’t know the specific concern people have expressed about them in that edition. I do think shifting the call to the roll to the GM side impacts feel. In my own games I include social skills and skills like detect (because in my experience most people expect them now). But the GM calls on a player to make a command roll after the player speaks and if the GM is unclear what the outcome should be or feels the characters talent in command is way above or way below what the player actually said or did. Same for Detect. A player might say “I examine the wall” but the GM calls for detect (and detect would be made secretly anyways). That approach gets things closer to the feel I like (though I should say not as perfectly close as just eliminating detection and social skills would).

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I agree elements like this were present in AD&D. It is primarily a matter of degree and prevalence. For example by the mid 90s if you used the skills and powers books, that would feel a lot more like some of the things you had in 3E.

And a wide variety of optional rules appeared throughout supplements, dragon, etc. and you even had the complete books in the 90s (though very different flavor to crunch ratio and different mechanical benefits from the 3E complete books.

I think a big difference was optional really meant optional abd more often than not, at least in my experience, options were not widely used. In my campaigns we did use NWPs as presented in the 89 PHB, but no table I played at allowed skills and powers.



I can’t speak to cantrips as I don’t play 5E and don’t know the specific concern people have expressed about them in that edition. I do think shifting the call to the roll to the GM side impacts feel. In my own games I include social skills and skills like detect (because in my experience most people expect them now). But the GM calls on a player to make a command roll after the player speaks and if the GM is unclear what the outcome should be or feels the characters talent in command is way above or way below what the player actually said or did. Same for Detect. A player might say “I examine the wall” but the GM calls for detect (and detect would be made secretly anyways). That approach gets things closer to the feel I like (though I should say not as perfectly close as just eliminating detection and social skills would).

Thanks for the paragraphs, I have issues with walls of text as I tend to glide over whole sections.

So leaving aside the questions of cantrips ( I have some ideas there), would advice (re only the DM calls for checks) lead to something close enough to old school play to be worth a section in the DMG on playstyles?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Thanks for the paragraphs, I have issues with walls of text as I tend to glide over whole sections.

So leaving aside the questions of cantrips ( I have some ideas there), would advice (re only the DM calls for checks) lead to something close enough to old school play to be worth a section in the DMG on playstyles?

My impression from a lot of old school GMs I know is that the 5E advice and approach already leans a bit into old school sensibilities (this is why many of them went back to 5E after not playing 3E or 4E). I can’t speak to the truth if that or not.

But I think if it’s true, going too old school could present a problem if it overly favors that approach but leads to less support for other styles (I think D&D always has the issue of needing to appeal to a variety of player bases and when that becomes imbalanced it can make people resentful towards the current edition).

All that said I do think advising GMs on how to approach core mechanics differently to achieve different feels (like the above approach I gave above), could help people tailor the game to the feel they want. Ultimately though I don’t know what data WOTC is working with here. Presumably they have information regarding the pie chart if play styles, the degree to which there are demands for changes one direction or another, and dangers of losing some blocks with certain changes. I would imagine those kinds of considerations are just important to them as pure design questions (being ‘the rpg’ means they need broad appeal and that is probably a big challenge when it comes to introducing changes).

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Thanks for the response.

My impression from a lot of old school GMs I know is that the 5E advice and approach already leans a bit into old school sensibilities (this is why many of them went back to 5E after not playing 3E or 4E). I can’t speak to the truth if that or not.

Fair enough, my questions are motivated by the observation that a lot of the "back to the dungeon" or "5e cannot do exploration" or whatever are not really about the topic in the headline but the way the player and DMs interact with the rules. Since I like 5e and strongly dislike that Old School approach I am trying to understand the exact nature of the friction.

But I think if it’s true, going too old school could present a problem if it overly favors that approach but leads to less support for other styles (I think D&D always has the issue of needing to appeal to a variety of player bases and when that becomes imbalanced it can make people resentful towards the current edition).

Oh! absolutely, I think that 5e is the way that it is, is that it represents the designers best approach of a game that was maximally acceptable to the player base as it existed at that time. I do believe that it is let down by the DMG. Which is really written for experience DMs that are bascially happy with the core 5e approach to D&D.
I also feel that the game is moddable to incorporate (at least elements of) other styles but completely lacking in any advice on how to do so.

All that said I do think advising GMs on how to approach core mechanics differently to achieve different feels (like the above approach I gave above), could help people tailor the game to the feel they want. Ultimately though I don’t know what data WOTC is working with here. Presumably they have information regarding the pie chart if play styles, the degree to which there are demands for changes one direction or another, and dangers of losing some blocks with certain changes. I would imagine those kinds of considerations are just important to them as pure design questions (being ‘the rpg’ means they need broad appeal and that is probably a big challenge when it comes to introducing changes).

Yes I am pretty certain that WoTC has information on play and playstyles above and beyond what is gleaned from UA survey data.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

IMO, this phenomenon is not just related to games or D&D. It's also seen in the business and technology worlds where innovation leads to people forgetting why something was done a particular way to begin with, evolving that old way out, only to cause the problems it was originally implemented to solve and then they have to either revert to the old way or accept the problems that not doing it the old way caused. Happens alot more from people dealing with 'high level' instead of in the low level weeds.