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

[Manbearcat]

So in the "rules" case, the players know that the DM is rolling for wandering monsters every turn (B23) or every two turns (B53). Presumably the DM communicates which rule he's using beforehand. This creates a "decision point" for the players, because they know if they spend a turn moving, entering a room, listening, or searching, they may or may not encounter a wandering monster.

In the "rulings, not rules" case, the DM says, "The more time you spend in the dungeon, the more likely you are to encounter wandering monsters. It may be more likely to encounter wandering monsters in certain well-traveled areas. Making noise or otherwise attracting attention to yourselves may also increase the likelihood of encountering wandering monsters." This also creates decision points for the players, as they consider the time they're spending in the dungeon, signs of activity in the area of the dungeon they're exploring, and the precautions they're taking (or not) to conceal their presence in the dungeon.

The idea that you can't have meaningful decision points without this, to me, is a little odd:



Again, YMMV. I don't entirely get people who love the procedures, but have no problem with them loving the procedures.

What I would say is there is a threshold whereby when you remove the table-facing, quantitative components of play which make up the matrix of your decision-space, decision-points go from meaningful (eg they outright inform the gamestate) to somewhere along the spectrum of INHIBITED <<<>>> OBSELETE because player decision-space (and the outputs of the decisions) becomes a kind of, "GM-directed qualitative mush."

Take all of the below quantitative values of x off the table:

* Check for Wandering Monsters in x turns.

* Roll 1dx for Wandering Monsters. If x hits, you get an Encounter.

* Wandering Monsters of threat levels x.

* Rest once per x turns or suffer x consequence.

* Torches have x Light for x Turns and take up x Inventory Space/Encumbrance. Candles the same. Lanters the same.

* Light works like x, Dim Light works like x, Darkness works like x and has other x consequences.



Just changing all of those x values to "qualitative, GM-facing stuff" has significant impacts on play such that matrix of player decision-space can't help but become some kind of "GM-directed qualitative mush" by comparison. Which, again, might be exactly the type of play that one is looking for (its the type of play outlined in 2 in my post above). But it becomes a very different from of play from 1 because player decision-space moves into that INHIBITED <<<>>> OBSELETE spectrum by comparison.

 

[Charlaquin]

Because a lot of people mean a gritty game rule tending toward Free Kriegspiel when they talk about dungeons.

This seems like a weird association to me. Free Kriegspiel just means extreme rules-minimalism, it has nothing to do with level of “grittiness”, unless you’re using the term in a very atypical way.

 

[Greg Benage]

Just changing all of those x values to "qualitative, GM-facing stuff" has significant impacts on play such that matrix of player decision-space can't help but become some kind of "GM-directed qualitative mush" by comparison.

I think it can feel mushy in the absence of good communication. I think that can be said for most of B/X, since most of the play is not rules-defined. For this portion, I'd say the procedures make the game more mechanical and gamey, while replacing them with judgment and communication makes the game more organic and immersive. Both offer the players meaningful decision points.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think it can feel mushy in the absence of good communication. I think that can be said for most of B/X, since most of the play is not rules-defined. For this portion, I'd say the procedures make the game more mechanical and gamey, while replacing them with judgment and communication makes the game more organic and immersive. Both offer the players meaningful decision points.

Considering @Manbearcat has expressed interest in what they call “game as GAME,” I don’t think feeling mechanical and gamey is a negative to them.

 

[Greg Benage]

Considering @Manbearcat has expressed interest in what they call “game as GAME,” I don’t think feeling mechanical and gamey is a negative to them.

Obviously not, and I have no issue with that preference, as I've said.

Like, is it okay to agree descriptively or conceptually even if we have different preferences?

 

[Manbearcat]

I think it can feel mushy in the absence of good communication. I think that can be said for most of B/X, since most of the play is not rules-defined.

I think this is a pretty good sticking point of disagreement. We've got the primary play loop tech as discussed. We've got action economy/time/space allocation for the primary Exploration action declarations of Searching, Listening, Interacting w/ Doors which includes proto-Ability Check tech (1d6 and 1 or sometimes 2 and maybe ability modifier is add-on like forcing doors open) that can be mapped onto outlier actions as required. We've got interactions with Traps. We've got Evasion & Pursuit rules and how dropping various items interacts with that. We've got Rest, we've got Combat Sequence, we've got Retainers (and Hirelings in Expert). The least rules that we have is for parley if a Monster Reaction is 3-5 or 6-8 or 9-11, but say yes, say no, or roll the proto-Ability Check tech handles that easily enough (I've always gone 1d6 @ 1 if 3-5, 1d6 @ 1/2 on 6-8, 1d6 @ 1/2 and positive ability modifier adjust on 9-11).

For this portion, I'd say the procedures make the game more mechanical and gamey, while replacing them with judgment and communication makes the game more organic and immersive. Both offer the players meaningful decision points.

These bolded and italicized words are what I'm getting at in my description of 2 upthread (which appears to me like what you're depicting):

2) A heavily GM-directed experience where the crawl features free play, serial exploration and is more about performative aspects, ephemera (map and key and boxed text and possibly handouts), mood, tone, aesthetic than what (1) is about. GM's extrapolate their conception of the dungeon ecology and they play their mental model of the simulation while players try to suss out the GM's mental model while immersing themselves in all the stuff in that first sentence. Yes, resources are brought to bear and challenges are undertaken, but it is an extremely divergent experience from (1) above due to a number of reasons, structure and systemization of play + prospective roles and GMing techniques chief among them (both the inputs and the experience of the play).

So, for instance, your mechanical gamey-ness being replaced by judgement and communication and (your sense of) organic and (your sense of) immersive might look like this:

SUB OUT codified Exploration Turns, Light Duration and Strength, Wandering Monster (Clock), and the weariness that creates Rest requirement of 1 Turn in 6 (or suffer penalties) and SUB IN:

GM (reading boxed text or their own text or making it up): Your exhausting, squirming climb through the cavernous chimney empties you out onto a dark, stoney landing. Your muscles and bones ache as you gather yourself. Your guttering torch shares a kindred protest. It repels the immediate darkness for now, but the flickering flame will soon be quenched. A rope bridge that has seen far better days spans a bottomless cavern. Your light extends only so far, thus what lies beyond is outside of your meager means. Bats explode from below and exit through the tiniest of fissure in the ceiling. When the echoing sound finally desists, there are other...ominous sounds. Scratching, smearing...then nothing. The dizzying acoustics of this place make it impossible to discern what and from where. But...something...else...is clearly in these abyssal caverns...and its moving...

PLAYERS: <Make action declarations to sort out the action economy of their exploration here, how that resolves, how weary are they and how do they resolve their weariness, how much light is left in this torch + the others and what are the limits of its illumination, does that sound mean that something is drawing near or moving away or is it merely the imagination>


Again, that looks like my (2) above vs the (1) in my post upthread (which would be Moldvay Basic or, better still, Torchbearer as exemplars). Deeply different play, different head-space for all participants. The sense of "meaningfulness" of being able to both assess the present gamestate and confidently move that gamestate in a desired direction (and what moving it in an undesired direction both entails and looks like), as a player, will be quite different from (1) to (2).

 

[Campbell]

I think it can feel mushy in the absence of good communication. I think that can be said for most of B/X, since most of the play is not rules-defined. For this portion, I'd say the procedures make the game more mechanical and gamey, while replacing them with judgment and communication makes the game more organic and immersive. Both offer the players meaningful decision points.

On what basis are those judgements being made? What principles are at play? Do thematic priorities ever override game priorities? What is being communicated? How can players be assured of what information is correct and what is conjecture?

In what sense are we talking about meaningful decisions here? Decisions in an environment with competitive integrity? Decisions that have an impact on the outcome? Decisions that are personally meaningful? Decisions that show us something about the characters?

Judgement and communication tells us nothing about what play looks like or in what ways and how player decisions are meaningful. Game is game is about more than meaningful decisions in the abstract. It's about decisions made in an environment with competitive integrity - one where the right decisions will lead to victory and the wrong ones will lead to defeat (when we control for randomness). Where if we made different decisions there would be different results.

 

[Charlaquin]

Obviously not, and I have no issue with that preference, as I've said.

Like, is it okay to agree descriptively or conceptually even if we have different preferences?

Yeah, of course that’s ok.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think this is a pretty good sticking point of disagreement. We've got the primary play loop tech as discussed. We've got action economy/time/space allocation for the primary Exploration action declarations of Searching, Listening, Interacting w/ Doors which includes proto-Ability Check tech (1d6 and 1 or sometimes 2 and maybe ability modifier is add-on like forcing doors open) that can be mapped onto outlier actions as required. We've got interactions with Traps. We've got Evasion & Pursuit rules and how dropping various items interacts with that. We've got Rest, we've got Combat Sequence, we've got Retainers (and Hirelings in Expert). The least rules that we have is for parley if a Monster Reaction is 3-5 or 6-8 or 9-11, but say yes, say no, or roll the proto-Ability Check tech handles that easily enough (I've always gone 1d6 @ 1 if 3-5, 1d6 @ 1/2 on 6-8, 1d6 @ 1/2 and positive ability modifier adjust on 9-11).



These bolded and italicized words are what I'm getting at in my description of 2 upthread (which appears to me like what you're depicting):

2) A heavily GM-directed experience where the crawl features free play, serial exploration and is more about performative aspects, ephemera (map and key and boxed text and possibly handouts), mood, tone, aesthetic than what (1) is about. GM's extrapolate their conception of the dungeon ecology and they play their mental model of the simulation while players try to suss out the GM's mental model while immersing themselves in all the stuff in that first sentence. Yes, resources are brought to bear and challenges are undertaken, but it is an extremely divergent experience from (1) above due to a number of reasons, structure and systemization of play + prospective roles and GMing techniques chief among them (both the inputs and the experience of the play).

So, for instance, your mechanical gamey-ness being replaced by judgement and communication and (your sense of) organic and (your sense of) immersive might look like this:

SUB OUT codified Exploration Turns, Light Duration and Strength, Wandering Monster (Clock), and the weariness that creates Rest requirement of 1 Turn in 6 (or suffer penalties) and SUB IN:

GM (reading boxed text or their own text or making it up): Your exhausting, squirming climb through the cavernous chimney empties you out onto a dark, stoney landing. Your muscles and bones ache as you gather yourself. Your guttering torch shares a kindred protest. It repels the immediate darkness for now, but the flickering flame will soon be quenched. A rope bridge that has seen far better days spans a bottomless cavern. Your light extends only so far, thus what lies beyond is outside of your meager means. Bats explode from below and exit through the tiniest of fissure in the ceiling. When the echoing sound finally desists, there are other...ominous sounds. Scratching, smearing...then nothing. The dizzying acoustics of this place make it impossible to discern what and from where. But...something...else...is clearly in these abyssal caverns...and its moving...

PLAYERS: <Make action declarations to sort out the action economy of their exploration here, how that resolves, how weary are they and how do they resolve their weariness, how much light is left in this torch + the others and what are the limits of its illumination, does that sound mean that something is drawing near or moving away or is it merely the imagination>


Again, that looks like my (2) above vs the (1) in my post upthread (which would be Moldvay Basic or, better still, Torchbearer as exemplars). Deeply different play, different head-space for all participants. The sense of "meaningfulness" of being able to both assess the present gamestate and confidently move that gamestate in a desired direction (and what moving it in an undesired direction both entails and looks like), as a player, will be quite different from (1) to (2).

Two things.

1) Communication was brought up earlier. Do you believe that if a DM clearly communicates the mechanics he intends to use that such a game different play, let alone deeply different play than a game that spells out such mechanics within the rulebooks?

I don't believe there's a real difference there.

Now one might say, D&D often doesn't play that way and I would say you are absolutely correct. But this does reveal that it's not 'rulebook mechanics' that are responsible for a given play experience of a game, it's the table rules being used at a particular table - and that's a very important distinction IMO.

2) It was said earlier that it's easier to remove a mechanic than add 1. I initially agreed with that as it 'seemed' true but after thinking about it more I don't think it is.

 

[Manbearcat]

2) It was said earlier that it's easier to remove a mechanic than add 1. I initially agreed with that as it 'seemed' true but after thinking about it more I don't think it is.

I'd be interested in hearing more about this if you have the time to unpack it.

1) Communication was brought up earlier. Do you believe that if a DM clearly communicates the mechanics he intends to use that such a game different play, let alone deeply different play than a game that spells out such mechanics within the rulebooks?

I don't believe there's a real difference there.

Now one might say, D&D often doesn't play that way and I would say you are absolutely correct. But this does reveal that it's not 'rulebook mechanics' that are responsible for a given play experience of a game, it's the table rules being used at a particular table - and that's a very important distinction IMO.

I'll relay a little bit more of my thinking on your (2) above while hopefully answering your (1) here:

anyway: Concentric Game Design

So that is Vincent Baker's masterclass of the concentric game design of Apocalypse World. You've got 4 layers. The core is the basic engine of the game, very condensed with integrated outer layers that was designed to (as Vincent puts it) "collapse gracefully downwards" (and it certainly does!). The game has increasingly complexity as you move outward (and it is quite a complex game as you get out to layer 4)...but amazingly, Vince and Meg and the internal playtest group developed a game that both beautifully integrates the outer layers, yet simultaneously allows for their nimble detachment. In the end, adding each of these layers creates a separate, "complete game" experience. Play with only layer 1 and you are profoundly far afield from a game that uses 3 layers (which is the standard AW experience).

So John Harper's Lasers & Feelings is a Star Trek or Firefly-type romp game that is basically that 1st (core and basic) layer of AW with some very minor changes. Its not even close to even layer 2 as a "complete game." You've got:

• Vivid color
• A few stats
• Descriptor tags for PC and vessel creation
• Core action resolution mechanic + rider
• A "Mad Lib" type process which generates the premise and opening situation for play

It is very primordial and it creates a very particular type of play experience (basically a 1 shot sort of game).

Now let us pretend that Apocalypse World and Lasers & Feelings are dungeon crawl games. Ok, so I'm running a game of Lasers & Feelings (as dungeon crawl). Despite a functional back-and-forth (communication and description) between myself and the players, we find ourselves running up against some issues:

* Ok...without Harm, what does attrition look like? When is someone out of a scene because of physical/mental harm or horror or whatever? How do they recover and when do they get back in play? When is someone dead?

* Ok, this mega-lite engine is good enough to create some thematic and minor mechanical distinction...but we need a bunch more basic moves, playbooks, xp triggers, gear & crap to generate finer distinction of thematic and mechanical role.

* Speaking of gear & crap...ok we've got all of these tags and I've run these games enough that I can make this work as a one-shot, fast & furious romp...but this stuff needs to be nailed down, sturdy, robust, distinguishing. You use this thing for that effect and that other thing for this other effect. How difficult is that thing to carry? Can I carry that and this other stuff? Probably not. Ok, what can I carry when I'm also carrying that thing (Inventory/loadout management).

* Ok, you use gear and moves to overcome Threats, right? I need a whole lot more stuff for Threats. I need stats, tags, details, assets, moves, instincts. I need this stuff not just for the denizens in the dungeon but for the dungeon itself; the hazards, the suffocating dankness, the bewildering ruined topography/layout, the maddening drip-drip-drip, etc.

* Ok, now I've got an attrition model, character stuff, gear & crap, how Threats work and activate. Now I need some structure to organize play. I need to figure out how to negotiate the game layer of time spent doing stuff (the basic moves above should cover moving, interacting with things, searching, parley, fighting, evading danger, etc). That stuff needs to be tracked meticulously because it interacts with (a) gear durability/duration, (b) how the dungeon answers in kind, (c) how the brutal experience grinds down the delvers/expeditionary force down, and (d) how they recover from that grind (camping, resting, recovering in a dangerous environment).

* Ok, I want to pull treasure out of this place. How much does this stuff weigh/how difficult is it to get out of this ruin/what do I have to sacrifice or leave behind in order to get stuff out? How dangerous is that sacrifice with a journey home (or not) looming?

* Ok, I got all of this stuff to town. Can I sell it? Who to? What does that look like? Can I drive up the price? What is this town anyway? Who lives here? Are they hostile to adventurers/out-of-towners? Is this my hometown with family or friends here? Can I recover in a nice Inn or is that so costly that I need to stay on the streets (and what is the implication of that)? Are their cut-throats and thieves lurking around the market? Is there a religious bastion to alleviate a curse? A guild-hall to train or repair my stuff? What are the taxes like here and can I even pay my bills when I leave?

++++++++

So this is my attempt to convey that, by the time I get to the end of this, I have so many questions as GM/players that Lasers & Feelings As Dungeon Crawl isn't remotely sufficient to the task. It doesn't even come close to having the heft necessary to play to that 1, 3, 4 dungeon play that I outlined upthread. It can manage my 2 dungeon play upthread but the throughline of play would be an extremely GM-directed experience that mutes Skilled Play priorities down to the nubbins because there is just so much necessary stuff missing. The game would be heavily color & mood/tone/aesthetic focused. The only way to get beyond that 2 (if I even care to do so) would be to play the whole Apocalypse World engine, AW layers 1-4, and then Dungeon World-ify the whole thing.

But even then? I'm not getting that 1 dungeon play out of that nor that 3. Its missing far too much stuff/particular brand of structure for 1 and its not organized structurally around the closed-scene-based paradigm of 3. Dungeon World at its heftiest produces my 4 above (and it produces it beautifully).

+++++++

So all of this is to say "communication" and on-the-fly rulings (what that conceptual Lasers & Feelings As Dungeon Delve, or AW Layer 1, would require endlessly due to its dearth of system) can only do so much legwork to try to patch over lack of well-developed, stress-tested, tightly-integrated system (and this becomes doubly a problem when Skilled Play or "game as game" requires a continual through line of mechanically-attuned-and-assimilated decision-tree work by players lest the competitive integrity of the dungeon delve be undermined to one degree or another...and any degree is a degree too far for some). Dungeon World (the pinnacle of 4 dungeon play) can never aspire to be Torchbearer (the pinnacle of 1 dungeon play). However, if you strip down Torchbearer to its Mouse Guard roots, you've got a nice chunk of the Dungeon World, snowballing-play experience model (Mouse Guard Missions are basically a wilderness crawl)...though they still would diverge a fair bit because of subtle nuance (Playbooks that deeply differentiate theme and role and there is a fair amount of overlap in how Gear is thematically and mechanically handled in both games, but there is some key differences; keyword tech in fact!).