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

[Smackpixi]

Sadly all the new players will ignore text that advises starting at higher levels, start at 1 because they think that's the required default, and then complain low levels are no fun and demand they be powered up.

What new players want, expect, can understand, and will enjoy is far more varied than you think.

 

[MichaelSomething]

What new players want, expect, can understand, and will enjoy is far more varied than you think.

So if I changed "all" to "enough to get WOTC to keep low levels heroic" then it'll be fine?

 

[pemerton]

What I think WotC really should do, is, instead of buffing the low levels, just come out and say "if this is the kind of game you want to play, start at level X and stop at level Y", instead of pointing everyone to start at level 1.

I think that by default the characters should be competent at the basics of what they do. I have no issue if that is level 3

I think it is confusing for new players if they are expected to start at a level other than first. Starting at a higher level looks like the sort of thing an advanced player would do.

(I think I'm at least somewhat agreeing with @MichaelSomething.)

 

[pemerton]

Removing The Grind, suspending all the various Condition Recovery rules in Camp/Town, and Torch cost in Resources/Loadout and Turns of Light (and type of light) matters a ton to Torchbearer.

It would turn it into Burning Wheel lite! Or, in other words, would bring it much closer to Prince Valiant. (Though in the Vincent Baker concentric design model, it would still have a few more layers than Prince Valiant, which is closer to the Over-the-Edge-ish filament.)

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.

I'm not sure that the dropping of those procedures has to entail "GM-directed mush". There might be other procedures - say like those in Burning Wheel about how action resolution works and binds various participants. (And maybe I'm not really disagreeing with you here - because maybe you're saying at that point I move to your model 3 or perhaps model 4?)

But the game certainly changes from dungeon crawl to something else. To build on the first part of this post, I don't think Prince Valiant is "GM-directed mush", but it is certainly not dungeon crawl! I mean, you can frame the PCs into a dungeon, but the resolution will not be crawl-like.

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.

I know you've played Lasers & Feelings and I haven't - but I think maybe this is a bit too harsh?

I fully agree that it can't give a type 1 crawl. Or even "moves snowball". But I think it might give a version of 3 in the one-shot context. (I'm drawing here on my own experience with Wuthering Heights and Cthulhu Dark.) The GM has a lot of permission in respect of scene-framing: but once the scene is framed, there are constraints on resolution that make it more than just mush!

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think it is confusing for new players if they are expected to start at a level other than first. Starting at a higher level looks like the sort of thing an advanced player would do.

(I think I'm at least somewhat agreeing with @MichaelSomething.)

I agree, and I would not start beginning players at level 3. Nor would I start inexperienced players in big campaign arcs. I think short adventure modules in a variety of styles would be better for beginning players.

 

[Manbearcat]

It would turn it into Burning Wheel lite! Or, in other words, would bring it much closer to Prince Valiant. (Though in the Vincent Baker concentric design model, it would still have a few more layers than Prince Valiant, which is closer to the Over-the-Edge-ish filament.)

I'm not sure that the dropping of those procedures has to entail "GM-directed mush". There might be other procedures - say like those in Burning Wheel about how action resolution works and binds various participants. (And maybe I'm not really disagreeing with you here - because maybe you're saying at that point I move to your model 3 or perhaps model 4?)

But the game certainly changes from dungeon crawl to something else. To build on the first part of this post, I don't think Prince Valiant is "GM-directed mush", but it is certainly not dungeon crawl! I mean, you can frame the PCs into a dungeon, but the resolution will not be crawl-like.

I know you've played Lasers & Feelings and I haven't - but I think maybe this is a bit too harsh?

I fully agree that it can't give a type 1 crawl. Or even "moves snowball". But I think it might give a version of 3 in the one-shot context. (I'm drawing here on my own experience with Wuthering Heights and Cthulhu Dark.) The GM has a lot of permission in respect of scene-framing: but once the scene is framed, there are constraints on resolution that make it more than just mush!

No worries, I’m not seeing any disagreement here.

Neither AW layer 1, nor Lasers & Feelings, nor Prince Valiant, nor Cthulu Dark are “GM-directed, qualitative mush” as written or as intended to be played. But they aren’t written or intended to be played as x-crawl game with players tasked with arresting the tragic undoing of their x-crawl via Skilled Play!.

And, for clarity’s sake, the aspect of “GM-directed, qualitative mush” (its certainly not all that…only parts) of my (2) above is a feature and not a bug for those games (so long as the GM isn’t advertising the gameplay experience of 1,3, or 4) because the focus on tone, mood, aesthetic, ephemera, and performative characteristics relies upon (to some degree) turning the not-fit-for-purpose (the purpose of my 2) quantitative, intricate, and table-facing into the qualitative, abstracted, and GM-facing. But, as I’ve attempted to convey in this thread, there are trade-offs!

 

[Bill Zebub]

In general I don't really give much weight to arguments based on fears of what other people are going to do. "Newbies won't understand it." "Powergamers will get 1% more power from it." "Those kids on my lawn will think it's a video game." "Rules lawyers will abuse it." Etc.

I'm interested in what you (all of you) like and don't like about rules and options, and what things you want to be able to do in the game that are supported/inhibited by those rules and options. I can appreciate (and have learned a lot from) those sorts of arguments, even when I don't agree with them, without the bogeyperson of what other people might do.

 

[tetrasodium]

This is one of my main gripes with modern DnD. No one wants the 'zero to hero' trope anymore. It's more 'hero to god' now. Even with discussions about point buy, people want yet more points to put in by default. Everyone wants a 16 or even an 18 on their starting score. With a 14 being considered completely useless.

No I don't think so, Disney has done a good job over the last several years on shining the spotlight on just how bad an overpowered marysue character who begins their heroes' journey already at the end can make a story's health & it gives a good contrast that provides credibility to the years of voices noting for how 5e goes too far into "hero" for the last 8 years or so.

 

[James Gasik]

I think it is confusing for new players if they are expected to start at a level other than first. Starting at a higher level looks like the sort of thing an advanced player would do.

(I think I'm at least somewhat agreeing with @MichaelSomething.)

Ok so if "needing to be level 1" is required, then how about this.

Pathfinder 1e uses point buy, and they have suggested point buy totals based on the kind of game you want to run. So have "low power" "high power" "godlike" point totals suggested.

Pathfinder also had three xp charts for how fast you want people to level- if you're running a high power game, players level faster than in a low power game. *For those people who use milestone leveling, it doesn't matter if you don't track xp, you would be leveling players faster or slower based on the kind of game you're running, this is just to show DM's what they can do to capture the feel of the game they want.

Then, if you're running a high power game, players start with a 10 hit point "kicker" at level 1. If godlike, 20 hit points.

You all start at level 1, but obviously, the difficulty of the game and how quickly you cruise past the early levels and get to the power level you want will vary.

 

[tetrasodium]

Ok so if "needing to be level 1" is required, then how about this.

Pathfinder 1e uses point buy, and they have suggested point buy totals based on the kind of game you want to run. So have "low power" "high power" "godlike" point totals suggested.

Pathfinder also had three xp charts for how fast you want people to level- if you're running a high power game, players level faster than in a low power game. *For those people who use milestone leveling, it doesn't matter if you don't track xp, you would be leveling players faster or slower based on the kind of game you're running, this is just to show DM's what they can do to capture the feel of the game they want.

Then, if you're running a high power game, players start with a 10 hit point "kicker" at level 1. If godlike, 20 hit points.

You all start at level 1, but obviously, the difficulty of the game and how quickly you cruise past the early levels and get to the power level you want will vary.

Some of that predated PF even. I don't know about different exp progression speeds but 3.5 had different pointbuy levels too (15/22/28/32) on dmg169, 5e dumped them though