D&D 5E What Don't You Like About Dungeons?

[iserith]

As a player, I actually find site-based exploration gives me the most freedom while playing and makes me feel the most actively engaged with the physical environment of the game. Like I'm proactively in control of where my character is going and what they are doing and how they are interacting with the environment. I enjoy other modes of play, but I definitely feel like they have a tendency to be more passive/reactive to specific opportunities the DM gives me.

Well put. I have the same sense as a player when playing either campaign. With a dungeon, I'm in charge and "the story" is whatever my party does. With a plot, I feel like I'm playing a guessing game of what I'm supposed to do to get to the next part of the DM's story and I don't like it as much.

 

[Incenjucar]

As a DM, I far prefer letting players decide where the story goes. I can move the plot around them if there are important elements, or just tell them about the consequences to the world if they choose to ignore the plot hooks. If the players choose to ignore the dragon rampage in a small kingdom, they later see refugees from that kingdom show up in droves, etc.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

What I like:

A dungeon represents action. Your party has made a decision to explore those ruins for whatever reason. The debate and waffling is done and now you’re heading in where you get to use all your cool abilities and the action is going to happen. I CAN’T WAIT!

What I dislike:

When is this dungeon going to end? It’s a repetitive slog of searching fighting and going left.

Notes:
A dungeon done properly is fun. A couple of sessions with interesting encounters, some puzzles and some mystery and some intense and dangerous fights.

Side note:
On a vtt it can be super frustrating if your front line rogue or whoever is scouting ahead is not paying attention and everyone is waiting for them to figure out where to go. It can slow things down and make it tedious. I find this rarely happens with TotM.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think dungeons, or, more generally, site-based adventures with explorable maps (could be a dungeon, tower, ruins, a castle, a galleon, etc.)

yeah maybe that;s imporant... if I draw up an enemy fort (like say a hobgoblin military base or an Orc raider camp site) or any other constrained adventure sight I think of it as a dungeon..

Such adventures should provide an exciting mix of combat, exploration, and role-playing opportunities.

where I agree they SHOULD I often find they do not... the exploration is often just "ccheck for traps" or "Gee what monster is in this room" and the social depends on what the DM feels like...

The adventurers should have personal reasons for being there, the location should have a reason for existing, and its denizens should have agendas and goals. There should often be multiple viable ways to approach challenges.

again that is great to say, but I fins good DMs that can pulll it off (or even want to for a dungeon crawl) few and far between.

As a player, I actually find site-based exploration gives me the most freedom while playing and makes me feel the most actively engaged with the physical environment of the game.

I find that odd... not saying you are wrong to feel that way but the most wide open I feel as a player is when I have multi adventure hooks in a town and can just choose 'none of the above' and know the DM can roll with it... or when I know that I can spend a night socializing with aristicrats.

Like I'm proactively in control of where my character is going and what they are doing and how they are interacting with the environment.

again that is the oppisite of my experence... once in a place full of traps and monsters there is a direct path and an indirict path at best (in my experence) like I can go left or right, but that's it... and both ways lead to another trap or room of monsters or some combo.

 

[Staffan]

Dungeons are a sometimes food. They're best when they're one of several patches in a larger quilt. Again I'll point to the best adventure made for D&D, Dragon's Crown. You have lots of overland travel back and forth across Athas (with numerous side quests you can throw in to break up the main quest), exploration, and social interaction in between the dungeons. That's a good mix, and the dungeons don't overstay their welcome.

Another good example from the console side of things is the Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time. While the dungeons there are a bit larger than I like in D&D, there's a lot of stuff going on in between them, and often you need to do a smaller dungeon or go explore somewhere in order to properly open up a major dungeon (or, more often, acquire an item you'll need in that dungeon).

A bad example is Princes of the Apocalypse, which is essentially one big 13-level dungeon with a topography that's a bit odd (there are four surface-level "Haunted Keeps" that serve as entrances to the four quarters of the ruined dwarf city Tyar-Besil, with all four quarters having a path leading down to a cavern level which in turn leads to four "elemental nodes"). The early part where you try to figure out what has happened to a group of dignitaries traveling from Luskan to Waterdeep is fun, because there's overland travel and encountering the different keeps and figuring out what they're all about, But once you go below, it's a Big Slog. And I think the designers anticipated that and included some side treks, but there's no easy way to incorporate those because there's no reason for the PCs to be traveling and encounter them.

 

[iserith]

Side note:
On a vtt it can be super frustrating if your front line rogue or whoever is scouting ahead is not paying attention and everyone is waiting for them to figure out where to go. It can slow things down and make it tedious. I find this rarely happens with TotM.

What I have seen is players moving their tokens all over the place and getting separated. I addressed that by having players put a status icon on their token with a color that represents a general ongoing task (keeping watch for danger, searching for secret doors, etc.) and a number to indicate their rank in the marching order. Then as a player you're expected to follow the person in the rank ahead of you. If you choose to be in the front rank, you better not be tabbed out or otherwise inattentive else everyone will give you a hard time since they are waiting on you to move.

 

[Staffan]

Another thing I thought of: I think the classic Undermountain-style mega-dungeon that's just like a small dungeon only much bigger is an inherently flawed concept. I think this type of dungeon is best approached as a wilderness region and/or a city adventure. Just like you generally don't map out every street and alley in a city, you don't map out every room in the dungeon. Instead you focus on sub-regions separated by wilderness/neutral territory, and maybe incorporate mini-dungeons/lairs as random encounters.

 

[Malmuria]

 

[Vaalingrade]

Well put. I have the same sense as a player when playing either campaign. With a dungeon, I'm in charge and "the story" is whatever my party does. With a plot, I feel like I'm playing a guessing game of what I'm supposed to do to get to the next part of the DM's story and I don't like it as much.

I have some terrible news about who made the dungeon...

 

[Staffan]

Yet another thought: what is the archetypal mega-dungeon from fantasy fiction? The Mines of Moria. They are vast, with many dangerous sites within. And yet, the whole ordeal of the Fellowship in the Mines can be summed up in seven events, and that's with some generous counting:

1. Entry, figuring out the password.
2. Attacked by the Watcher in the Water, flee.
3. Various treacherous paths, rock thrown in well, drums in the deep.
4. Finding Balin's tomb, learning what happened to the dwarves.
5. Attacked by orcs and a cave troll, revealing Frodo's mithril shirt.
6. Fleeing through the mines.
7. The Bridge of Khazad-dûm.

That's three prepared locations (entrance, the Tomb, and the Bridge), two wilderness montages, and one random encounter. That's a good dungeon.