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

[rmcoen]

Honestly, I've always had an issue with "Dungeons" and "dragons".... dungeons are not a natural habitat of dragons! Even the one I just described a couple posts ago isn't a dragon, it's a dragon skeleton - the (now-ruined) castle was built on top of this discovery because they found a dragon skeleton (and other things unique to my campaign Story). So much "suspension of disbelief" is required to handle a lot of the monsters found in a Dungeon -- my disbelief can't stretch enough to put a dragon down there!

 

[iserith]

Honestly, I've always had an issue with "Dungeons" and "dragons".... dungeons are not a natural habitat of dragons! Even the one I just described a couple posts ago isn't a dragon, it's a dragon skeleton - the (now-ruined) castle was built on top of this discovery because they found a dragon skeleton (and other things unique to my campaign Story). So much "suspension of disbelief" is required to handle a lot of the monsters found in a Dungeon -- my disbelief can't stretch enough to put a dragon down there!

Dragons aren't natural creatures and it's a game based on make-believe. Dragons also appear in both the Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury, two pretty good dungeons from D&D 3e that was updated to D&D 5e. How about a white dragon in a series of glacial ice caves and ruins from a previous civilization now frozen over? A red dragon in Dr. Inferno's volcano laboratory?

 

[Clint_L]

Also, the game is called "Dungeons and Dragons," not "Dragons in Dungeons." Don't put your dragons in dungeons when it doesn't make sense. I would generally advise against it, unless there is a vast space; dragons kind of suck when they can't get airborne. Due respect to Themberchaud.

 

[gorice]

What I don't like about dungeons is that many of them are just set dressing, not proper locations to explore. I don't think many dungeons I see these days are actually dungeons, functionally. For example, I don't think you can have a 'five-room dungeon', because there are no meaningful decisions to be made regarding exploration in a mere five rooms. Even some larger dungeons are just more-or-less linear strings of set-piece encounters.

A true dungeon is big enough that you have to think about where to go next, and dangerous enough that you might consider turning back, or taking an alternate path to avoid a monster or hazard. 5e doesn't really support this kind of play.

 

[rmcoen]

Dragons aren't natural creatures and it's a game based on make-believe. Dragons also appear in both the Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury, two pretty good dungeons from D&D 3e that was updated to D&D 5e. How about a white dragon in a series of glacial ice caves and ruins from a previous civilization now frozen over? A red dragon in Dr. Inferno's volcano laboratory?

Absolutely. When we shift to my first point, defining a "dungeon" as an "area with a set of related encounters/locations", then yes, absolutely, dragons can fit into that. When "dungeon" is "a series of stone corridors, with rooms of varying sizes", which is generally also not realistically providing access to food (or bathrooms)"... then no!

 

[iserith]

What I don't like about dungeons is that many of them are just set dressing, not proper locations to explore. I don't think many dungeons I see these days are actually dungeons, functionally. For example, I don't think you can have a 'five-room dungeon', because there are no meaningful decisions to be made regarding exploration in a mere five rooms. Even some larger dungeons are just more-or-less linear strings of set-piece encounters.

A true dungeon is big enough that you have to think about where to go next, and dangerous enough that you might consider turning back, or taking an alternate path to avoid a monster or hazard. 5e doesn't really support this kind of play.

That has not been my experience. Some dials need to be adjusted on occasion to fit the experience you're going for (more survival horror or less), but D&D 5e does dungeons just fine. I find the rules actually work better, particularly around the 6-8 encounter workday in a dungeon environment. What do you think is lacking?

 

[rmcoen]

Here was my Dungeon from Monday's session:

Edit: map formatting was abysmal!

1 was the entry; an alternate concealed entry/exit in 7. 7 is actually a huge room. the path between 5 and 6 is broken (15' gap over a 45' fall to water). Room 3 is partially submerged, and has water tunnels to the surface and to another location. the paths between 1 & 4, and 2 & 5 are mostly blocked by roots hanging down almost to the floor.

1 is empty. 2 is empty, but slimy, and mushrooms; trail on wall leading to 3. 3 has two giant crocs in the water, and a piece of equipment leading to the other area. 4 has a threat, primed to grab anyone crawling under the vines in the passage. 5 has a handful of CR 2 fungus monsters. 6 has one violet fungus, some coins, a +1 sword that needs repair, and a minor puzzle to gain access to 7. 7 has a gelatinous cube, and more violet fungus in the corner. 8 has hostile terrain, the dragon skeleton, and oozes. 9 has a golem and some "special materials" as treasure.

The party entered at 1, went to 2, went to 3, killed the crocs, chose not to follow the underwater path, and went to 6. They solved the puzzle, went to 7, killed the cube, went to 8, figured out how to handle the hostile terrain, but retreated from the oozes. They tried to hack a path from 2 to 5, but got attacked by violet fungus tentacles (reach 10' under the hanging vines). "Screw this, I'm going home," and they left.

This "dungeon" had multiple potential access paths, differing terrain (water, acidic moss, bare stone and slimy stone), a couple puzzles (opening a portcullis, dealing with acidic moss), minor treasures and materials, and some Story/lore advancement, and of course, the "rescue the noble" quest (and political benefits of that). the party was 8th level, the biggest threats were pairs of CR 5 creatures. Should have been a 2 session activity (our sessions are short and... unfocused at times). Instead, it was one session, partially completed, and abandoned.


WHICH IS FINE (I keep reminding myself). The PCs made decisions, those decisions have consequences for good and ill. They got some money, a magic sword (actually, nonmagical +1, of special material), some XP, had some fun, and we moved on.

[I should be fair... bad luck resulted in the Rogue's death -- which was reversed with a revivify item -- so she was understandably leading the "let's leave!" parade!]

 

[gorice]

That has not been my experience. Some dials need to be adjusted on occasion to fit the experience you're going for (more survival horror or less), but D&D 5e does dungeons just fine. I find the rules actually work better, particularly around the 6-8 encounter workday in a dungeon environment. What do you think is lacking?

Mostly, workable procedures for stuff like random encounters, plus time and resource tracking. I also think the cheap and plentiful magic tends to undermine most challenges that aren't straight combat.

I've run dungeons in 5e, and it can be done, but it always felt like I was fighting the system.

 

[overgeeked]

Any dungeon that lasts more than 2-3 sessions is too long. They’re often too samey with heaps of rooms and encounters that are easily interchangeable and utterly forgettable. Combine those and you get incredibly boring games. That’s what I don’t like about them.

 

[Lord Shark]

I get intensely bored, both as a DM and a player, by the constant stream of repetitive actions you get in a dungeon: listening at doors, checking for traps, looking for secret doors. It slows play to a, well, crawl.

 

[TheSword]

I don’t like when they are chock full of arbitrary filler… or worse of all procedurally generated. Part of exploration for me is unraveling a mystery - and it needs to be more involved than what’s on the other side of that door.

I’m not averse to the occasional red herring or spammer in the works. Or even multiple thread lines only tangentially related to the main plot… but I do want things to tie together. Good dungeons reveal information and clues through the rooms you explore that give hints and warnings to the savvy and reveal a wider truth.

I also don’t like when dungeons become hack and slash. I want conversations, factions, back and forth deals, double crosses and bargains. Good dungeons can include these but many don’t.

 

[Clint_L]

A true dungeon is big enough that you have to think about where to go next, and dangerous enough that you might consider turning back, or taking an alternate path to avoid a monster or hazard. 5e doesn't really support this kind of play.

Totally disagree with that last statement. I have had no problem running large dungeons in 5e. I don't even really understand the claim - what about 5e specifically would make it hard to have to think about where to go next, or turning back, or taking an alternate path to avoid a monster or hazard? Those are all elements of dungeon design that are edition agnostic.

 

[nevin]

So you've decided to play this game called Dungeons & Dragons. But, perhaps after some experience with the game, you've decided you don't like dungeons. I feel like I see this a lot in various online discussions and I find it unusual to take a stance against the very thing the game was seemingly designed around and still continue playing it.

While the game can feature adventure locations and situations that aren't or don't involve dungeons, what is it specifically about dungeons that you don't like? When you hear that it's time for a "dungeon crawl," what sort of negative things does that conjure in your mind? If you're a DM, why do you avoid running dungeons in your own games?

If you do like dungeons (or at least like them as much as other adventure locations), what do you like about them? How do you approach them as a player? If you're a DM, what kind of resources do you use to help you design and run them effectively?

(I'm making this a D&D 5e thread because that is the most recent and arguably popular version of the game. If you're going to talk about other editions or even other games, please say so explicitly so as to mitigate misunderstandings as to rules or the like.)

My biggest problem with most dungeons is why the hell are they there. The other thing I hate about dungeons is people that run nothing but dungeons. It gets so boring. Check the door, check for traps listen for monsters, do we set of the trap or leave it there. Now as an occasional go down into the dark place and find the missing rod of zagyg sure. If that's all the game is ever going to be. NOPE>

 

[rmcoen]

My biggest problem with most dungeons is why the hell are they there. NOPE>

Nevin, I'm totally with you here. This is the key thought that drives all my designs/maps/"dungeons". If it's a true dungeon - why was this underground prison built, and why here? (secret research base around the dragon skeleton, with a fort to protect the researchers) If it's a tower in the middle of nowhere, why was it built way out here? (because this is where the planar rift was discovered) If it's a converted mine, what were the miners mining? And why was it converted to [insert thing here]? And so on.

 

[nevin]

"5e doesn't really support this kind of play."


Since when? Nothing in 5e stops that kind of play.

 

[Vaalingrade]

"5e doesn't really support this kind of play."


Since when? Nothing in 5e stops that kind of play.

Not preventing isn't the same as supporting.

Don't believe me? Ask your DM.

 

[iserith]

Mostly, workable procedures for stuff like random encounters, plus time and resource tracking. I also think the cheap and plentiful magic tends to undermine most challenges that aren't straight combat.

I've run dungeons in 5e, and it can be done, but it always felt like I was fighting the system.

Random encounters are definitely covered in the DMG. Time is somewhat lacking in rules depth, but only to the extent that they leave it to the DM to decide what is important to them there. (I run exploration in 10 minute turns, for example.) For spells, it's as easy as removing the ones that obviate the sort of challenges you'd rather the players deal with in some other way.

I very rarely run D&D 5e "as is" for any adventure, including dungeons, since I like to make adjustments to support the theme or setting. So I have the same expectation when running dungeons. If I want it to be more old school survival horror, for example, I'm going to turn on Variant Encumbrance, tie eating rations to rests, take away spells that create light, and so on. A system that purports to be anything to everybody will always require some modification to get it where it needs to be for a specific game in my view.

 

[nevin]

I still don't see it and I'm a forever DM. Supports it just fine. Players have to manage resources instead of running back out every encounter. Game works fine as long as DM knows what they are doing. Now if you are saying new DM's reading the junk WOTC gives them these days might not be able to run it effectively or they might kill thier party trying to throw too many monsters at them. That's been an issue in every single version.

 

[iserith]

My biggest problem with most dungeons is why the hell are they there. The other thing I hate about dungeons is people that run nothing but dungeons. It gets so boring. Check the door, check for traps listen for monsters, do we set of the trap or leave it there. Now as an occasional go down into the dark place and find the missing rod of zagyg sure. If that's all the game is ever going to be. NOPE>

Nevin, I'm totally with you here. This is the key thought that drives all my designs/maps/"dungeons". If it's a true dungeon - why was this underground prison built, and why here? (secret research base around the dragon skeleton, with a fort to protect the researchers) If it's a tower in the middle of nowhere, why was it built way out here? (because this is where the planar rift was discovered) If it's a converted mine, what were the miners mining? And why was it converted to [insert thing here]? And so on.

Where I find these sorts of concerns curious is that in a game based on make-believe, we can just make up how the dungeon got there and what it was once used for (or anything else about it), so isn't this sort of admitting to a failure of imagination?

 

[Bawylie]

Where I find these sorts of concerns curious is that in a game based on make-believe, we can just make up how the dungeon got there and what it was once used for (or anything else about it), so isn't this sort of admitting to a failure of imagination?

could also be failure of the source material to communicate adequately. Or failure of the source material to present that info in-game adequately. I suppose it depends a good deal on where you sit. DM, player, writer, artist.