What's the problem with five room dungeons?

[Lanefan]

I was taken aback by this. I've used the model to great success for years as it makes sure that the variety of personalities at my table are each given something to do over the course of two hours. I've used the structure for dungeons, point crawls, urban adventures and more.

For #dungeon23, I'm trying to hit all five encounter types each week, plus an empty room, plus a wild card room.

Is there some big pushback against the model I'm not familiar with? If so, what's the root of it?

My main pushback would be that the resulting adventures/dungeons are simply too short - no sooner do you get your teeth sunk into it than it's over. And while a very short adventure is fine now and then, they're not something I want to run every time.

I did run across another good model. In an Arcane Library livestream, Kelsey Dionne advocates for having combats and encounters instead rotate through PC character archetypes, and making sure to give fighters, rogues, clerics and wizards each something to do in the adventure (ideally in every combat, although that's not always possible).

While it's nice if one can do this, my preference is not to worry about it and instead write adventures that are each more geared to one class or character type, and mix it up that way.

Right now, for example, I'm running a string of homebrew adventures. As it turned out, the first one was mostly for the explorers and investigators (there were only four monster encounters in the whole place and the PCs never met two of them), the second and third were kind of for everyone, the fourth (in progress) is for the warriors, and the fifth will be for the trap-finders and clerics. But in each, all the other characters certainly have stuff to do nearly all the time, so it's not like anyone is sitting out.

As for size, the first had something like 25 keyed areas plus a village; the second had about 50 keyed areas, the third had 15, the fourth has 52, and the fifth will probably have more (if only because it involved a keyed maze) but I'm still designing it. By "keyed area" I mean a numbered room or site on the map that has a write-up in the module, even if there's no monster or treasure there.

Do you use the five room dungeon model? If not, why not? Is there a better adventure design frame you suggest?

Specific frame? No. Rather, I think of what would make sense in an adventure based on whatever inspiration sparked the idea, then design such that those elements can be present and fit in. Then I add some extra stuff as red herring material or diversions or just for kicks, and start mapping.

 

[aco175]

I use them. I might make one to run on the campout with the scouts since I want something contained and relatively short to expose the kids to. I like to use a variant of them when making side quests in the main campaigns.

 

[J.Quondam]

I use 5RD framework a lot. I mean, it's really just a way to categorize parts of an adventure or zones of a map, basically a simple network of nodes. For a small dungeon, it's a quick-n-dirty way to squeeze out something that works well for a one-shot. For larger scales, I use it sort of like a Fate Fractal, in this case where a big 5RD contains smaller 5RDs each of which contains smaller 5RDs. It's flexible enough to add, twist, or ignore as needed, and makes for a decent starting point most of the time.

I've heard occasional pushback over the years, but nothing big or concerted. Ime, it usually seems to come from people who just happen to prefer a different pet organizational scheme; or else it's a surface misunderstanding, like maybe that "five room dungeon" means literally five rooms each with a literal specific purpose in a literal dungeon on a literal map.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I don't use it. I just do it. I'm aware of the dislike.

From what I see, people don't like the formula. Far too much in modern times.

It's already bad when a luke warm DM and they make a very cardboard "five rooms", but worse then that are the players that know it and metagame along "what room they are in". And that is a groan for any DM.

For many it's just better if it does not exist.

I gotta say, if the players can identify that they're in a five-room dungeon, it's probably time for that forever DM to take a break.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That said, I do employ them for one shots and con games where the goal is to present a specific experience (as opposed to an open experience).

I often DM for groups on vacation, where it's a one-shot event, or for newbies, so I find the length and variety of things to do works very well for short one-shots.

 

[aramis erak]

Terminology note: Five room dungeons are a specific design for RPG adventures, and not literally a reference to having five rooms in a dungeon. For more, see here.

It's euqally valid to call it a "5 encounter model" or "5 Scene Model." IMO, its the equivalent to "one act play" while a standard multi-session adventure is more akin to a 3 act or 5 act model play.

Do you use the five room dungeon model? If not, why not? Is there a better adventure design frame you suggest?

I've used Mouse Guard's structured adventure model both in and outside of Mouse Guard - the number of encounters varies based upon player responses, but it's 4 encounters plus a final "PCs do what they want"

It's limiting, to be sure - more so than the literal 5 room dungeon - but it can provide a lot of enjoyable play, as it's even telling you what kind of encounters (Weather, Wilderness, Mouse (=person), Animal. With large groups, an Extra encounter may be useful.

The thing is, the 5 scene model adventure is usable wildly as a component of a larger structure, and in that role, it's not bad...

But it does get tiresome at times.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I did run across another good model. In an Arcane Library livestream, Kelsey Dionne advocates for having combats and encounters instead rotate through PC character archetypes, and making sure to give fighters, rogues, clerics and wizards each something to do in the adventure (ideally in every combat, although that's not always possible).

Kelsey Dionne is a god. I love their format for adventures.

 

[Reynard]

I did run across another good model. In an Arcane Library livestream, Kelsey Dionne advocates for having combats and encounters instead rotate through PC character archetypes, and making sure to give fighters, rogues, clerics and wizards each something to do in the adventure (ideally in every combat, although that's not always possible).

This is going to sound weird and and I recognize that: this sounds way too artificial.

 

[Malmuria]

The five room dungeon is fine for its specific purpose, which is to use the set dressing of a "dungeon" to present the players with 5 discrete scenes for them to engage with in a session. The exact number of rooms doesn't really matter I don't think; it's just a way to break down an adventure into different kinds of scenes with connections leading between them.

I don't know if there is "pushback," but this kind of scenario design is not favored by people in the OSR, since a 5 room dungeon has a somewhat predetermined "plot." You have 5ish chunks of "content" and you expect the players to interact with all of it. An old-school dungeon crawl is a different kind of scenario, where you tempt the PC's further into the dungeon by the promise of treasure with the risks of traps/monsters/etc. This kind of scenario requires a least a somewhat larger space, but more importantly you don't expect the PCs to necessarily engage with all the content, nor engage with it in any particular order. Things like secret rooms or random wandering monsters are important for a dungeon crawl, but they are not really necessary for a 5 room dungeon.

I'm not sure that makes sense. This blog post does a better job of breaking it down:

Classic Vs. Five Rooms

FIVE ROOMS DON'T MAKE A DUNGEON This blog is largely devoted to repeating a single message about game design, hammering away at the same sub...

alldeadgenerations.blogspot.com

 

[John Dallman]

This is new to me, but I see it's a vehicle for using Joseph Campbell's theories. The problem with using those as a story structure generator, from experience with RuneQuest, is that they tend to become obvious and repetitive. To me, story episodes should arise from reasonably mundane considerations, and use of the Campbellian metamyth should not become visible until the story is close to its end, or even after that. Doing the Hero's Journey repeatedly means that it looses all impact.