When "fun" just isn't enough.

[I'm A Banana]

The most unexpected result of the announcement of 4e is that I find myself agreeing with you more and more often.......

Heheh, don't get me wrong, RC, I still generally prefer my D&D to be heroic adventure.

But I can see where 4e is giving up some things to get to there. Generally, I'm for that. I think a good d20-style game can be based on 4e/3e that takes dungeon survival truly to heart and can do it really well, and I'd look forward to playing that, too.

Ok, KM, let's assume for a second that you're right and "Dungeon Survival" is off the table.

Except I don't think it's TOTALLY off the table. I think it's minimized and marginalized and greatly reduced, that it will require some careful DMing tricks, house rules, and optional rules. I think a clever clever clever 3rd Party Publisher could pounce on "4e Dungeon Survival" like a tiger and get a pretty good fanbase without much in the way of design effort.

And I do think that dungeon survival is *more* suited to earlier editions than it will be to 4th, because of the aforementioned 4e limits on shocking doom and slow attrition.

Could you point me towards any published Dungeon Survival modules? Other than maybe Tomb of Horrors, is there any? If dungeon survival as you've described was a prevalent style of play, wouldn't we see support for it? Even back in the day, I can't really think of any modules that play out that way.

Though my experience with modules is vastly limited, I do think you're right -- published adventures reflected heroic adventure more than dungeon survival (though as you point out Tomb of Horrors, and any kind of character-munching dungeon would qualify). Which is part of why I said that heroic adventure was in D&D from the very beginning. 4e is definately leaning on that part of the game more.

Wandering monsters were generally a complete waste of time. The DM couldn't be bothered rolling them because they were boring.

Ooh, yay, a meaningless encounter, completely underpowered, that results in no rewards. Gimme more of that.

Perfect example of why they don't fit all playstyles, and why they (probably) won't be in 4e, which is stressing the heroic adventure model more than the dungeon survival model. Exactly the same reason I got rid of them in FFZ (which is heroic adventure on crack).

But they are part of the slow attrition in dungeon survival, part of the atmosphere of knowing you're not meant to be here, that this is something else's home, and that you are unwelcome. Wandering monsters existed to give players a jolt of 'can't stay here long.'

I agree with this as long as we recognise a difference between taming and removing. Second wind is a per day ability. The high end abilities are all per day abilities. This means there is attrition.

There definately is some. I believe Races & Classes mentioned that the very first 4e theory got rid of almost all of them, but one of the designers pointed out that resource management is part of the fun of D&D. So there is some.

Save or die spells don't create a dungeon survival aspect - it's the whittling down of PROTECTIONS against save or die that create a dungeon survival aspect.

Kind of. While this is definately in the model of attrition, dungeon survival also needs those "SURPRISE, YOU ARE DEAD!" moments. This is what keeps the party poking every square with a 10' pole. Anywhere could hide something instantly and unavoidably deadly, so hyper-caution is the name of the strategy. Every dungeon survival group has seen at least one careless rogue wind up as wet red paste because he thought he could take a step without checking for traps, first.

That "binary" play is what makes for some of the fun of pacing. Most groups would get bored just with one challenge (attrition). Slow, slow, slow....FAST....slow....FAST....slow.....FAST, FAST, FAST.....Treasure!

If the rules allow characters to use per encounter abilities to heal back up to full then yes Dungeon Survival is dead. But if per encounter abilities don't allow healing beyond what you started the encounter at then Dungeon Survival is still alive and well (although tamed slightly)

I do believe this will likely be the case. And the taming is what folks who love the dungeon survival are worried about, because it means more work for them to get the game they like to play. I only hear a few hyperbolic grousings ("do characters die anymore?"), I hear a lot more of the whole "there's more than one kind of fun!" kind of talk. Which just seems to want to remind the designers that D&D has had at least two strong styles of gameplay, one of which certainly looks like it's being pushed away farther with the newest edition.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Heheh, don't get me wrong, RC, I still generally prefer my D&D to be heroic adventure.

Heh.

I didn't mean to suggest that our preferences are aligned, but rather that our philosophies of how rules affect game play have become closer.

RC

 

[Grog]

the treatment of traps as terrain and the dungeon as an arena/gauntlet,

You do realize that in Keep on the Borderlands, it was specifically stated that the monsters in a given cave would go to the aid of their comrades when they heard the sound of combat, right?

In fact, I've been playing since B/X and 1E, and except for when I was just starting out as a DM and trying to keep things simple, I don't think I've ever played in or run a dungeon where the monsters in a given room would just sit there and do nothing until the PCs opened the door, regardless of what was going on around them (unless they were undead or constructs or something with specific orders to guard a certain area).

Dungeons in D&D have always had an "arena" aspect to them. This isn't something new to 4E.

 

[Reynard]

Dungeons in D&D have always had an "arena" aspect to them. This isn't something new to 4E.

Yes. Good dungeon design will take into account how monsters respond to PCs' actions. That is not the same thing as what the Dungeons Des&Dev article lays out, which is purposefully placing opposition to create waves of attackers in order to diversify and extend the combat that counts as "an encounter".

 

[Grog]

Yes. Good dungeon design will take into account how monsters respond to PCs' actions. That is not the same thing as what the Dungeons Des&Dev article lays out, which is purposefully placing opposition to create waves of attackers in order to diversify and extend the combat that counts as "an encounter".

How is this not exactly the same thing that was done in Keep on the Borderlands? Monsters in that module were purposely placed close enough to each other so that one group would hear the PCs enter combat with another group, and join the battle a few rounds after it started.

 

[Lanefan]

Was it A3 or A4 where the party starts out as captives and have to figure out how to escape, recover their gear, and then do whatever it is they have to do? I'd put the first part of that firmly in the Dungeon-Survival camp...

And, if you've never seen it, may I point you toward the old Judges' Guild module Sword of Hope. Not only are there monsters everywhere, but ***SPOILER ALERT*** the more you wander around yourselves the more monsters get generated and the nastier they get, until you're smothered by them.

Most modules, however, are written as build-ups to a final solution, be it a confrontation with the Big Bad, or rescue of the princess, or whatever. To me, the Dungeon-Survival part of most modules is all the stuff you have to wade through to get to the final encounter.

Lanefan

 

[Phlebas]

@Reynard

very well thought out article about how fun is 'always' subjective - one of my biggest concerns on some of the developments in 4e is that D&D (IMHO) has always been in a middle ground where you can play anything from 'kick in the door', 'high immersion', 'commando' or 'tell a story'. the whole range from high to low fantasy. D&D may not have always been the best system for all of these styles, but it has been one of the few that could cover all of these with minimal mods.
Some of the discussion that's been going on in these threads has been very constructive / optimistic about how the new rules wont change this basic ideal. I hope they're right, but I remain to be convinced

 

[Reynard]

Some of the discussion that's been going on in these threads has been very constructive / optimistic about how the new rules wont change this basic ideal. I hope they're right, but I remain to be convinced

I think D&D works -- and has worked -- as a generic toolkit for fun* simply because it has, throughout all of its editions, made it easy to modify by simple inclusion and exclusion. While most people house rule to some degree or another, I think that it is far easier to simply state "There are no druids in this world" or "All the asian-themed Complete clases are allowed" and the like. Extended to the rules, this means that including or excluding (or simply omitting) rules on critical fumbles/hits, disease, encumbrance, resource attrition (as in ammo and food and such) and the like can have a profound impact on play with minimal effort. Going between "grim and gritty" to "epic heroism" is as easy as cutting out clerics or giving everyone max hit points at every level.

On that level, anyway, it doesn't seem likely, possible even, for 4E to change that aspect of the game unless there is some heretofore unmentioned integrating mechanic (say, having actually game affects depend on the presence of a member of a particular "role").

* I know. D&D is not a "gheneric game" or a "toolkit game". But in the context of sword and sworcery/high fantasy adventure, it is both generic and a toolkit.

 

[Phlebas]

......
On that level, anyway, it doesn't seem likely, possible even, for 4E to change that aspect of the game unless there is some heretofore unmentioned integrating mechanic (say, having actually game affects depend on the presence of a member of a particular "role").
...

I hope you're right, some of the things i'm hearing (such as less magic items assumed at high level) would seem to make it easier to switch between the genre's. However if 'powers' are replacing the magic items with inbuilt stuff that can make it harder to adjust if you dont want superheroes with swords.
Removing saving throws and replacing it with target DC's simplifies things, removing ability damage / level loss / save vs die effects so that everything is HP damage or nothing seems restrictive (not that i'd use them all, just be nice to have all options as DM)
If the 4 roles are essential to a party balance (as opposed to desirable) then that restricts your options. If any class can be any role then that gives you a great baseline to work from.
If the combat is sped up so that more time can be spent on interaction rather than rule-checking, fantastic! If social interaction is sped up so more time can be spent on combat then .....

I wish i was hearing more from the designers / posters on 4E how they were adding flexibility and options rather than how they were making a leaner, 'fun' game. Hopefully its just due to the trickle release of information...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I hope you're right, some of the things i'm hearing (such as less magic items assumed at high level) would seem to make it easier to switch between the genre's. However if 'powers' are replacing the magic items with inbuilt stuff that can make it harder to adjust if you dont want superheroes with swords.
Removing saving throws and replacing it with target DC's simplifies things, removing ability damage / level loss / save vs die effects so that everything is HP damage or nothing seems restrictive (not that i'd use them all, just be nice to have all options as DM)

It is to early to tell, but while Save or Die (immediately) is out, I think non-hp effects are still in. They just don't change your base statistics (like ability damage or level loss), and instead only cause penalties. That makes them quicker to adjucate, since you never have to recalculate your level or ability related modifiers.

If the 4 roles are essential to a party balance (as opposed to desirable) then that restricts your options. If any class can be any role then that gives you a great baseline to work from.

Classes that can fulfill any role seem to be against the whole concept of a class system in the first place. And once you have different classes, it will usually be better if you cover all "bases" (roles in 4E speak). Even systems without classes effectively have these roles "build" in. (Someone who is good at dealing damage and someone that is good at patching his comrades up is a necessity for most systems where combat is common.)

If the combat is sped up so that more time can be spent on interaction rather than rule-checking, fantastic!

I add "applying rule effects" to a possible detriment. Adjusting ability scores and all affected modifiers can be awkward.

If social interaction is sped up so more time can be spent on combat then .....

Well, it can't get quicker than a 3e Diplomacy Check, can it?
Otherwise, I think how much social interaction is played out (or how long) is mostly depended on the game group*. But the game rules can help those interested in playing out social interaction to add some meaningful game choices, and can make it easier for both sides to influence or at least predict the outcome of a social interaction. (Regardless whether you prefer to give a long and flavorful description (including speech and intonation) of it or just want to make some rolls to determine whether you can convince someone to your side.)

*) This also applies to other aspects, even combat. Some like to describe combats in detail, others are just interested in the tactical (game) choices, and even some others are bored to hell and just want to get over it.