the things table top can't seem to get right

[Temperjoke]

well, computer RPGs like Final Fantasy are role-playing games too, it's just that you are given a character sheet that has been filled out for you, and you are now acting in that role; like an actor/actress in a play acting out a role.

[runeghost]

well, computer RPGs like Final Fantasy are role-playing games too, it's just that you are given a character sheet that has been filled out for you, and you are now acting in that role; like an actor/actress in a play acting out a role.

I think that depends on the player of the CRPG. Sometimes they do "get into character" and try to play as their imagined version of the character would. Other players will just treat it as a tactical exercise, maybe with cool-looking game pieces.

Both are perfectly fine approaches to the game, but they are rather different. (And people play tabletop both ways, too.)

[Tanarii]

Do people actually think it's roleplaying, as opposed to... what terms are suitable? Wargaming? Dungeonneering? Just playing for fun without much regard to in-game social stuff?Those are both good terms. But they don't exclude Roleplaying.

So to answer your question: Yes, I do think of them as roleplaying. To counter with the hyperbole of the poster you quoted, the modern mentality that Roleplaying means story-telling time or talky time is the bane of the hobby.

Roleplaying is making in-character decisions. That can happen in dungeon crawling, or combat, as easily as any other part of play.

Obviously decisions not being in-character can easily NOT happen in dungeon crawling and combat. You can easily play many TRPGs as a "board-game" with no character to be making in-character decisions for during combat or dungeon crawling, entirely making decisions based on the rules interactions.

[kyoryu]

Those are both good terms. But they don't exclude Roleplaying.

So to answer your question: Yes, I do think of them as roleplaying. To counter with the hyperbole of the poster you quoted, the modern mentality that Roleplaying means story-telling time or talky time is the bane of the hobby.

Roleplaying is making in-character decisions. That can happen in dungeon crawling, or combat, as easily as any other part of play.

Obviously decisions not being in-character can easily NOT happen in dungeon crawling and combat. You can easily play many TRPGs as a "board-game" with no character to be making in-character decisions for during combat or dungeon crawling, entirely making decisions based on the rules interactions.

The board needs to install a "+1 mod" just so I can use it for this post.

[Jay R]

I think the old school, dungeon crawling mentality is the bane of the hobby.

On paper, roleplaying games are supposed to be about taking control of a character and interacting with other characters of the game world. However, if all you do is walk around empty corridors that may or may not have traps (demanding a surprising amount of game time) and fight monsters (which are all, for one reason or another, effectively immune to talking), there's not much you can do to roleplay. Roleplaying party dynamics is fun but that can't always serve as the main event of conflict within the game. Also, in this model the random, standardized heroes the players control, seem to live in a vacuum, with no ties to the game world.

The worst part is that walking empty corridors is supposed to be roleplaying by alarmingly high number of game designers and players.

A non-parody movie or a book about a typical old school rpg-adventure would probably seem a bit boring and surreal.

I would agree, if any gaming I ever saw, stretching back to 1975, really fit that description.

But it doesn't. That's grossly over-simplistic.

Trying to describe a 4-12 hour experience in a single sentence in a single sentence requires absurd over-simplification. I've played in the kind of game you're trying to describe with many different characters, and they are all different. But that's not because your description is wrong; only because it's overly simplified.

For one thing, the monsters were never really immune to talking. They are often immune to negotiation as long as they think they will defeat you with minimal risk, but that's not the same thing. One of my favorite memories is backing away from my foe, talking to him, and getting him to bribe me with a magic item to let him leave. Talking to the DM later, I discovered that we had both been at 1 hit point (in original D&D, in which 0 hit points is dead).

I'm not objecting to your description. I can't do better in a single sentence either. Just remember that any one-sentence description of an hours-long experience is inherently too simplistic.

If you dislike the main idea expressed by the description, you might be right. But if you disapprove of how simplistic the idea is, you're probably dealing with the simplicity of the description, not of the actual experience.

[quinron]

Those are both good terms. But they don't exclude Roleplaying.

So to answer your question: Yes, I do think of them as roleplaying. To counter with the hyperbole of the poster you quoted, the modern mentality that Roleplaying means story-telling time or talky time is the bane of the hobby.

Roleplaying is making in-character decisions. That can happen in dungeon crawling, or combat, as easily as any other part of play.

Obviously decisions not being in-character can easily NOT happen in dungeon crawling and combat. You can easily play many TRPGs as a "board-game" with no character to be making in-character decisions for during combat or dungeon crawling, entirely making decisions based on the rules interactions.

Just for posterity's sake, I'll put forward that "making decisions in-character" and "ignoring certain character traits to win a fight" are not mutually exclusive. Too often, people like to say that others aren't roleplaying if they're not making sub-optimal decisions - something that most people stop doing once a fight breaks out. However, it's completely reasonable to assume that facing the mortal threats that are most RPG combats, most people are realistically going to put aside their impeccable grooming or refusal to depend on others when slogging through the mud or asking for a heal could mean the difference between life and death.

[Tanarii]

Just for posterity's sake, I'll put forward that "making decisions in-character" and "ignoring certain character traits to win a fight" are not mutually exclusive. Too often, people like to say that others aren't roleplaying if they're not making sub-optimal decisions - something that most people stop doing once a fight breaks out. However, it's completely reasonable to assume that facing the mortal threats that are most RPG combats, most people are realistically going to put aside their impeccable grooming or refusal to depend on others when slogging through the mud or asking for a heal could mean the difference between life and death.
If those that don't are more likely to die, they're unlikely to end up being high level adventures. :smallwink:

But just considering the factor makes it a form of roleplaying. If you have to think about that, those character personalities and knowledge, then make the decision anyway because you have to make that choice to live, you've made a decision in character. Distasteful as the choice might be to your character,

The point is to be aware of available knowledge to your character, and your characters frame of mindset, motivations and personality. So you know when those factors would differ from yours. Then when you make decisions in play, you can take them in to account when making decisions if appropriate or applicable.

That doesn't mean slavishly adhering to 'that's what my character would do'. It just means not playing an avatar of yourself, a mechanical extension making choices purely based on your own personal knowledge (including meta game), motivations and personality. And that can apply during any part of the game. Not just during story telling and talky time.

[kyoryu]

Just for posterity's sake, I'll put forward that "making decisions in-character" and "ignoring certain character traits to win a fight" are not mutually exclusive. Too often, people like to say that others aren't roleplaying if they're not making sub-optimal decisions - something that most people stop doing once a fight breaks out. However, it's completely reasonable to assume that facing the mortal threats that are most RPG combats, most people are realistically going to put aside their impeccable grooming or refusal to depend on others when slogging through the mud or asking for a heal could mean the difference between life and death.

People are rarely that black and white. That's not a personality, that's a personality disorder.

"Not wanting to die" is almost always in character. Yes, there are times when someone will choose to give up their life, but only when it's really worth it. Not smudging their new cloak is *not* worth it.

Asking which of a character's values is more important (living vs. not asking for a heal) is a great thing to do in RPGs. Some games are built entirely around that.

[goto124]

But just considering the factor makes it a form of roleplaying. If you have to think about that, those character personalities and knowledge, then make the decision anyway because you have to make that choice to live, you've made a decision in character. Distasteful as the choice might be to your character,

The point is to be aware of available knowledge to your character, and your characters frame of mindset, motivations and personality. So you know when those factors would differ from yours. Then when you make decisions in play, you can take them in to account when making decisions if appropriate or applicable.

That doesn't mean slavishly adhering to 'that's what my character would do'. It just means not playing an avatar of yourself, a mechanical extension making choices purely based on your own personal knowledge (including meta game), motivations and personality. And that can apply during any part of the game. Not just during story telling and talky time.

I'm what you described in the last paragraph - I make choices purely based on my own personal knowledge, motivations, and personality. I just refluff my decisions to make them look like my characters did them. Or outright change my characters, if refluffing isn't enough.

I aim to avoid disrupting other people's fun, and to keep my character alive. At times, my mind stretches "keep my character alive" into "make sure absolutely nothing bad happens to her, and if any part of your totally perfectly crafted plan fails, quit the game and cry in your bed for a week". I actually make up stuff as I play along and am rather stupid, but the effect's the same. Funnily enough, if I play a CRPG and things go south, I laugh it off, say "eheheh, game's that way" and try again. Maybe because I don't feel the burden of responsibility when I play a CRPG (everything's scripted, if someone goes wrong it's supposed to go wrong to push the plot forward and you're on the right track), while in roleplaying games I've got the "you are responsible for your actions" attitude drilled in after reading horror stories of players who failed to do so (if something goes wrong, it really is your fault and you could've avoided it if you made a better decision, loser).

I seem to fare better in games where I don't face the consequences of my actions, but doesn't that take away the point of being able to make meaningful decisions, which is a large part of roleplaying?

[Cluedrew]

I'm what you described in the last paragraph - I make choices purely based on my own personal knowledge, motivations, and personality. I just refluff my decisions to make them look like my characters did them. Or outright change my characters, if refluffing isn't enough.Since you are speaking like you think this is a problem my advice for this is simple. Create a character that is you with some "hats" (so it is you for that setting). This means you can default to your own behaviour in most cases. Then make one change to the character's personality.

Just one, so they act as you would except for this one thing which you can focus on. This is how I start (formally or informally) most of my characters. If that works then put two items on the list of how they are different, then three and so on. That's all the solid advice I have to give on that. I'm not even sure if you wanted any but just ignore it if you didn't.

[Lacco]

I aim to avoid disrupting other people's fun,

This is very good trait. Absolute must for a really good player.


and to keep my character alive.

This is only a mindset. Try GMing. It healed me from trying to keep my chars alive (NPCs tend to die...often...so you get used to it) - and now I just want to enjoy the game, the character, it's mind and story. However, it's not possible due to the "eternal GM" curse.


"make sure absolutely nothing bad happens to her, and if any part of your totally perfectly crafted plan fails, quit the game and cry in your bed for a week".

And this is very... how to put it... problematic mindset.

If absolutely nothing bad happens to a character, it's a power fantasy - which is fine and dandy, but I tend to keep mine in my head, and not at the gaming table - and it works better this way.

Also, perfectly crafted plans? :smallbiggrin: Try GMing. It will heal you from trying to make any plans...or most of them.

However, the important part of every story is the hero overcoming adversity, either in form of powerful enemies, challenging tasks, extreme conditions. Not winning flawlessly - but fighting on even if he initially fails.

So yes, try to embrace the failure, embrace the wounds, blood, scars. Make a character that is proud of his/her beauty and let them get scarred during the game. How will they deal?


I actually make up stuff as I play along and am rather stupid, but the effect's the same.

I actually make up stuff as I GM and am rather stupid at times :smallbiggrin:. Never stopped me :smallwink:.

[Tanarii]

Since you are speaking like you think this is a problem my advice for this is simple. Create a character that is you with some "hats" (so it is you for that setting). This means you can default to your own behaviour in most cases. Then make one change to the character's personality.
Yep. That's effectively how good actors do it too. A short list of motivations and/or personality quirks for the overall. Just a few key ones to help you get in character. Then you can flesh out the rest during play.

[quinron]

People are rarely that black and white. That's not a personality, that's a personality disorder.

"Not wanting to die" is almost always in character. Yes, there are times when someone will choose to give up their life, but only when it's really worth it. Not smudging their new cloak is *not* worth it.

Asking which of a character's values is more important (living vs. not asking for a heal) is a great thing to do in RPGs. Some games are built entirely around that.

I'm also thinking of Rich's "Making Tough Decisions" Gaming article (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html), where he talks about having a more reasonable character talk his irrationally fearless character out of being rash. My examples were hyperbolic, but his is a bit more reasonable - even a character who claims they have no fear of death will balk every once in a while, especially when faced with the very real possibility of their own death.

[Raimun]

I feel like arguing, so I'm going to take your stance apart for a bit. Bear with me.


Interacting with the game world, not just characters. There's much more to roleplaying a character than sitting in a tavern and going "what ho, ye olde barkeep, thou hast the finest ales in all the land!"


Some of them are empty, some of them are not. Also, traps force you to interact with the world and accept it as a real thing, because if you don't you die. Heck, you could even make traps that talk in riddles if you really want to stretch those Middle English muscles.


Reaction checks are a thing, every single monster you run into can even be a potential ally if you get lucky and play your cards right.


To the contrary, these random, utterly non-standard and weirdly suboptimal heroes live in constant symbiosis with the game world. They breathe, see and hear every detail of their immediate surroundings, they learn to know it and they learn to control it. To do otherwise would be death. And they get rich, hire small armies to take with them and finally build great castles and magical towers to retire in. They are tied to the world and, ultimately, the world might become tied to them.


Why are these corridors empty in your mind? Things happen all the time and those things are dangerous and unpredictable enough to really make you pay attention in a way that talking in a fancy accent at your nearest inn just doesn't.


These games aren't movies, they aren't books. They are worlds you step into and try to make work for yourself. Sometimes you succeed, sometimes you don't. Every time you have fun and roleplay and come up with fun personalities at a rapid pace until one character gets lucky and you get to develop that character further. There are no guarantees for happy endings or satisfying, fabricated story arcs so you really have to make every second count and roleplay your heart out before your character is lost. It's exciting stuff.

Okay, calling something "the bane of the hobby" might have been a bit too strong but it got people talking.

Basically, I'm at the point where I think basic dungeon crawling is a bit... well, boring. Not only do I feel it's been done to death but I'm also averse to the dynamics of such a story. There's just not enough (in story) drama in basic dungeon crawling.

Right now, whenever I'm involved in rpg which is not about dungeon crawling, I'm much more invested because of new possibilities within those stories. What I'm talking about is not sitting in a tavern going: "Greetings and well met, fair barkeep!" (that kind of thing doesn't advance the story) but instead suspense and conflict between characters (PC or NPC, doesn't matter). I mentioned movies because they are a prime example of stories about characters who are in conflict with other characters. Sometimes they resolve the conflict with guns, fists or swords and sometimes they talk things out. Sometimes they come up with wildly original solutions. Sometimes it's a mixture of the above. Sometimes things work out, sometimes it ends in a tragedy. And no, falling accidentally to a trap and dying is not a tragedy, even if it is tragic. I have been involved in a couple of one shots that each devolved to a proper tragedy that would make the ancient greeks proud and those were a real blast to play and were certainly memorable. I also think they made at least decent if not good stories. And I'm very much interested in playing more of that kind of stuff.

[wumpus]

I would agree, if any gaming I ever saw, stretching back to 1975, really fit that description.

But it doesn't. That's grossly over-simplistic.

Trying to describe a 4-12 hour experience in a single sentence in a single sentence requires absurd over-simplification. I've played in the kind of game you're trying to describe with many different characters, and they are all different. But that's not because your description is wrong; only because it's overly simplified.

For one thing, the monsters were never really immune to talking. They are often immune to negotiation as long as they think they will defeat you with minimal risk, but that's not the same thing. One of my favorite memories is backing away from my foe, talking to him, and getting him to bribe me with a magic item to let him leave. Talking to the DM later, I discovered that we had both been at 1 hit point (in original D&D, in which 0 hit points is dead).

I'm not objecting to your description. I can't do better in a single sentence either. Just remember that any one-sentence description of an hours-long experience is inherently too simplistic.

If you dislike the main idea expressed by the description, you might be right. But if you disapprove of how simplistic the idea is, you're probably dealing with the simplicity of the description, not of the actual experience.

As far as "talking to the monsters", highly intelligent characters were allowed to speak more languages since at least 1e. And talking to monsters presumably predated that (I'm pretty sure one of the cartoons in 1e included a party member saying "what do you mean we have to talk to him [and owlbear?], the last monster we talked to ate half the party!"). Some of the silly things done in early days included party members taking "wall" in an effort to ask the wall what was behind it (presumably somebody was reading then-current Piers Anthony), the DM thus routinely responded (for the wall) "I don't know, I'm plastered".

Oddly enough, I suspect that this type of thing worked far better from 1975 (which was essentially a 1 piece: 1 man wargame) to 3.0e. The main point is while there were lots of nailed down rules on combat and the "talking to monsters" were in "wing it" section, D&D players before 3.0 were expected to "wing it" *all* *the* *time*. Once *everything* was supposed to be nailed down and out of the DM's hands, you wound up with OP diplomacy and other issues.

But as long as the rules primarily cover *exactly* how to create a character who goes out and kills things, and provides second by second rules on each swing of the sword and then turns around and says "wing it" once you go back into town to sell your loot, what do you expect happens in the game? D&D, as the name implies is built on dungeon crawls. You can expand it to do more, but you really should pick a different game if you don't want effectively a dungeon crawl (or at least anything that can be simulated as a wargame).

Note that "a wargame" can be extended to something like Diplomacy [the game]. The [second] Basic Edition included (the original, updated to 5e for the beta and appears to have disappeared down the memory hole) B2: Keep on the Boarderlands. It was essentially designed as a sandbox, but since it was introducing new players (who were often young) I know I played it strictly as a dungeon crawl (I was 12, and had absolutely *no* outside information on how to play). But at least the game hinted at a way to play and DM the thing in a method far beyond what I was doing (I think B2 was wasted on the Basic Set, but still it made a good dungeon crawl).

[AMFV]

So much this.
The word "role" implies the existence of a character upon whom you have some control, not a statblock with pre-recorded dialogue.

Technically, by that definition virtually all computer games are "RPGs", as you typically control and step into the role of a character, emotional involvement may vary though.


Okay, calling something "the bane of the hobby" might have been a bit too strong but it got people talking.

Basically, I'm at the point where I think basic dungeon crawling is a bit... well, boring. Not only do I feel it's been done to death but I'm also averse to the dynamics of such a story. There's just not enough (in story) drama in basic dungeon crawling.



I think the problem is that you haven't experienced good dungeon crawls. In a good dungeon crawl the drama is mostly about suspense. And there's gobs of story, since you're learning about the past. Somebody built those dungeons after all, and left them, and that's a huge drama right there. A large treasure-filled thing abandoned, that's definitely a story.

[Tanarii]

Basically, I'm at the point where I think basic dungeon crawling is a bit... well, boring. Not only do I feel it's been done to death but I'm also averse to the dynamics of such a story. There's just not enough (in story) drama in basic dungeon crawling.Yes, a lack of plot and story can be boring. It can lead to a "ho hum more of the same" feeling. But the advantage of dungeon crawling is it makes ALL PC decisions immediate. It brings decision making, not story telling and plot development, to the forefront.

There's this modern idea that story telling and plot development is a game master responsibility, and players focus on decision making and interaction with the world. Dungeon Crawling was intentionally light on the former, and strong on the latter, at least initially. That's because it was originally designed by wargamers, for potentially huge groups of players, and with daily play sessions. There wasn't much time for DM prep beyond the basics, and a huge environment was needed for exploration. Also there was this idea that the DM was more of a neutral arbiter that presented a setting for the players to interact with then ruled on interactions, not a person that steered the story and plot of the game. As such, plot development was a result of the interactions of the players with the world ... it was effectively up to the players to make it happen.

Of course, the rest of the hobby took it's cue from modules, which are less megadungeon-y and more story oriented, at least to a degree. Because not everyone could play campaigns with 20+ people in rotating groups and daily sessions. And plot development became the responsibility of the game masters, more and more.


Of course, even if you are a "players develop the plot" person who wants to play in a sandbox, too small or limited a sandbox relative to the potential interactions and length of time interacting will get boring really fast. ie you'll run out of new things to interact with.

Edit: I'm not saying it's bad for there to be plot development, or for DMs to steer a plot, or anything like that. I'm commenting on the difference between the way the people who designed the original (or at least one that lauched the hobby to mainstream) game usually played, and the way most other people play RPGs. Those differences typically affect the views of players and what they find interesting. Playing in a 2 player group vs a 10 player group makes a huge difference in what kind of feel the game can possibly have, purely due to how much time the DM can have for individual players.

[Raimun]

Technically, by that definition virtually all computer games are "RPGs", as you typically control and step into the role of a character, emotional involvement may vary though.



I think the problem is that you haven't experienced good dungeon crawls. In a good dungeon crawl the drama is mostly about suspense. And there's gobs of story, since you're learning about the past. Somebody built those dungeons after all, and left them, and that's a huge drama right there. A large treasure-filled thing abandoned, that's definitely a story.

So... basically in that story you take control of a character who reads about/investigates/researches other characters who made the dungeon? So, the character you play is not involved in the drama but just reads about it?

And at the end you encounter the dungeon's main villains at the last room and hit them with a sword or chuck a fireball at them because you want to take their stuff? I can't remember a dungeon crawl that didn't basically end like that. Unless it was just a random dungeon with a random collection of monsters. Or every PC fled/died.

I'm sorry but those kind of dynamics become a bit repetitive after a while.

Even sieging a castle with those kind of dynamics would be something new.

[AMFV]

So... basically in that story you take control of a character who reads about/investigates/researches other characters who made the dungeon? So, the character you play is not involved in the drama but just reads about it?

And at the end you encounter the dungeon's main villains at the last room and hit them with a sword or chuck a fireball at them because you want to take their stuff? I can't remember a dungeon crawl that didn't basically end like that. Unless it was just a random dungeon with a random collection of monsters. Or every PC fled/died.

I'm sorry but those kind of dynamics become a bit repetitive after a while.

Even sieging a castle with those kind of dynamics would be something new.

Well my argument is that it's not the scenario that's bothering you, it's that you aren't looking for the story-aspects in a dungeon crawl. Why are you going into a dungeon? What are your motives? Is your character afraid to be there, are they professional? How do they treat others in the dungeon?

Eh, many good dungeons, don't have a set end, or even a set main villain. I've seen many of them that don't end the way you describe. Also you're assuming that the goal is to take ALL of the things, which may not be, players may only want some of them. They may be commissioned to find a specific item, they may be trying to get whatever they can low-risk. The problem I think you're having is that you aren't exploring all of the potential story in dungeon crawls. That's what I was getting at.

[Comet]

Right now, whenever I'm involved in rpg which is not about dungeon crawling, I'm much more invested because of new possibilities within those stories. What I'm talking about is not sitting in a tavern going: "Greetings and well met, fair barkeep!" (that kind of thing doesn't advance the story) but instead suspense and conflict between characters (PC or NPC, doesn't matter). I mentioned movies because they are a prime example of stories about characters who are in conflict with other characters. Sometimes they resolve the conflict with guns, fists or swords and sometimes they talk things out. Sometimes they come up with wildly original solutions. Sometimes it's a mixture of the above. Sometimes things work out, sometimes it ends in a tragedy. And no, falling accidentally to a trap and dying is not a tragedy, even if it is tragic. I have been involved in a couple of one shots that each devolved to a proper tragedy that would make the ancient greeks proud and those were a real blast to play and were certainly memorable. I also think they made at least decent if not good stories. And I'm very much interested in playing more of that kind of stuff.

Okay, fair enough, you want soap opera, debate and relationships. You're right, a dungeon crawl is probably not for you and isn't for me when I try to tell those kinds of stories. I just wish you'd be willing to accept that you can have excitement, interesting characters and surprising twists in an old school games too, even if it is in a different context. It's not greek drama, but it can still be imaginative and exciting in ways that your unlucky experience with the genre so far has been unable to demonstrate.

[AMFV]

Okay, fair enough, you want soap opera, debate and relationships. You're right, a dungeon crawl is probably not for you and isn't for me when I try to tell those kinds of stories. I just wish you'd be willing to accept that you can have excitement, interesting characters and surprising twists in an old school games too, even if it is in a different context. It's not greek drama, but it can still be imaginative and exciting in ways that your unlucky experience with the genre so far has been unable to demonstrate.

Also of note, at least one Greek Tragedy was primarily about a dungeon crawl, and several others contained things that certainly wouldn't have been out of place in dungeon crawls.

[kyoryu]

I'm also thinking of Rich's "Making Tough Decisions" Gaming article (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html), where he talks about having a more reasonable character talk his irrationally fearless character out of being rash. My examples were hyperbolic, but his is a bit more reasonable - even a character who claims they have no fear of death will balk every once in a while, especially when faced with the very real possibility of their own death.

Even a character that does not fear death will not necessarily throw his life away cheaply. If anything, they'll be entirely rational about it. The difference is they'll do the brave thing *when necessary*, especially when some risk actually creates less risk long run.


Okay, calling something "the bane of the hobby" might have been a bit too strong but it got people talking.

Basically, I'm at the point where I think basic dungeon crawling is a bit... well, boring. Not only do I feel it's been done to death but I'm also averse to the dynamics of such a story. There's just not enough (in story) drama in basic dungeon crawling.

So you like a lot of story in your games. Awesome! You might not like games that aren't heavily story-based. That's not necessarily the case for everyone, however.

It's easy to conflate personal preferences with objective criteria.

[2D8HP]

Okay, calling something "the bane of the hobby" might have been a bit too strong but it got people talking.

Basically, I'm at the point where I think basic dungeon crawling is a bit... well, boring. Not only do I feel it's been done to death but I'm also averse to the dynamics of such a story. There's just not enough (in story) drama in basic dungeon Not for me by a Longbow shot! There is plenty of "drama" in real life. But Dragons on giant piles of treasure!? Not so much. I crave a good Dungeon Crawl as much now as I did in 1978, maybe even more now! I've played RPG's that did not have Dragons inside of Dungeons :smallyuk: , No thank you sir! I can open my front door for that!

There's much more to roleplaying a character than sitting in a tavern and going "what ho, ye olde barkeep, thou hast the finest ales in all the land!" In a table top RPG yes perhaps, but in a LARP with some real good Ale!? That sounds pretty good about right now! In fact you just suggested where I'm going after work. I'll reread "Two Sought Adventure" while I have a pint.
Thanks!:smallsmile:

[Raimun]

Damn it. Ideally, I want interesting and surprising conflict. Dungeon crawling just can't (usually) deliver that. It's pretty much the same story, told time and time again. You aren't trying to infiltrate a skyscraper of a megacorporation. You aren't trying to commandeer a galleon. You aren't running a small realm. You aren't sailing with an expedition. You aren't an insignificant part of an interstellar military operation. You aren't a negotiator or a diplomat. You're not an operative of a small black ops strike force. You aren't a superhero. You aren't a detective. You aren't a normal everyman, thrust into weird situations. You aren't a supernatural monster trying to function within modern society. You aren't a member of a secret society dedicated to hunting monsters. Instead, you are "an adventurer" trying to beat up people and/or monsters and take whatever stuff is found in the corridors and rooms they are in, while avoiding the traps. Yes, you could try to be something else but that kind of stuff is the very antithesis of dungeon crawling, so it doesn't (usually) work.

The game is much more interesting when the drama involves the players directly.

Also, I don't think it's not wrong if you enjoy dungeon crawling. It's just that I don't don't enjoy that stuff now days and I feel rpgs can tell different kind of stories.

[AMFV]

Damn it. Ideally, I want interesting and surprising conflict. Dungeon crawling just can't (usually) deliver that. It's pretty much the same story, told time and time again. You aren't trying to infiltrate a skyscraper of a megacorporation.


A skyscraper filled with traps and confusing mazelike tunnels and guards? That sounds like a dungeon... like exactly like a dungeon. In fact Dungeon Crawling is often best depicted as a sort of heist.


You aren't trying to commandeer a galleon.


A galleon with tiny passages and causeways, filled with boobytraps and the few pirates and defenders who stayed aboard the ship, and a cargo that they were defending inside it, a cargo that's alive, alive and hungry.


You aren't running a small realm.


Until the king is attacked by assassins from within his own court, he has to retreat into a forgotten and trap filled wing of the castle. Both avoiding the traps and resetting them to target his pursuers.


You aren't sailing with an expedition.


An expedition that lands and explores an ancient series of tunnels in the native filled jungle searching for treasure and knowledge.


You aren't an insignificant part of an interstellar military operation... <snip> ...You're not an operative of a small black ops strike force.


Which has to infiltrate a maze-like enemy ship, potentially filled with pitfalls and traps, that one has to deal with. Also one can't simply blow their way through since they need to be silent and unnoticed, so you have to talk your way out of problems rather than just gun your way through.


You aren't a superhero.

A hero exploring the trap filled volcano lair of an evil super-villain, before it explodes. Facing both natural dangers and artificial ones.



... You aren't a normal everyman, thrust into weird situations.


Like suddenly finding themselves in a dungeon?


... You aren't a member of a secret society dedicated to hunting monsters.


Who are hiding deep in ancient catacombs. Filled with other traps left by their ancient masters, who may have created the monsters in fell experiments.



Instead, you are "an adventurer" trying to beat up people and/or monsters and take whatever stuff is found in the corridors and rooms they are in, while avoiding the traps. Yes, you could try to be something else but that kind of stuff is the very antithesis of dungeon crawling, so it doesn't (usually) work.

As you can see it does. There were only three examples I couldn't bend to fit a dungeon crawling narrative (although with some effort I probably could have, but those would have been the furthest stretches). So it's certainly possible to tell many varied stories around a dungeon crawl. In fact many of the same stories you were looking for.

[Raimun]

A skyscraper filled with traps and confusing mazelike tunnels and guards? That sounds like a dungeon... like exactly like a dungeon. In fact Dungeon Crawling is often best depicted as a sort of heist.



A galleon with tiny passages and causeways, filled with boobytraps and the few pirates and defenders who stayed aboard the ship, and a cargo that they were defending inside it, a cargo that's alive, alive and hungry.



Until the king is attacked by assassins from within his own court, he has to retreat into a forgotten and trap filled wing of the castle. Both avoiding the traps and resetting them to target his pursuers.



An expedition that lands and explores an ancient series of tunnels in the native filled jungle searching for treasure and knowledge.



Which has to infiltrate a maze-like enemy ship, potentially filled with pitfalls and traps, that one has to deal with. Also one can't simply blow their way through since they need to be silent and unnoticed, so you have to talk your way out of problems rather than just gun your way through.



A hero exploring the trap filled volcano lair of an evil super-villain, before it explodes. Facing both natural dangers and artificial ones.



Like suddenly finding themselves in a dungeon?



Who are hiding deep in ancient catacombs. Filled with other traps left by their ancient masters, who may have created the monsters in fell experiments.



As you can see it does. There were only three examples I couldn't bend to fit a dungeon crawling narrative (although with some effort I probably could have, but those would have been the furthest stretches). So it's certainly possible to tell many varied stories around a dungeon crawl. In fact many of the same stories you were looking for.

Hahhah... very droll.

You see, my point is that you could tell all those stories without a dungeon. This notion seems be lost to many game designers, DMs and players. In fact, I would dare to venture a guess that most stories told by humankind aren't dungeon-centric.

[AMFV]

Hahhah... very droll.

You see, my point is that you could tell all those stories without a dungeon. This notion seems be lost to many game designers, DMs and players. In fact, I would dare to venture a guess that most stories told by humankind aren't dungeon-centric.

Well that's certainly true, but what you were arguing, at least by saying "you're an adventurer" is that dungeon stories precluded those sort of stories, and they don't. Dungeon Crawling isn't so much a genre of overall plots as it is a device that can be used in them. Certainly you could tell those stories without a dungeon, but if you did, they would be VERY different stories, and the ability to tell a different sort of story is always an advantage.

[Raimun]

... I just don't want to go in an another dungeon yet again. :smallfrown:

[AMFV]

... I just don't want to go in an another dungeon yet again. :smallfrown:

That's absolutely fine. I'm more responding to your criticism about varied stories with dungeons. I think that if done properly dungeons can tell many different stories, and dungeons themselves can be extremely varied. They can be full of monsters, full of traps, largely empty, simple, labyrinthine, full of secret passages, artificially made, naturally made. These things affect how the players interact with the dungeon, and the kind of stories it evokes. That's what I was getting at.

[quinron]

... I just don't want to go in an another dungeon yet again. :smallfrown:

The issue is in presentation - a bit of creative mise-en-scène can really make a dungeon interesting, as AMFV pointed out. When "dungeon" is always synonymous with "ancient abandoned ruin full of monsters," yeah, that can get boring. But you could just as easily use the term for the castle of the evil king that you're infiltrating, dodging his guards or fighting them and trying not to bring down their full power; for the seaside cave complex from which fish-men and unknowable things have been plaguing the town; for the gnomes' tunnels and warrens that have been overrun by kobolds, driving the gnomes to flee to the city and ask for adventurers to help. As I learned from the Overlord games, you can make as good a dungeon out of a series of hobbit-holes or a city in the grip of an undead plague as you can out of an abandoned ruin.

The problem you seem to be having is one that's plagued GMs since Dragonlance moved the paradigm from "interchangeable workaday adventurers" to "epic heroic fantasy" - the players don't know why they need to crawl this dungeon. It's very easy to say that this dungeon is alive and vibrant, full of colorful characters and warring factions that, of course, the PCs will be slaughtering their way through, but as you pointed out, this can turn into a story being told around the players rather than by them. What makes for good dungeons is giving players reasons to enter them, and too often, adventure writers assume that "gold and magic items" is enough of a reason.

[Tanarii]

Angry DM said it best: every adventure is a dungeon
http://theangrygm.com/every-adventures-a-dungeon/

[Knaight]

The issue is in presentation - a bit of creative mise-en-scène can really make a dungeon interesting, as AMFV pointed out. When "dungeon" is always synonymous with "ancient abandoned ruin full of monsters," yeah, that can get boring. But you could just as easily use the term for the castle of the evil king that you're infiltrating, dodging his guards or fighting them and trying not to bring down their full power; for the seaside cave complex from which fish-men and unknowable things have been plaguing the town; for the gnomes' tunnels and warrens that have been overrun by kobolds, driving the gnomes to flee to the city and ask for adventurers to help. As I learned from the Overlord games, you can make as good a dungeon out of a series of hobbit-holes or a city in the grip of an undead plague as you can out of an abandoned ruin.
You can do this, but it doesn't necessarily help. I've pretty much burned out on dungeons too, and it didn't even take long. Every so often the burnout fades, but it comes back quickly, and any of these things will burn it out in short order.


Angry DM said it best: every adventure is a dungeon
http://theangrygm.com/every-adventures-a-dungeon/
That you can contort any adventure until it fits the organizational structure of a dungeon doesn't make every adventure a dungeon. Even if you use the incredibly loose definition provided in the article relating to the structure of the game becoming more clear, it still doesn't hold up.

[Jay R]

:haley:: Elan, we're adventurers. Technically, anything we EVER DO counts as an "adventure". (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0206.html)

[Tanarii]

That you can contort any adventure until it fits the organizational structure of a dungeon doesn't make every adventure a dungeon. Even if you use the incredibly loose definition provided in the article relating to the structure of the game becoming more clear, it still doesn't hold up.
I think he was saying the opposite. Dungeons provide a natural organizational structure, primarily due to physical limitations, that are very helpful if you extend them contextually to any adventure design. Basically, dungeons are natural flow-charts with scenes connecting to one another.

That doesn't mean you HAVE to design any adventure within that organizational paradigm of course. Just that it's often useful to do so. And of course, sometimes you'll want to break outside of that organizational structure. Edit: for starters, a very basic dungeon doesn't necessarily include a time component or one-way flow component to the flow, which is far more common in non-dungeon-style adventure flow. Although those can of course be added.

[Knaight]

I think he was saying the opposite. Dungeons provide a natural organizational structure, primarily due to physical limitations, that are very helpful if you extend them contextually to any adventure design. Basically, dungeons are natural flow-charts with scenes connecting to one another.
That's how it's presented. There's a great deal of glossing things over needed to make them fit though, and in the process of that gloss a whole bunch of the identity of a dungeon is lost. While these are general patterns that tend to fit most and not all dungeons, it is worth observing that in a dungeon crawl campaign they would be expected to dominate, and that disliking any number of them is ample reason to dislike dungeon crawls that doesn't go away with the "every adventure is a dungeon" wave of the hand. A very brief list:

The dungeon is defined primarily by its physical layout, and that tends to be relatively unchanging. Yeah, you get your occasional transforming dungeon, you get people blowing holes in things, but you generally have a comparatively static environment. Meanwhile, in any number of non-dungeon campaigns the entire campaign setting is highly dynamic, and can change dramatically.
You'll notice that in the transition from dungeon to flow chart the connecting lines (implicitly two way, which most dungeon connections would be) get replaced by connecting arrows (one way). This ties into the previous point of the comparative stasis of the structures, but there's also a bigger one. In a dungeon, you can usually go back, explore the other path, etc. More than that, the design often incentivizes thoroughly exploring everything there. In other campaign types, you often make your choice, and there's no going back. That's a very different structure that encourages a very different focus.
The dungeon emphasizes the spatial components of a campaign to an extreme extent. Where things physically are relative to other things and how things move are emphasized a great deal. There will generally always be some aspect of that, but in other games it can be de-emphasized a great deal, with things like the interpersonal relations between setting elements being dominant.
The dungeon tends to be defined by explicit choices, and there tend to be comparatively few of them. Going back to the article, notice the whole concept of rooms connected to other rooms through explicit connections. Then consider how few connections there tend to be. It's rarely more than six (a room with a staircase and four ground level exits), and a lot of the times it's just two or three. If you remove backtracking, it goes down yet further. On top of that, the whole secret door concept exists as a way to hide some of these, while also imposing the paradigm of finding an explicit connection to use. Outside of the dungeon crawl, the choices are usually a lot less explicit, and the distinction between an intended path and an unintended one (boring through the wall being the dungeon equivalent) is blurred. There are also routinely way more of them.

[Takewo]

That's how it's presented. There's a great deal of glossing things over needed to make them fit though, and in the process of that gloss a whole bunch of the identity of a dungeon is lost. While these are general patterns that tend to fit most and not all dungeons, it is worth observing that in a dungeon crawl campaign they would be expected to dominate, and that disliking any number of them is ample reason to dislike dungeon crawls that doesn't go away with the "every adventure is a dungeon" wave of the hand. A very brief list:

The dungeon is defined primarily by its physical layout, and that tends to be relatively unchanging. Yeah, you get your occasional transforming dungeon, you get people blowing holes in things, but you generally have a comparatively static environment. Meanwhile, in any number of non-dungeon campaigns the entire campaign setting is highly dynamic, and can change dramatically.
You'll notice that in the transition from dungeon to flow chart the connecting lines (implicitly two way, which most dungeon connections would be) get replaced by connecting arrows (one way). This ties into the previous point of the comparative stasis of the structures, but there's also a bigger one. In a dungeon, you can usually go back, explore the other path, etc. More than that, the design often incentivizes thoroughly exploring everything there. In other campaign types, you often make your choice, and there's no going back. That's a very different structure that encourages a very different focus.
The dungeon emphasizes the spatial components of a campaign to an extreme extent. Where things physically are relative to other things and how things move are emphasized a great deal. There will generally always be some aspect of that, but in other games it can be de-emphasized a great deal, with things like the interpersonal relations between setting elements being dominant.
The dungeon tends to be defined by explicit choices, and there tend to be comparatively few of them. Going back to the article, notice the whole concept of rooms connected to other rooms through explicit connections. Then consider how few connections there tend to be. It's rarely more than six (a room with a staircase and four ground level exits), and a lot of the times it's just two or three. If you remove backtracking, it goes down yet further. On top of that, the whole secret door concept exists as a way to hide some of these, while also imposing the paradigm of finding an explicit connection to use. Outside of the dungeon crawl, the choices are usually a lot less explicit, and the distinction between an intended path and an unintended one (boring through the wall being the dungeon equivalent) is blurred. There are also routinely way more of them.


I just thought this deserved some sort of recognition for being a very good analysis. I think that in forums such as this it is commonly expressed thusly:

THIS

[Tanarii]

I just thought this deserved some sort of recognition for being a very good analysis.Agreed. Knaight, that was well written, and certainly something I'll put some thought into.

[Mordar]

I don't think there's particularly compelling evidence that games are improving. Most major game lines have gotten worse in their latest editions than they were in prior editions. Shadowrun 5e is worse than 4e. New World of Darkness was worse than Old World of Darkness. D&D 5e is worse than D&D 3e. Maybe there are new games that are good, but they are mostly obscure titles that no one cares about. Pathfinder is (I think) the most popular TTRPG in the world, and it is just some guy's houserules for a system that is old enough to drive.

This one jumped at me...I don't necessarily think "all sequels are bad", but I do think a lot of "new editions" fall short of previous editions. This may be wrong, but I think this is more true when it is going from 1.0 to 2.0 (large to wholesale change) than from 1.0 to 1.1 (via splatbooks, errata/cleaned editions or the like). My theory of the moment is that in going from 1.0 to 2.0 the creators are trying to re-design the game to meet some broader goals of sales/market share/reach and in so doing lose what made 1.0 special, as compared to the 1.0 to 1.1 where they are trying to make sales/market share but maintaining the same framework and spirit of 1.0...just cleaner or more varied (via new classes, settings, etc).

My personal bias is always to play games in the original system for which they were designed (regardless of edition - if we're playing CyberPunk, let's play CyberPunk vX, as opposed to GURPS, Savage Worlds or the like). I wonder if these two things dovetail...


I think the old school, dungeon crawling mentality is the bane of the hobby.

I know you explained this as the thread progressed...but I thought it was pretty funny to read. I translated it as: I think one of the key tentpoles on which the whole hobby was created is the bane of the hobby.

Sure, progress is important...but to me it was almost like "Driving a car is the bane of using a car to get places."


... I just don't want to go in an another dungeon yet again. :smallfrown:

Is it really the ambiance/setting of being in an underground city/crypt/cavern network/tomb complex that you dislike...or the game style wherein all that matters/happens on screen is the time you spend in said "dungeon"?

- M

[Faily]

I don't mind dungeons, be they of the abandoned old ruins-kind or the dystopian skyscraper-kind. Or extra-dimensional, dreamworld, sunken city with odd angles, or what have you.

What I care about is why my character is there, and what will happen there, and what we will do after we leave it.

The setting and the scenery doesn't matter if the group can't make it interesting. I've seen complex home-made settings with rich history, design, thought-out cultural behaviours, and on and on... and it's still as interesting as watching paint dry. I've also been on "good ol' fashioned dungeon crawls" (that are supposedly the bane of the hobby lolwhat?) and have had a blast.

What matters is the story, the GM and the players, and what they all provide to the game itself when it is in session and rolling in-character.

[goto124]

The setting and the scenery doesn't matter if the group can't make it interesting. I've seen complex home-made settings with rich history, design, thought-out cultural behaviours, and on and on... and it's still as interesting as watching paint dry. I've also been on "good ol' fashioned dungeon crawls" (that are supposedly the bane of the hobby lolwhat?) and have had a blast.

Do explain, in detail, how and why rich setting end up as boring games.

[AMFV]

Do explain, in detail, how and why rich setting end up as boring games.

I can field this one, because it's just like reading a history book. It's not the rich setting that makes the game boring, it's the interaction with the world and the other players. If that's lacking it doesn't matter how much detail is present. It's still going to be boring. I think that Faily was trying to say that having rich setting doesn't necessarily make the game interesting, not the reverse, that rich setting makes a game less interesting. (And correct me if I'm wrong there)

[kyoryu]

Do explain, in detail, how and why rich setting end up as boring games.

"Okay, we go to the goblin caves and beat up goblins."

"Mysterious disappearances? Nah, doesn't sound like something we're interested in."

"Rumors of ancient magic? Sounds dangerous."

How awesome the game is is really a function of all the people at the table.

[quinron]

I can field this one, because it's just like reading a history book. It's not the rich setting that makes the game boring, it's the interaction with the world and the other players. If that's lacking it doesn't matter how much detail is present. It's still going to be boring. I think that Faily was trying to say that having rich setting doesn't necessarily make the game interesting, not the reverse, that rich setting makes a game less interesting. (And correct me if I'm wrong there)

It's the difference between reading about post-Napoleonic France and reading Les Miserables. To use a topical fantasy, the reason that A Feast for Crows wasn't received as fondly as A Storm of Swords - people wanted to see the plots and plans and events in the World of Ice and Fire unfold, and what they got was a relatively slow-paced world-building book.

It's also the reason that The World of Ice and Fire and other setting handbooks are considered "coffee table books" - you can pick one up, open to a random page, read a bit, and put it back down without being confused about how you got to that point in the story or feeling especially compelled to see where things are going. Unless you're familiar with the companion series, you're not going to get much out of it, just as you won't get much out of the richly detailed backstory of a dungeon if it's not a part of the events you're involved in.

[CharonsHelper]

I can field this one, because it's just like reading a history book. It's not the rich setting that makes the game boring, it's the interaction with the world and the other players. If that's lacking it doesn't matter how much detail is present.

Though I will say, sometimes the sort of GM who comes up with that super detailed backstory REALLY wants to tell you all about it, and they end up slowing the action to a crawl.

It's like in a novel. All other things being equal, a rich backstory for the world is awesome. But if the book tries to shove in 40 pages of exposition into the first two chapters I'm going to put it back on the shelf.

[AMFV]

It's the difference between reading about post-Napoleonic France and reading Les Miserables. To use a topical fantasy, the reason that A Feast for Crows wasn't received as fondly as A Storm of Swords - people wanted to see the plots and plans and events in the World of Ice and Fire unfold, and what they got was a relatively slow-paced world-building book.

It's also the reason that The World of Ice and Fire and other setting handbooks are considered "coffee table books" - you can pick one up, open to a random page, read a bit, and put it back down without being confused about how you got to that point in the story or feeling especially compelled to see where things are going. Unless you're familiar with the companion series, you're not going to get much out of it, just as you won't get much out of the richly detailed backstory of a dungeon if it's not a part of the events you're involved in.


Though I will say, sometimes the sort of GM who comes up with that super detailed backstory REALLY wants to tell you all about it, and they end up slowing the action to a crawl.

It's like in a novel. All other things being equal, a rich backstory for the world is awesome. But if the book tries to shove in 40 pages of exposition into the first two chapters I'm going to put it back on the shelf.

Very good points. Although I will say that knowing the backstory and the nuance can make a setting richer and more involved. It's why I often enjoy fantasy books a LOT more on rereads, and why I read the appendices in books and the companion books. A GM who gives out setting info beforehand can provoke a more rich experience.

I do agree that it's possible to get too bogged down in it though.

[Max_Killjoy]

On worldbuilding, my theory is that it can end up like an iceberg.

The players (or readers) might never see most of it, but it's that part under the surface that holds up what they do see, and it all flops over without that unseen part.

[AMFV]

On worldbuilding, my theory is that it can end up like an iceberg.

The players (or readers) might never see most of it, but it's that part under the surface that holds up what they do see, and it all flops over without that unseen part.

True, although I think it's possible to work too much on the unseen part. If you're making ice sculptures down there, then probably you could economize your time more (unless you enjoy that sort of thing).

There is something to be said for leaving some open spaces though as well, since that gives you some flexibility later on.

[Airk]

On worldbuilding, my theory is that it can end up like an iceberg.

The players (or readers) might never see most of it, but it's that part under the surface that holds up what they do see, and it all flops over without that unseen part.

Eh. That metaphor breaks down (or holds up, depending) when you consider the fact that it fundamentally doesn't MATTER what's down there as long as it's sufficient to "anchor" everything else. So most of the worldbuilding stuff people do is, in fact, wasted, because a rock would have done just as well.

[grimsly]

That's how it's presented. There's a great deal of glossing things over needed to make them fit though, and in the process of that gloss a whole bunch of the identity of a dungeon is lost. While these are general patterns that tend to fit most and not all dungeons, it is worth observing that in a dungeon crawl campaign they would be expected to dominate, and that disliking any number of them is ample reason to dislike dungeon crawls that doesn't go away with the "every adventure is a dungeon" wave of the hand. A very brief list:

The dungeon is defined primarily by its physical layout, and that tends to be relatively unchanging. Yeah, you get your occasional transforming dungeon, you get people blowing holes in things, but you generally have a comparatively static environment. Meanwhile, in any number of non-dungeon campaigns the entire campaign setting is highly dynamic, and can change dramatically.
You'll notice that in the transition from dungeon to flow chart the connecting lines (implicitly two way, which most dungeon connections would be) get replaced by connecting arrows (one way). This ties into the previous point of the comparative stasis of the structures, but there's also a bigger one. In a dungeon, you can usually go back, explore the other path, etc. More than that, the design often incentivizes thoroughly exploring everything there. In other campaign types, you often make your choice, and there's no going back. That's a very different structure that encourages a very different focus.
The dungeon emphasizes the spatial components of a campaign to an extreme extent. Where things physically are relative to other things and how things move are emphasized a great deal. There will generally always be some aspect of that, but in other games it can be de-emphasized a great deal, with things like the interpersonal relations between setting elements being dominant.
The dungeon tends to be defined by explicit choices, and there tend to be comparatively few of them. Going back to the article, notice the whole concept of rooms connected to other rooms through explicit connections. Then consider how few connections there tend to be. It's rarely more than six (a room with a staircase and four ground level exits), and a lot of the times it's just two or three. If you remove backtracking, it goes down yet further. On top of that, the whole secret door concept exists as a way to hide some of these, while also imposing the paradigm of finding an explicit connection to use. Outside of the dungeon crawl, the choices are usually a lot less explicit, and the distinction between an intended path and an unintended one (boring through the wall being the dungeon equivalent) is blurred. There are also routinely way more of them.


I'm gonna go ahead and use this as a jumping off point for my own personal rant, cool?

So this is all pretty much player side perception. It seems like we have less choices because there are literally walls in the way. It seems like the environment is static because we're in the same place. It s like where things are is the most important relationship for us to focus on. Now player perception is important, so I'm not going to fault you for that. However, a dungeon can transcend all of those limitations, if it's cleverly designed.

So you're in an ancient wizard's tower. This tower is home to a small dwarf clan who are trying to get a foothold in the region, an elf cult, who are tasked with keeping the evil within from getting out, a kobold clan led by a dragon who is at war with a vampire on another level, who is trying to gain control of the towers three (because it's always three) keys or power so he can use the summoning circle on top of the tower to reawaken an ancient evil and take over the world. Those same keys can be used to unlock a vault in the palace that contains a sword that the True King needs in order to put an end to the encroaching darkness. Oh, and you're level one and you'll definitely die if you try to take on any of those groups directly, though they're all far too busy with eachother to spare troops to clear out the monsters that infest the tower, but they'd appreciate the extra space so they could call in they're relatives to help in the fight.

And let's say the dwarves are a little too fond of explosives, the elves use druid magic to grow trees wherever they live, and the vampire leaves sarcophagi everywhere.

So now on top of looting, you need to figure out where the keys are, figure out how to get them, and not let on that that is what you're trying to do, all while working to ensure the balance of power isn't too far swayed for you to matter enough not to kill. That seems nonstatic enough, huh?

There are, I'm sure, better examples, but I think that's a decent start. My point is that any adventure can be intriguing if you put enough planning into it, and that may be the real issue people have with dungeons: the dungeon is the structure used most often by beginner GMs. It represents a sort of easy mode to adventure design, where you don't have to know how to gently encourage certain choices because it's literally right of left, where you don't have to worry about consequences of the players actions beyond "well I guess that monster's gone now," and where you can often get away with very little improvisation, if any. So GM's tend to use them when they want something simple to design and run, without having to think too hard. Which is fine, because unless you're GM has a tip jar he doesn't owe you anything, but it doesn't tend to be as engaging.

So it's not that dungeons can't be engaging, it's that they often aren't. And I realize this is all very tangentially related to your points, and I'm OK with that.



How awesome the game is is really a function of all the people at the table.

Yep, and that includes the gal behind the screen.

[Niek]

The main things I see almost all tabletop games failing at are:

1. Superfluous dice rolls. I have approximately zero interest in supposed challenges that amount to "roll climb checks until you get 3 results of 15+ without being interrupted by a result of 5-". Give me one roll that tells me how long it takes me to climb, if the context is time sensitive, or give me meaningful choices to make (ex: "you see your friend lose his footing, do you risk falling yourself by reaching out to help him stabilize himself?"), but do not waste my time with something that could just as easily be run on autopilot while I go grab a snack.

Likewise, don't have the GM ask me to roll some skill or save and report my result for them to interpret when the GM could cut out the middleman and make the roll themself behind the screen. You'd be surprised just how much session time can be saved not having to wait on the latency between people at the table.

2. Combat systems whose complexity is out of proportion to their depth. 30 seconds of combat should not take 2 hours of table-time. Especially not when most of the time combat amounts to #1, "I carry out my predefined routine until we've won or had to retreat". System granularity should always be in service of facilitating meaningful decisions. If the tactical nuance of the system isn't pulling its own weight, cut it down.

3. Random encounters, loot tables, rolled stats, and other randomness for randomness' sake in general. A crafted experience will nine times of ten be preferable to a generated one. Random encounters are especially egregious as space-fillers when combined with #2; they chew up session time and contribute nothing to the world or the narrative beyond a vague sense of 'here be danger', which could be just as well served by selecting the specific encounter that fits best.



As you can see, I highly favor streamlined games with as few mechanical interruptions as possible to the part of the game I actually game here to play, that being the world exploration and character interaction.

[Airk]

The main things I see almost all tabletop games failing at are:

1. Superfluous dice rolls. I have approximately zero interest in supposed challenges that amount to "roll climb checks until you get 3 results of 15+ without being interrupted by a result of 5-". Give me one roll that tells me how long it takes me to climb, if the context is time sensitive, or give me meaningful choices to make (ex: "you see your friend lose his footing, do you risk falling yourself by reaching out to help him stabilize himself?"), but do not waste my time with something that could just as easily be run on autopilot while I go grab a snack.

Likewise, don't have the GM ask me to roll some skill or save and report my result for them to interpret when the GM could cut out the middleman and make the roll themself behind the screen. You'd be surprised just how much session time can be saved not having to wait on the latency between people at the table.

2. Combat systems whose complexity is out of proportion to their depth. 30 seconds of combat should not take 2 hours of table-time. Especially not when most of the time combat amounts to #1, "I carry out my predefined routine until we've won or had to retreat". System granularity should always be in service of facilitating meaningful decisions. If the tactical nuance of the system isn't pulling its own weight, cut it down.

3. Random encounters, loot tables, rolled stats, and other randomness for randomness' sake in general. A crafted experience will nine times of ten be preferable to a generated one. Random encounters are especially egregious as space-fillers when combined with #2; they chew up session time and contribute nothing to the world or the narrative beyond a vague sense of 'here be danger', which could be just as well served by selecting the specific encounter that fits best.



As you can see, I highly favor streamlined games with as few mechanical interruptions as possible to the part of the game I actually game here to play, that being the world exploration and character interaction.

Powered by the Apocalypse games obviously address all of this, so I'm going to assume that they are what you are talking about in the last sentence.

[Faily]

Do explain, in detail, how and why rich setting end up as boring games.


I can field this one, because it's just like reading a history book. It's not the rich setting that makes the game boring, it's the interaction with the world and the other players. If that's lacking it doesn't matter how much detail is present. It's still going to be boring. I think that Faily was trying to say that having rich setting doesn't necessarily make the game interesting, not the reverse, that rich setting makes a game less interesting. (And correct me if I'm wrong there)

Exactly this. Hit the nail on the head, AMFV. :smallwink: Bolded for emphasis, even.

Just gonna say that for our weekly Pathfinder game, three of the PCs in the group are seriously going to go on a vacation that is basically going to be "ye ol'fashioned dungeon-crawling". After saving the cities from being tossed into the sun, saving kingdoms from meddling evil deities, travelling through space and time, and combating evil-possessing swords... they thought having something simple and easy to do would be a nice change of pace. "It will be just like when we first got together years ago! Man, remember those goblins who nearly killed us in our first fight? Or that time we were captured and woke up naked and stripped for gear in that dungeon?"

So yeah, a dungeon-crawl is all what your group is making it out to be. And yes, that reference to being captured and stripped in a dungeon? Escape From Zanser Tem's Dungeon. A module which in itself is not very interesting to look at, so bland it can be fitted into almost any existing campaign-world... and our group had a hilarious time with roleplaying it out. Like learning that the incredibly charismatic sorcerer was really uncomfortable with being only in her underwear, while the Paladin walked around as if nothing was missing because nudity is just... nudity.

[CharonsHelper]

The main things I see almost all tabletop games failing at are:

...

As you can see, I highly favor streamlined games with as few mechanical interruptions as possible to the part of the game I actually game here to play, that being the world exploration and character interaction.

Except - those are all things that some RPGs do and some don't. They're just your taste. They aren't things that TTRPGs as a whole have failed to do, and thus are not really relevant to this thread.

[Knaight]

So this is all pretty much player side perception. It seems like we have less choices because there are literally walls in the way. It seems like the environment is static because we're in the same place. It s like where things are is the most important relationship for us to focus on. Now player perception is important, so I'm not going to fault you for that. However, a dungeon can transcend all of those limitations, if it's cleverly designed.
It's not player side perception, it's design side perception. I GM somewhere around 98% of the time, and I can say that as a GM these are recognizable standards for dungeons, and pretty much a short list of why I rarely use them. These are the things that choosing dungeons communicates to players, and these are broad trends of what dungeons look like.


So you're in an ancient wizard's tower. This tower is home to a small dwarf clan who are trying to get a foothold in the region, an elf cult, who are tasked with keeping the evil within from getting out, a kobold clan led by a dragon who is at war with a vampire on another level, who is trying to gain control of the towers three (because it's always three) keys or power so he can use the summoning circle on top of the tower to reawaken an ancient evil and take over the world. Those same keys can be used to unlock a vault in the palace that contains a sword that the True King needs in order to put an end to the encroaching darkness. Oh, and you're level one and you'll definitely die if you try to take on any of those groups directly, though they're all far too busy with eachother to spare troops to clear out the monsters that infest the tower, but they'd appreciate the extra space so they could call in they're relatives to help in the fight.

And let's say the dwarves are a little too fond of explosives, the elves use druid magic to grow trees wherever they live, and the vampire leaves sarcophagi everywhere.

So now on top of looting, you need to figure out where the keys are, figure out how to get them, and not let on that that is what you're trying to do, all while working to ensure the balance of power isn't too far swayed for you to matter enough not to kill. That seems nonstatic enough, huh?
Putting aside how this is a deliberately extreme example and I'm talking about broad trends, this being contained within a dungeon environment and time being spent within said environment will still give it a much more static feel than otherwise, and will still have more constraints than otherwise, so on and so forth. The choice of a dungeon communicates certain things, and while I'm not saying that any of those things are bad I am saying they are there and people dislike them.

That includes the above example, incidentally. I can tell you that as a player I would get bored with that dungeon fairly quickly because even with everything going on in it the actual play of what is happening is still the type of play that happens within dungeons. As a GM it would probably take longer to get bored running it, but even then it wouldn't take all that long.

[kyoryu]

1. Superfluous dice rolls. I have approximately zero interest in supposed challenges that amount to "roll climb checks until you get 3 results of 15+ without being interrupted by a result of 5-". Give me one roll that tells me how long it takes me to climb, if the context is time sensitive, or give me meaningful choices to make (ex: "you see your friend lose his footing, do you risk falling yourself by reaching out to help him stabilize himself?"), but do not waste my time with something that could just as easily be run on autopilot while I go grab a snack.

Can be useful, if there are interesting decision points in the middle and if they're optional based on pacing needs.


3. Random encounters, loot tables, rolled stats, and other randomness for randomness' sake in general. A crafted experience will nine times of ten be preferable to a generated one. Random encounters are especially egregious as space-fillers when combined with #2; they chew up session time and contribute nothing to the world or the narrative beyond a vague sense of 'here be danger', which could be just as well served by selecting the specific encounter that fits best.

Random encounters in old-school games are basically there as a form of time cost, to prevent people from seriously "crawling" and to make repeated actions have some level of danger associated with them.

They really don't work in story-based games, for the reasons you state. However, that doesn't mean that they don't work in any games.

[Mordar]

That includes the above example, incidentally. I can tell you that as a player I would get bored with that dungeon fairly quickly because even with everything going on in it the actual play of what is happening is still the type of play that happens within dungeons. As a GM it would probably take longer to get bored running it, but even then it wouldn't take all that long.

I'm not sure I get this part...

I agree that the setting can be temporarily static...but is it any more static than spending a session or two in a castle on a pure mystery or diplomacy mission? Every kind of story/mission will have its own constraints and limitations...and most have an escape hatch if the players grow tired/frustrated, so the dungeon is again not different in that capacity than the castle, wilderness or settlement. Now, if every session of the game was played in this kind of setting (was that the intent? Like World's Largest Dungeon or whatever?) then I'm right there with you...but if it is just one chapter in a story that includes some of that castle diplomacy, and a village mystery, and a cool sea exploration chapter...then I think it is great to include such a standard as a dungeon crawl (even if the referenced example isn't very dungeon-crawly).

And while I agree that the example provided is extreme, isn't that exactly the kind of thing that would be necessary/appropriate for a "dungeon" of more than half a dozen rooms/encounters? There are chances for exploration, social interaction, mystery/puzzle, all sorts of things. A thirty-room "traditional" crawl is no less an extreme example of dungeon-done-wrong than this tower is dungeon-done-right.

- M

[Tanarii]

3. Random encounters, loot tables, rolled stats, and other randomness for randomness' sake in general. A crafted experience will nine times of ten be preferable to a generated one. Random encounters are especially egregious as space-fillers when combined with #2; they chew up session time and contribute nothing to the world or the narrative beyond a vague sense of 'here be danger', which could be just as well served by selecting the specific encounter that fits best.
Random encounters are very useful when you're playing a resource management RPG. Which is many of them. And they put that resource manègemeant directly on the party. They can choose to spend time (a resource) and risk random encounters, or not. Wandering monsters increase player decisions to be considered and resource control by putting time management in their own hands.

Edit: if you're more interested in narrative than gamist, then they're less useful. Or even hinder your chosen style of play. But they aren't a problem with RPGs in general. They're just a problem given your chosen style of play focusing on narrative rather than resource management (which is a strategic component).

[GungHo]

Random encounters are very useful when you're playing a resource management RPG. Which is many of them. And they put that resource manègemeant directly on the party. They can choose to spend time (a resource) and risk random encounters, or not. Wandering monsters increase player decisions to be considered and resource control by putting time management in their own hands.

Edit: if you're more interested in narrative than gamist, then they're less useful. Or even hinder your chosen style of play. But they aren't a problem with RPGs in general. They're just a problem given your chosen style of play focusing on narrative rather than resource management (which is a strategic component).

To provide example, D&D is a resource management RPG. You might not notice it or consider it as such, but your resources are HP, spells, inventory, and even the characters themselves (e.g. their status, up to and including death), and this is why games like D&D start "breaking" when you mess with resources like saying "I want to use a different HP model" or "I want MAGE rather than Vancian magic" or "I don't want random encounters" without reviewing the changes to the whole model end-to-end unless you state "I want to do something different and I don't care about what it does to the game", which is absolutely fine, but sometimes folks just don't realize that going in.

[bulbaquil]

To provide example, D&D is a resource management RPG. You might not notice it or consider it as such, but your resources are HP, spells, inventory, and even the characters themselves (e.g. their status, up to and including death), and this is why games like D&D start "breaking" when you mess with resources like saying "I want to use a different HP model" or "I want MAGE rather than Vancian magic" or "I don't want random encounters" without reviewing the changes to the whole model end-to-end unless you state "I want to do something different and I don't care about what it does to the game", which is absolutely fine, but sometimes folks just don't realize that going in.

Or, for that matter, even doing things like ignoring encumbrance (and coin weight as well), handwaving away food/water/ammo tracking, etc. Even Bags of Holding and Handy Haversacks have capacity limits that are seldom enforced. They can be nuisances, but they are technically part of the game, and ignoring them is technically a house rule that has unforeseen consequences.