Has Dungeons and Dragons outgrown the Dungeons?

[PeteNutButter]

Has Dungeons and Dragons outgrown the Dungeons?

I've been playing DotMM and realizing the whole dungeon crawl thing feels a bit tired.

In the old days of D&D, dungeons brought an experience you could not find anywhere. You delve deep into a dark and mysterious place, killing monsters, earning loot & xp, and discovering the mysteries of the location. These days, most of that can be accomplished quite well with a variety of video games. It can still be done in D&D, but video games can follow the dungeon crawl format in a way... better. The combat systems in video games tend to be smoother and faster. Dungeons in video games are actually visual, only limited by things like graphics engines. You can play by yourself, or with friends and no one has to be the guy to roll dice for the baddies.

My premise/question relies on the concept that any media through which we tell stories is inherently going to excel at what it can do that others can't. Television mostly killed radio narrative shows because the visual aspect makes for easier narrative. Video never killed the radio star, because most music videos don't really add much to the song. Even with the ease of youtube, music is largely consumed in audio formats. So many movies are filled with action because it's something you can see. Novels are filled with internal monologue, because that is where prose can excel, by getting deep in the head of characters. Likewise RPG video games are filled with dungeons and other linear--or near linear--adventures because the format excels at it.

Near as I can tell D&D or Pen and Paper RPGs in general excel at 4 things:
1) Interactive story telling. It's sort of like mad libs or a novel if it were written by 6 people and dice. The stories that come out of D&D games can be truly unique as they never come from just one head, or follow one direction.
2) Role playing. I consider this separate from the storytelling as it provides players with a chance to "be" someone else, and explore what means.
3) Creative problem solving. This personally, is probably my biggest draw to the format. There is no single way to solve any complex problem and it's a thrill when players come up with new and inventive ways to beat the challenge they're in.
4) Beer & Pretzels. I believe this is why the dungeon crawl is still around. While video games generally are a smoother format for things like a dungeon crawl due to speed and system complexity, the relatively slower pace of D&D provides a more social atmosphere. You're hands are free from clicking buttons, so you can do things like imbibe in snacks and beverages much more freely. Side conversations strike up while waiting for a turn, which would be outright disruptive in a single channel chat like discord (Probably the biggest difference between playing in person and on things like Roll20). Beer and Pretzel games can be totally fun, and there is nothing wrong with them, but IMO they are usually more like 50% D&D 50% hanging out, which again is totally fine.

Now I realize that a dungeon crawl D&D session can certainly include elements of those first 3 things, but in my experience they don't, at least not as much. To me it's pretty much the definition of a dungeon crawl, to not expect as much RP or narrative, though a good dungeon can still include problem solving opportunities.

To sum up my opinion on the matter: Short of a Beer & Pretzels game, D&D hasn't been the best format for a dungeon crawl in decades. Dungeons should be used sparingly and never as an excuse for a lack of narrative. If we want this hobby to last the test of time, it needs to lean into what it is good at, and stop trying to be what it is not. Just as movies don't usually drown the audience in the internal monologue, prose doesn't try to be 200 pages of combat, radio doesn't do much narrative anymore, D&D shouldn't do much dungeons. (Yes, I'm aware it's in the name.)

I'd be happy to here others thoughts and flames on the topic. :smallbiggrin:

[MarkVIIIMarc]

One group I'm in is 75% role play, a group I DM is 75% dungeon. If not for one or the other I may have a different opinion.

FWIW, I'm having fun running Tales of the Yawning Portal with a bit of a backstory tying the adventures together and some side quests to up the level of replacement PCs and players aftwr PC fatalities or player drop out.

[PeteNutButter]

One group I'm in is 75% role play, a group I DM is 75% dungeon. If not for one or the other I may have a different opinion.

FWIW, I'm having fun running Tales of the Yawning Portal with a bit of a backstory tying the adventures together and some side quests to up the level of replacement PCs and players aftwr PC fatalities or player drop out.

Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy a good fight. Perhaps I should add that the slower pace of D&D makes for some good tactical team play. I just find repetitive low risk fights with low narrative reason behind them to be quite dull.

[MaxWilson]

I like the Alexandrian's point here (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15140/roleplaying-games/game-structures-part-3-dungeoncrawl) about the strengths of the dungeon crawl as a game structure, particularly as it comes to being easy for new DMs to run and for new players to engage with. You have a default goal ("kill the monsters, find the treasure") and a default action ("open a door and go through it") and it's hard to get yourself into a state where the players don't have clear choices available to them, or where play isn't meaningful.

To that extent, dungeon crawls are a good thing, and it's no wonder they pop up in all sorts of RPGs as well as (A)D&D.

This is closely tied to your #4/Beer and Pretzels point, but I think what I'm saying is that Beer and Pretzels is actually an important game structure.

But it's not the only game structure worth knowing, and D&D has always since the very beginning AFAIK encompassed shifts to other modes of play/other game structures, especially at high levels: hex clearing and strategic play (recruiting followers, building armies) are important aspects of AD&D play. 5E sort of tosses that sort of thing out in favor of more narrative play, but it doesn't do a good job at teaching DMs procedures for running narrative play other than linear adventures, so DMs that want to offer more choices to players have to either have to learn game structures from other DMs or import them from other games or just wing it.

Bottom line: dungeon crawls are easy and sometimes fun to run or play. It's also fine if you no longer enjoy them.

[2D8HP]

...In the old days of D&D, dungeons brought an experience you could not find anywhere. You delve deep into a dark and mysterious place, killing monsters, earning loot & xp, and discovering the mysteries of the location. These days, most of that can be accomplished quite well with a variety of video games....


Looking at video games gives me a headache, I still prefer and enjoy table top Dungeon crawls.

[KorvinStarmast]

Has Dungeons and Dragons outgrown the Dungeons? No. The dungeon is still a fine place to adventure. What it has done is grow out of the dungeon and the wilderness. I also feel that unless one has played OSR style games, current D&D has lost some of the lethality/fear of the original "dungeon of a mad wizard" basis for the dungeons that were the simple building blocks of the OD&D games.
Caves and Caverns are, and always were, great places to play D&D.

[MaxWilson]

Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy a good fight. Perhaps I should add that the slower pace of D&D makes for some good tactical team play. I just find repetitive low risk fights with low narrative reason behind them to be quite dull.

Note that "dungeon crawl" and "easy, low-risk dungeon crawl" are not synonymous. Crank up the difficulty all you want, but as long as you're doing a room-by-room exploration of a game space with hostile monsters and treasure, it's still a dungeon crawl.

I've always wanted to run a dungeon crawl through the Tower of Time where each "room" is actually a crucial event in spacetime (e.g. the Battle of Iceroad Crossing), and the "exits" from the room are time portals which are unlocked only when the event is resolved in one direction or another. (Think: Fritz Lieber's Change War, with the Snakes and Spiders.) PCs would be unique in their ability to sense and consume these time portals--you can't bring NPCs with you because they're not actually in the Tower of Time with you, they're in the real world--and because you are changing history in every room, if you leave the Tower of Time people don't recognize you, or think you've gone mad for believing in falsehoods. ("What do you mean you want to see your mother? Son, your mother died eight years ago, in the plagues, remember?") Only by penetrating to the heart of the tower can you become a Time Master and learn to span all timelines, which will allow you to return home to your original timeline.

Structurally it's a dungeon crawl, but with far more narrative weight.

[PeteNutButter]

I like the Alexandrian's point here (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15140/roleplaying-games/game-structures-part-3-dungeoncrawl) about the strengths of the dungeon crawl as a game structure, particularly as it comes to being easy for new DMs to run and for new players to engage with. You have a default goal ("kill the monsters, find the treasure") and a default action ("open a door and go through it") and it's hard to get yourself into a state where the players don't have clear choices available to them, or where play isn't meaningful.

To that extent, dungeon crawls are a good thing, and it's no wonder they pop up in all sorts of RPGs as well as (A)D&D.

This is closely tied to your #4/Beer and Pretzels point, but I think what I'm saying is that Beer and Pretzels is actually an important game structure.

But it's not the only game structure worth knowing, and D&D has always since the very beginning AFAIK encompassed shifts to other modes of play/other game structures, especially at high levels: hex clearing and strategic play (recruiting followers, building armies) are important aspects of AD&D play. 5E sort of tosses that sort of thing out in favor of more narrative play, but it doesn't do a good job at teaching DMs procedures for running narrative play other than linear adventures, so DMs that want to offer more choices to players have to either have to learn game structures from other DMs or import them from other games or just wing it.

Bottom line: dungeon crawls are easy and sometimes fun to run or play. It's also fine if you no longer enjoy them.

Good points. Maybe I'm jaded, or maybe it's just a simplicity thing. Once I've experienced enough of anything, I tend to want more depth or move on. I can certainly see how a Dungeon Crawl is easy on a new DM.

[Trustypeaches]

I disagree vehemently with your premise and your conclusions.

I disagree that dungeons usually lack RP or narrative opportunities or the option for creative solutions to problems. There's no reason a dungeon or a dungeon-crawl campaign cannot include all of those elements you feel D&D excels at, and if they don't maybe that's something you should discuss with your table.

I disagree that video games do dungeons "better" than D&D or tabletop RPGs in general for this reason as well.

You clearly don't find dungeon-crawling in D&D interesting or have had bad experiences with it. While your preferences are valid, they are not universal.

[MaxWilson]

Good points. Maybe I'm jaded, or maybe it's just a simplicity thing. Once I've experienced enough of anything, I tend to want more depth or move on. I can certainly see how a Dungeon Crawl is easy on a new DM.

If you want more depth, I highly recommend the Alexandrian's series on game structures here: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15126/roleplaying-games/game-structures

It may give you some good ideas about how to adapt the fun parts of dungeon crawling to your taste without the boring repetitive parts. I probably never would have come up with the Tower of Time idea (above) if I hadn't read that series of articles.

[Unoriginal]

Has Dungeons and Dragons outgrown the Dungeons?

No, pretty clearly.



I've been playing DotMM and realizing the whole dungeon crawl thing feels a bit tired.

I'd say it's probably your tastes which changed or simply this adventure not sparking your fire.

Keep in mind DotMM has a lot of RP opportunities if the DM is open to it.

[PeteNutButter]

No, pretty clearly.

I'd say it's probably your tastes which changed or simply this adventure not sparking your fire.

Keep in mind DotMM has a lot of RP opportunities if the DM is open to it.

You're entirely right, but none of that changes that D&D doesn't appear to be evolving, at least as far as published content.


Note that "dungeon crawl" and "easy, low-risk dungeon crawl" are not synonymous. Crank up the difficulty all you want, but as long as you're doing a room-by-room exploration of a game space with hostile monsters and treasure, it's still a dungeon crawl.

I've always wanted to run a dungeon crawl through the Tower of Time where each "room" is actually a crucial event in spacetime (e.g. the Battle of Iceroad Crossing), and the "exits" from the room are time portals which are unlocked only when the event is resolved in one direction or another. (Think: Fritz Lieber's Snakes and Spiders.) PCs would be unique in their ability to sense and consume these time portals--you can't bring NPCs with you because they're not actually in the Tower of Time with you, they're in the real world--and because you are changing history in every room, if you leave the Tower of Time people don't recognize you, or think you've gone mad for believing in falsehoods. ("What do you mean you want to see your mother? Son, your mother died eight years ago, in the plagues, remember?") Only by penetrating to the heart of the tower can you become a Time Master and learn to span all timelines, which will allow you to return home to your original timeline.

Structurally it's a dungeon crawl, but with far more narrative weight.

See that's awesome. In a way though it's upending the trope, while also being it. If you take a new spin on an idea, it gives it new life. That's the exact sort of thing I'm calling for. The old door, monster, kill, loot thing is just grating to me anymore. The illusion of choice (do you go left or right? ...when you have no information about either direction) the repetition etc.

All other forms of entertainment evolve over time. Books, TV, and Movies have all gone through various evolutions and fads, to the point where an experienced consumer could accurately place a piece in time without knowing much about it. Ideas that were once revolutionary get copied so many times they become a trope. Things, like once shocking plot twists get copied to death, and eventually discarded. D&D just seems to be... stuck. If you take the stat blocks, formatting, and other rules pieces out of the Dungeon of the Mad Mage it might be hard to tell what edition it came from.

[Unoriginal]

You're entirely right, but none of that changes that D&D doesn't appear to be evolving, at least as far as published content.


You're contradicting yourself, here. If D&D isn't evolving, then it cannot outgrow dungeons.


As far as I can see, D&D 5e did grow, and its ways of handling dungeons grew with it, but that's a separate issue. Dungeon of the Mad Mage is a deliberate throwback to the old megadungeons, while still containing new things, both meta- and in-universe.

[Corpsecandle717]

I guess I disagree that the 'Dungeons' part of DnD has ever meant what you're defining a 'dungeon crawl' to be. I've never once joined a campaign with the expectation or experience of my character running from room to slaughtering monsters. The RP part of the game has always been there for me. I guess I've heard that such games exist, but never have I seen it happen. Now that doesn't mean that sometimes a game will lead to long dungeon slogs, but the RP element is always there.

Is DnD the format for the dungeon crawl you've described? Definitely not, but I don't think it ever has been (disclaimer that I started in 3.0 so I guess there may have been a period where there was no better system than DnD)

[Yora]

I think the main reason that dungeon crawling has become stale in D&D since the mid 80s is the shift in focus for published material away from open world games toward scripted stories.
Dungeon crawls of the 70s to mid 80s are intrinsically open world things in which reaching the final chamber and defeating the final boss is not guaranteed. And not required to be considered a success. But when D&D diversified to cater to the greater audience that is looking to play out big fantasy epics, both published adventures and the way the rulebooks describe the game changed a lot.

Open world campaigns seem to be making a bit of a come back, but the original dungeon crawl experience is based on the assumptions that PCs have a high risk to permanently die, that the biggest monster in the dungeon will not be defeated, and that the greatest treasure will not be found. Unless the GM plans, presents, and runs the campaign that way, I think dungeon crawling will inevitably feel somewhat anemic.

[PeteNutButter]

You're contradicting yourself, here. If D&D isn't evolving, then it cannot outgrow dungeons.

As far as I can see, D&D 5e did grow, and its ways of handling dungeons grew with it, but that's a separate issue. Dungeon of the Mad Mage is a deliberate throwback to the old megadungeons, while still containing new things, both meta- and in-universe.

Not a contradiction. I'm calling for it to evolve, saying it should evolve. I'm saying it's time we moved past this trope into something with more depth. Most home games have evolved past this IME. The published content seems to be lagging, IMO. Maybe it's by design to appeal to new players constantly.

I get that it's a throwback in a way, but so was TYP and the next book coming out. Seems like we are getting more throwbacks than new content...

[Kadesh]

No. People have outgrown playing Dungeons and Dragons in dungeons, and expect the game to do more than it should.

The game system doesn't support the things that aren't dungeoneering very well. There are better survival games. There are better mass combat games. There are better rules lite systems. There are better rules crunch systems.

And yet everyone tries to cram a 5e version of their favourite X.

[Yora]

My stance is that D&D, as it is taught by the rulebooks and marketed by the adventures, did evolve into something where the classic way of dungeon crawling no longer serves much of a purpose. And that actually happen 35 years ago.

I have not read any of the adventures for 5th edition, but it appears that Wizards is trying to make new adventures attractive by promising to let players experience the dungeons which they have head being talked of as legendary classics. Though with the way adventures have been done in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition, I am not confident that this would lead to particularly satisfying experiences.

[Mercurias]

Roughly half of my dungeon experience in tabletops tends to be RP, more if you take into account games on the FATE system where rolls and roles tend to be less restrictive.

I'd say that a lot of the game lore has shifted to be more in-depth, and that a lot of D&D's numbers have been simplified to make life easier for DMs and players.

Honestly, the Dungeon of the Mad Mage seems a little bit dull to me compared to a lot of other modules because of what I like in D&D. I'm a very roleplay-centric player that has more fun with games centered around intrigue. Give me a campaign with the story of Dragon Age: Inquisition and I'm as happy as a hog in slop!

[Unoriginal]

Not a contradiction. I'm calling for it to evolve, saying it should evolve. I'm saying it's time we moved past this trope into something with more depth. Most home games have evolved past this IME. The published content seems to be lagging, IMO. Maybe it's by design to appeal to new players constantly.

It's called Dungeons & Dragons. If you don't want to play Dungeons & Dragons, it's true that Dungeons & Dragons won't be satisfying to you.



I get that it's a throwback in a way, but so was TYP and the next book coming out. Seems like we are getting more throwbacks than new content...

Well, as a king once said:


https://youtu.be/v4YnOf4uW-0

D&D has history. It tried to become an universal system with 3.X and the D20 line. Then it tried hard to not be "the old D&D" with 4e. Now, with 5e, it's finally just trying to be D&D, and succeeding as far as I'm concerned.

Throwbacks ARE new content. It's not because it uses the old that it is the old. They come from the love people have for D&D's past elements, without being slaves to them. And it's pretty unfair to claim that books like Dungeons of the Mad Mages lack depth, when even the first level has at least three intersecting storylines, each with its own NPCs and possible outcomes depending on the PCs' actions.


It's entirely possible, to use a rather grand phrase, that you "fell out of love" with D&D 5e. That's fair, it can't be to everyone's tastes, and no one is asking you to do what you don't enjoy.

But why should others get a product different product than the one they love because *you* feel unsatisfied with it?

D&D will continue to change. Probably not in a way that you'll like, if you don't like the direction it took so far, since the devs are pretty clear they'll stay in this direction in the foreseeable future. And that's ok. There are plenty of other games, if you'd rather play something different. However, the premise "I feel D&D needs to change to fit my personal preferences" is and has always been inherently dubious.



Honestly, the Dungeon of the Mad Mage seems a little bit dull to me compared to a lot of other modules because of what I like in D&D. I'm a very roleplay-centric player that has more fun with games centered around intrigue. Give me a campaign with the story of Dragon Age: Inquisition and I'm as happy as a hog in slop!

I agree that DotMM can feel dull just reading it, but honestly it feels like it's pretty easy to inject some life into it once there's a party to bounce off the situations, NPCs and oddities of the dungeon.

A Straight Man & Funny Guy act always feel dulls when there's only half of the duo (though to be fair, knowing adventurers that dungeon is more likely to turn into a Crazy Guy & Crazy Guy act).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't do very many "dungeon crawls" as that is commonly understood. But I certainly have dungeons--most of my adventures are site-based. They're just not context-and-narrative-free "see how much loot you can pull out" adventures.

[Yora]

Roughly half of my dungeon experience in tabletops tends to be RP, more if you take into account games on the FATE system where rolls and roles tend to be less restrictive.

In my eyes, a proper campaign is 50% dungeon, 30% wilderness, 10% town, 10% combat, and 100% roleplaying.

When your dungeon and your combat isn't roleplaying, then I'm at the wrong table.

[mephnick]

The RPG community maybhave, but DnD hasn't. Dungeoncrawling is still the gamestyle DnD is best used for. People don't use it for that and those people aren't..wrong per se, but they probably could use something else and have a better experience

[Willie the Duck]

As a general rule, I don't particularly believe in a teleological progression for TTRPGs-- they aren't necessarily evolving in a specific direction, nor are they supposed to. Certain audience trends have made various things out of favor in a way that could be considered non-teleological change (evolution in response to stimulus). It's certainly easy to look at something like 5e, with formulas where there used to be arbitrary-seeming charts. However, all-in-all, TTRPGs aren't going in some direction.

To the question of whether D&D is good at being a dungeon crawling game, I'd actually say that some of the most glaring problems with D&D (as the default table top RPG for many-to-most gamers) is that it never really addressed glaring issues that it has when you take it out of the dungeon. The 15 minute workday; squishy wizards protected mostly by the fact that the opponents literally cannot squeeze by the front lines in cramped corridors (and Opportunity Attack rules woefully inadequate for allowing a real rear line in an open field, barring gentlemen's agreements, etc.); a ruleset well suited for moving about environments, noticing surprises, and dealing with them through combat or limited-use spells, and weaker everywhere else -- these are all reasons why the dungeon is the place where D&D actually works, and you have to put in extra effort to get it to run in other situations.

[Slipperychicken]

D&D itself, despite still having rules largely focused on dungeon-crawling and related activities, has been rebranded as a one-stop shop for all fantasy roleplaying needs.

This has happened alongside a shift in the community's attitude toward dungeons and violent adventures generally. The notion that lengthy backstories and frequent conversations are needed for a sophisticated mature roleplaying experience has come at the expense of the traditional dungeon. To spend entire sessions doing nothing but killing monsters in a dark hole is considered 'immature' because it doesn't indulge enough improv-conversation for the community's liking.

Likewise doing something that carries a high risk of losing a cherished character (who may well have taken a week to write all the needed characterization and backstory) risks a massive emotional blow to that PC's player. This too has led to the dungeon becoming disfavored: A gauntlet of death-traps carries little appeal when the success of said traps could easily cripple or destroy the group's morale and will to play. This is especially true given the hobby's ironclad adherence to permadeath: No retries are to be permitted in any situation or for any reason, the in-game clock shall never be turned backward even if the game cannot otherwise continue, and even in-game workarounds like resurrection spells are vilified for breaking immersion and fear-of-death. This combined leads to incredible aversion to any real danger to the PCs' lives.

[Trustypeaches]

It's worth clarifying what exactly a dungeon is, to your mind.

An abandoned manor haunted by a noblewoman's ghost is a dungeon. Basically any dangerous, self-contained location with any amount of depth can be considered a dungeon.

It doesn't even have to necessarily be enclosed. I run exploration of hostile wilderness like a dungeon, where I break a region's areas into figurative "rooms" (example here (https://i.imgur.com/OhtOqa0.jpg), where each hex is an encounter). So a regions like the "Shimmering Bayou" or the "Deadmire" are basically dungeons in my campaign.

Finally, it's worth clarifying that a "dungeon crawl" doesn't necessarily mean back to back combats either. I would argue that combat isn't even the most common form of encounter that takes place inside a dungeon, at least in my experience.

[mephnick]

In my eyes, a proper campaign is 50% dungeon, 30% wilderness, 10% town, 10% combat, and 100% roleplaying.

When your dungeon and your combat isn't roleplaying, then I'm at the wrong table.

Absolutely. Making decisions in character is roleplaying. Breaking down the door instead of picking it because you're a strong, impatient barbarian is still role-playing. Casting Divine Favor and striding towards the orc warleader because you are a badass warpriest is role-playing. Deciding to threaten the NPC instead of persuading them is role-playing. It's all ****ing role-playing. Talkjng in character and crying at the table is acting. The two shouldn't be confused and you can have the former without the latter.

[MaxWilson]

Absolutely. Making decisions in character is roleplaying. Breaking down the door instead of picking it because you're a strong, impatient barbarian is still role-playing. Casting Divine Favor and striding towards the orc warleader because you are a ------ warpriest is role-playing. Deciding to threaten the NPC instead of persuading them is role-playing. It's all ****ing role-playing. Talkjng in character and crying at the table is acting. The two shouldn't be confused and you can have the former without the latter.

Digression: however, deciding whether to spend your Portent dice or Lucky dice or Inspiration right now is not roleplaying, it's inherently metagaming, although the decision made can be informed by roleplaying.

[PeteNutButter]

D&D itself, despite still having rules largely focused on dungeon-crawling and related activities, has been rebranded as a one-stop shop for all fantasy roleplaying needs.

This has happened alongside a shift in the community's attitude toward dungeons and violent adventures generally. The notion that lengthy backstories and frequent conversations are needed for a sophisticated mature roleplaying experience has come at the expense of the traditional dungeon. To spend entire sessions doing nothing but killing monsters in a dark hole is considered 'immature' because it doesn't indulge enough improv-conversation for the community's liking.

Likewise doing something that carries a high risk of losing a cherished character (who may well have taken a week to write all the needed characterization and backstory) risks a massive emotional blow to that PC's player. This too has led to the dungeon becoming disfavored: A gauntlet of death-traps carries little appeal when the success of said traps could easily cripple or destroy the group's morale and will to play. This is especially true given the hobby's ironclad adherence to permadeath: No retries are to be permitted in any situation or for any reason, the in-game clock shall never be turned backward even if the game cannot otherwise continue, and even in-game workarounds like resurrection spells are vilified for breaking immersion and fear-of-death. This combined leads to incredible aversion to any real danger to the PCs' lives.

This is a good summary that gets to exactly my point.


As a general rule, I don't particularly believe in a teleological progression for TTRPGs-- they aren't necessarily evolving in a specific direction, not are they supposed to. Certain audience trends have made various things out of favor in a way that could be considered non-teleological change (evolution in response to stimulus). It's certainly easy to look at something like 5e, with formulas where there used to be arbitrary-seeming charts. However, all-in-all, TTRPGs are going in some direction.

To the question of whether D&D is good at being a dungeon crawling game, I'd actually say that some of the most glaring problems with D&D (as the default table top RPG for many-to-most gamers) is that it never really addressed glaring issues that it has when you take it out of the dungeon. The 15 minute workday; squishy wizards protected mostly by the fact that the opponents literally cannot squeeze by the front lines in cramped corridors (and Opportunity Attack rules woefully inadequate for allowing a real rear line in an open field, barring gentlemen's agreements, etc.); a ruleset well suited for moving about environments, noticing surprises, and dealing with them through combat or limited-use spells, and weaker everywhere else -- these are all reasons why the dungeon is the place where D&D actually works, and you have to put in extra effort to get it to run in other situations.

You make good points. Where and how do you think TTRPGs are/will be evolving now and in the future?


It's worth clarifying what exactly a dungeon is, to your mind.

An abandoned manor haunted by a noblewoman's ghost is a dungeon. Basically any dangerous, self-contained location with any amount of depth can be considered a dungeon.

It doesn't even have to necessarily be enclosed. I run exploration of hostile wilderness like a dungeon, where I break a region's areas into figurative "rooms" (example here (https://i.imgur.com/OhtOqa0.jpg), where each hex is an encounter). So a regions like the "Shimmering Bayou" or the "Deadmire" are basically dungeons in my campaign.

Finally, it's worth clarifying that a "dungeon crawl" doesn't necessarily mean back to back combats either. I would argue that combat isn't even the most common form of encounter that takes place inside a dungeon, at least in my experience.

Again we are talking about ideas/ways to make the dungeon fresh. When I say Dungeon crawl, I'm talking about the classics, and their rehashed versions we are getting from WotC lately Temple of Elemental Evil, Dungeon of the Mad Mage, Tales from the Yawning Portal, etc.

Using a stock villain from a typical 1960s movie without anything new in a modern movie will often be considered bland, because audiences have grown to expect more depth in movie villains. I think the same should be true with D&D dungeons. They should offer a new experience to players.

[MaxWilson]

Using a stock villain from a typical 1960s movie without anything new in a modern movie will often be considered bland, because audiences have grown to expect more depth in movie villains. I think the same should be true with D&D dungeons. They should offer a new experience to players.

You should check out Courtney Campbell's writings. He's got a new adventure out: http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2019/03/on-birthday-surprise-dread-eyrie.html

I bought the ACKS version because the 5E version isn't out yet, but it looks straightforward to adapt--combat stats are the easiest parts of an adventure to make up. The harder part is creating the adventure structure, interesting things to do, factions to interact with, etc., and while I haven't run the adventure yet, from perusing it so far I think you will find it far more interesting than Dungeons of the Mad Mage.


I've been writing about the classic style gaming for over a decade now. What do I do when I have the reigns for designing a high or mid-level module? Here's an adventure for high level characters that doesn't involve a stupid corridor of unavoidable fights or complete nullification of the players powers. Oh! Bullet points!

A quest beyond the Dark Wall!

An adventure with an assumption of dynamic encounters?

Climbing AND Wyverns. Together! It's like peanut butter and jelly!

An ancient 400' tall statue, guarding a hidden eyrie. How will the players activate or bypass the mysterious mechanism?

A city filled with factions, each ripe for exploitation.

Opportunities for players to get unique and powerful treasures!

It's written for Adventurer Conqueror King, so it's completely off-the-shelf compatible with not only the one of the best clones ever written, but also seemlessly used with any Basic/Expert Dungeons and Dragons compatible system.

[Throne12]

I didn't read any other post so if some else has already said this I'm sorry.

To the op the answer to your question is no. Yes video games have come a long way but you don't have the true feeling of freedom in video games. That you do in D&D.

There is a pit in the middle of the hall. Video game gives you option A, B, and C to cross it.
D&D there are no options. It just what you can think of to get pass it. Maybe you took the time to fill it with dirt. Or you cast a spell to flout over it. Maybe you made a simple rope bridge. Ect. Ect. Ect.


When it comes to dungeon crawling ttrpg are always going to be the best way. Untel they make a vr game that gives you full control.

[GreyBlack]

Either long ago or it never did.

OD&D was really focused around levels 1-7, where it was assumed that your character would retire from adventuring and focus on their keep. This changed almost from the word "go", with people wanting to go on more and more epic adventures. However, the epic adventure does not lend itself to dungeon crawling, and instead is more focused on broad, sweeping adventures.

The "dungeons" part of "dungeons and dragons" is the story of how your character became wealthy and became a major player in the world's politics. It's Beowulf defeating the Grendel, or Conan climbing the Tower of the Elephant to defeat Yag-kosha.

By comparison, the "dragons" was keeping this newfound power safe from creatures which might attack your stronghold. The dragon attacking the keep and your character making the charge to protect the people. It's a different level of play, which plays with ancient mythos. Again, go back to Beowulf to see this in action.

However, people attribute more to Lord of the Rings than they probably should for LOTR. You're not Bilbo on a quest to destroy the Ring, you're Conan trying to get the Atlantean Sword.

Which is great, but it creates this tension between player expectation and actual play. It also results in some confused mechanics, as we no longer have that idea of "character retirement." So now you have to make weirder and weirder dungeons that make no logical sense on order to keep up with the characters, or entirely abandon the idea of the dungeon.

So... yes we have outgrown dungeons, but dungeons have generally only been a low level thing anyway, so that's fine.

[Wuzza]

It's worth clarifying what exactly a dungeon is, to your mind.

An abandoned manor haunted by a noblewoman's ghost is a dungeon. Basically any dangerous, self-contained location with any amount of depth can be considered a dungeon.

It doesn't even have to necessarily be enclosed. I run exploration of hostile wilderness like a dungeon, where I break a region's areas into figurative "rooms" (example here (https://i.imgur.com/OhtOqa0.jpg), where each hex is an encounter). So a regions like the "Shimmering Bayou" or the "Deadmire" are basically dungeons in my campaign.


These are exactly my thoughts. So while the game may have outgrown the "dungeon", the dungeon is very much still alive.
I've even started thinking as cities as a dungeon, just in a different format. (yes I know, I'm late to the pary :smallsmile: )
30 years ago, our D&D was literally that, an adventure in a dungeon, and if we survived long enough, we might encounter a dragon.
My current group seems happy if they have a bit of story, a few RP encounters, and get to kill some stuff. That's +1 (RP) more then the old times.

[Yora]

Just this week I stumbled about something where it was pointed out that D&D came into being at the same time when the US withdrew from Vietnam. There must have been considerable numbers of returning soldiers among the young men that made up the wargaming scene. And quite famously, the Vietnamese forces did construct literal deathtrap dungeons under the forests.
Their main purpose was to sneak around under the battlefield, hide troops and supplies, and ambush the enemy, but they also were trapped in case the enemy discovered an entrance.
I think this was the framework by which many early dungeons were designed. Which is where you get all those traps from that can't do any real harm to higher level characters. They are not immitating traps that are meant to keep a tomb safe from robbers for thoudands of years, but rather traps made to stall an enemy and raise an alarm for the defenders to start a counterattack. And they were noy meant to last through the ages, but there was someone around to check and reset them every couple of days.

Looking at the early dungeons, many of them seem to be less treasure expeditions and more raids on enemy strongholds.



However, people attribute more to Lord of the Rings than they probably should for LOTR. You're not Bilbo on a quest to destroy the Ring, you're Conan trying to get the Atlantean Sword.

D&D was not designed to be The Hobbit. But people wanted to play The Hobbit and some marketing genious had thought to put elves, dwarves, and halflings into the game to lure in fans of The Hobbit. So it can't have been to anyone's suprise that people quickly started to try playing The Hobbit.

[KorvinStarmast]

Dungeon crawls of the 70s to mid 80s are intrinsically open world things in which reaching the final chamber and defeating the final boss is not guaranteed. And not required to be considered a success.
Bingo. The modular adventure scheme, which was good for conventions and marketing and revenue streams, was not the same as the basic premise of the game.

It's worth clarifying what exactly a dungeon is, to your mind. An abandoned manor haunted by a noblewoman's ghost is a dungeon. Basically any dangerous, self-contained location with any amount of depth can be considered a dungeon. That, and a lot of successful dungeon raids were where combat was mostly avoided since 1 GP = 1 Xp ... the treasure hunting emphasis was significant.
Digression: however, deciding whether to spend your Portent dice or Lucky dice or Inspiration right now is not roleplaying, it's inherently metagaming, although the decision made can be informed by roleplaying. So is rolling the dice to see if you hit.


There must have been considerable numbers of returning soldiers among the young men that made up the wargaming scene. And quite famously, the Vietnamese forces did construct literal deathtrap dungeons under the forests. I have read a variety of opinions that look like this, and I can suggest that you are missing out on some actual history. The "Viet Nam vets made D&D an underground fight" assertion is unsupported.

The period 1970-1974 when the twin cities gang began messing with a hybrid of chainmail, braunstein, and whatever Dave Arneson had in his little black notebook was almost not at all influenced by Viet Nam. Likewise Gygax seeing this variation on the wargame and eventually it getting published.

The wargaming hobby in that period of time had utterly NOT embraced Viet Nam. Between board games and table top games, the ancients, medieval, Napoleonic, and micro armor games of that era conspicuously avoided that model.

Granted, yeah, Victor Charlie's methods were learned and may have influenced some of the DM's, sure, but the core hobby and the original grew out of the nerd / geek culture of wargamers, a lot of whom were also history nerds, who mixed in fantasy escapism.

They weren't writing Platoon. That took another decade to become mainstream. (Apocalypse Now didn't even deal with that tactical issue in Viet Nam, but Tell the Spartans did).

The cultural, or the sub culture, that grew the stuff that became D&D can be found in games like:
Diplomacy
All of Avalon Hill's historical war games
Some of SPI's games (see Sniper, Viking, others)
A variety of different miniatures/historical board games. (Chainmail was one of many)

Veterans of Viet Nam who'd actually been there may or may not have had an interest in war games once they'd seen it up close and personal(tastes vary on stuff like that). Our Mil Studies prof (US Marine Major, armor) didn't have a system to hand in the 70's to try and play at "viet nam." Nor do I think he wanted to. The micro armor games we played were based on either WW II or the very much "real life" simulation of Northern European plain, NATO/BLOC style of games (without nukes). We didn't have a wargame on the table top for Korea either. (this was mid to late 1970's).

The juxtaposition of Viet Nam coming to a close and D&D finally getting published is coincidence, not cause and effect.

(I am going to guess that Arneson got a college deferment from the draft or was a 4F; Gygax tried to join the Marines when he got out of high school but it didn't work out. (IIRC, his son Luke was born in the late 1950's or early 1960's).

It is hard for me to estimate the influence Phil Barker (M.A.R. Barker, author of Empire of the Petal Throne game) on Dave Arneson, but they ran in the same gaming circles in the Twin Cities area. Barker's home campaign became the game eventually published by TSR in 1975).

[MaxWilson]

So is rolling the dice to see if you hit.

That's a poor analogy. There's no metagamed decision-making in die rolling, unless things like Lucky and Portent are involved.

[KorvinStarmast]

That's a poor analogy. There's no metagamed decision-making in die rolling, unless things like Lucky and Portent are involved. Likewise use of shield spell after a die roll is made ... but rolling the dice itself is a meta game element. It isn't an 'in world' element.

[Morty]

I don't think it outgrew them, as such. But I do think they're not the default mode of adventuring anymore and shouldn't be treated as such. It's just one of several ways to run a game. Or a session, really. The PCs can explore a dungeon and then get out and go do something else.

I also agree that we need to disconnect the word "dungeon" from old-school assumptions that are mostly a cautionary tale at this point. A "dungeon" can be any largely self-contained dangerous location that the PCs need to traverse. Could be ruins of the obligatory fallen empire, a cave, a mine or a temple to an evil god.

[Kadesh]

"No, it's not outgrown dungeons, dungeons are a major part of dnd", followed by "but dungeons no longer mean what dungeons used to mean" is a bit of an interesting logical process, there.

[MaxWilson]

Likewise use of shield spell after a die roll is made ... but rolling the dice itself is a meta game element. It isn't an 'in world' element.

Also not a great example. Shield triggers off of "hit", not on a die roll. If it triggered off a die roll it would be as metagamey as Lucky. As is, it can be metagamey or not, depending on how the DM describes the effect. (If Shield is a spell that you use to reflexively use to strengthen your body and make weapons bounce off of you, sometimes, then Shielding is an in-character decision, not metagamey.)

[2D8HP]

@KorvinStarmast started playing D&D earliert than me and is a better source (and is way cooler) than me of what the inspirations were, but some literary antecedents for the "dungeon" in Dungeons & Dragons aren't hard to find: Howard's Conan in "Red Nails", Leiber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser in "The Lords of Quarmall", the underworld in Clark Ashton Smith's "The Seven Geases", the Mines of Moria in Tolkein, et cetera, but when I started DM'ing in '78 (with my little brother as my first victim player, and when I found another DM in '79 I didn't know any of that ('cept maybe some of the Conan stories I read in the school library, but I doubt that I read anything as long as Red Nails, "The People of the Black Circle", and "The Slithering Shadow" from "Book One" Conan the Adventurer were more likely my reads back then back then), but what I do definitely remember inspired my visions of "dungeons' were: the At the Earth's Core, the Morlocks caves in The Time Machine movie, the inner moon in The First Men in the Moon (movie), the underworld of the mutants in Beneath the Planet of the Apes, and the underground shelter of the non-mutants in The Time Travelers, the magician's caves in The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad, plus the "Cat's Claw" episode of Star Trek.

Beside fairy tales from books and Disney movies, and the D'Aulaires' Greek Myths, my visions of magic and "Fantasy" came from the Conan, Sword of Sorcery (Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser), and Warlord (a Burroughs Pellucidar homage) comic books, Sinbad movies, and The Hobbit cartoon.

I'd be very suprised if Arneson, Gygax, Kask, Kurtz, Mornard, et cetera weren't familiar with most of that as well.

[GreyBlack]

D&D was not designed to be The Hobbit. But people wanted to play The Hobbit and some marketing genious had thought to put elves, dwarves, and halflings into the game to lure in fans of The Hobbit. So it can't have been to anyone's suprise that people quickly started to try playing The Hobbit.

I didn't say it was surprising. I just said that the tension has always been there.

Or at least I meant to try and say that. Sorry if it came out differently.

[Sigreid]

The dungeon is still great for people who don't have a lot of time for setting up a campaign, but still want to get together and have a good time. A nice, contained dungeon adventure is pretty easy and quick to set up.

[guachi]

I think the issue is less that D&D has outgrown the Dungeons and more that Dungeon of the Mad Mage isn't particularly good. It feels a bit overwhelming when it's the entirety of your campaign.

[Unoriginal]

I think the issue is less that D&D has outgrown the Dungeons and more that Dungeon of the Mad Mage isn't particularly good. It feels a bit overwhelming when it's the entirety of your campaign.

I feel like DotMM can be pretty great if there's a group to bring flavor with them as they explore it. It's not like CoS where everything revolve around the titular vampire, it's the adventurers who brings the action to which the dungeon and its denizen can react.

[MrStabby]

I think the answer is a bit of a mix.

I take your point that there isn't so much of an incentive to do P&P RPGs for any type of game for which there is a better format available. I think that computers can do much of this better.

There are still things P&P is better for though; those things where you need a more complex interaction than can be feasibly programmed into a machine. Conversations where you are not just choosing options from a list. Descriptions of characters, mannerisms and visual cues that would be laborious to program in for so many characters. Creativity - the ability for a player to fruitfully consider courses of action the designer never considered. This even ignores elements like "real time" RPGs where laying down the different panels of a wall of force would see you overrun before you got them down.

The question is - is there a place for any of the above in a dungeon? I would say yes. Puzzles, traps, complex NPCs needn't be omitted.

Sure dungeons have attributes that can make these things more challenging, but this isn't a bad thing. It just means that the dungeons have to grow up with the game. The dungeon itself needs to permit more freedom and creativity - but this isn't a bad thing.

[stoutstien]

if you think about it the entire dnd system is one giant mega dungeon. a city, forest, cave, sea, or maybe inners of a giant purple worm all could be seen as series of overlapping connected areas(rooms) that players may encounter ways to interact with the game. so i do not think DnD has out grown dungeons rather players have grown to expect that the dungeon to be more than a static environment

[No brains]

As a new DM, I still enjoy dungeons. Those adventure flowcharts help me prepare the right amount for next session.

[stoutstien]

As a new DM, I still enjoy dungeons. Those adventure flowcharts help me prepare the right amount for next session.
Nothing wrong with a critical path as long as there is some detours and dead ends.

[djreynolds]

I hope this is not taken the wrong way or "derails" the conversation.... so I apologize beforehand

I think, humbly, IMO, perception is just so strong, and players usually have a very good score already that most traps in a dungeon are spotted and avoided... and if tinker with "DCs" of traps, veteran players will notice and gripe

What I'm saying is that is really tough to ambush players or have them "step" in traps, to the point the dungeon is no longer dangerous but becomes a real drag.

Players with find familiar, often parties have more than 1, sniff out traps and scout ahead.

Its not crazy for a rogue to have an incredibly high stealth score.

So unless I go above the stated "DC" of the game for traps, etc.... players are not surprised, either in game or out of game.

I feel, in 5E, without major changes to "in book" design, and/or players knowing beforehand that the DM is taking the "gloves off".... dungeons are not scary

CoS is real exception because there is not much magic and in a sand box, players can places they are not properly leveled for

[stoutstien]

I hope this is not taken the wrong way or "derails" the conversation.... so I apologize beforehand

I think, humbly, IMO, perception is just so strong, and players usually have a very good score already that most traps in a dungeon are spotted and avoided... and if tinker with "DCs" of traps, veteran players will notice and gripe

What I'm saying is that is really tough to ambush players or have them "step" in traps, to the point the dungeon is no longer dangerous but becomes a real drag.

Players with find familiar, often parties have more than 1, sniff out traps and scout ahead.

Its not crazy for a rogue to have an incredibly high stealth score.

So unless I go above the stated "DC" of the game for traps, etc.... players are not surprised, either in game or out of game.

I feel, in 5E, without major changes to "in book" design, and/or players knowing beforehand that the DM is taking the "gloves off".... dungeons are not scary

CoS is real exception because there is not much magic and in a sand box, players can places they are not properly leveled for
I got this depends if you run traps as a save or suck effect or as an encounter.
Roll to take a hand full of d4 damage from setting off a dart trap vs setting off a huge Boulder that slowly rolling through the hall crushing all trapped in it's path. Poor kolbolds*

Room with Runes that cast shocking grasps vs a room with a a shambling mound with same runes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I got this depends if you run traps as a save or suck effect or as an encounter.
Roll to take a hand full of d4 damage from setting off a dart trap vs setting off a huge Boulder that slowly rolling through the hall crushing all trapped in it's path. Poor kolbolds*

Room with Runes that cast shocking grasps vs a room with a a shambling mound with same runes.

Or alarm traps. Note that alarms may or may not even be disarmable, or even noticeable.

Pure damage and short-term condition traps, IMO, are best used as environmental hazards during a combat. A pit trap that the enemies try to herd squishies to. A net trap to immobilize people while kobolds attack from the sides.

For traps as entire encounters, use complex traps. Those you can't simply disable with a single action--you have to be exposed to its effects for several turns.

A necromancer might have most of his entrances with poison gas traps. Completely unavoidable--you have to pass through them if you go that way and there's no simple disablement. If you open the door, the room fills with poison. Doesn't do much damage, but leaves you poisoned for an hour. Undead are immune to poison, so they don't care. And to get out you have to go and press a lever big enough that it takes an action.

Another thing is to not let Perception be a god skill. Use Investigation for most trap-finding. Perception tells you that something's off, but not enough to actually do anything about it directly. It merely tells you that there's something to investigate.

[djreynolds]

Its just perception is really powerful, and players are smart and build with that 1 skill in mind........ as they should. A warrior should be wary.

And because of it, no one set off traps, they usually find them.

And for me as a DM, familiars are a pain is the butt, not only are they all owls using flyby, but they are disposable scouts

I have had many a player even sacrifice familiars to set off traps the don't care to disarm.

And if I place extra traps knowing my player's strengths or tweak perception DCs to find traps...... they definitely know.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Its just perception is really powerful, and players are smart and build with that 1 skill in mind........ as they should. A warrior should be wary.

And because of it, no one set off traps, they usually find them.

And for me as a DM, familiars are a pain is the butt, not only are they all owls using flyby, but they are disposable scouts

I have had many a player even sacrifice familiars to set off traps the don't care to disarm.

And if I place extra traps knowing my player's strengths or tweak perception DCs to find traps...... they definitely know.

But perception doesn't do the job. Perception tells you that there are small holes in the wall. It tells you that that one plate is different than the rest. But actually disarming or avoiding traps requires Investigation, something familiars are crap at.

Or you use traps that are unavoidable or complex. Simple traps in the middle of no-where are pointless. Don't use them, for the reasons you've figured out. Traps backed up with monsters (traps as environmental hazards) or complex traps that you have to trigger and be there to get where you're going, or traps as alarms (where you might not even know you triggered one).

For example, take a hallway where the walls are carved into leering devil faces. Unless you look very carefully and specifically, you'll never notice that some of them have holes in them for people to watch through. Skeletons, in fact, with levers that set off a silent alarm elsewhere, alerting the enemy to your presence.

Oh, and how are the owl familiars handling door knobs? They don't exactly have hands suited for such things. Plus, they're only a +3 Perception (at advantage for sight, but disadvantage from darkness, so +8 in the light or dim light and +3 in darkness) without any of the tricks to bump that higher. And they can't exactly understand anything--their INT is only 2.

[MaxWilson]

Simple traps in the middle of no-where are pointless.

Denigrating simple traps is common, and that's understandable because simple "zap traps" (roll dice or take damage) are easy to use wrong, but they're not always pointless. Zap traps don't deserve a lot of table time or narrative weight, but they do create atmosphere and can help drive pacing.

Consider the difference between:

(1) being at 50% HP after a tough fight, in a stone labyrinth, where the entrance has been blocked by monsters behind you and you're desperately searching for another exit;

(2) being at 50% HP after a tough fight, in a booby-trapped stone labyrinth where about 50% of the doorways have traps strong enough to kill a man (3d6) if not spotted and disarmed, where the entrance has been blocked by monsters behind you and you're desperately searching for another exit.

In scenario #2 it's absolutely fine for the traps to be resolved simply via Perception/Investigation rolls, but even if there happens to be a Thief with Perception Expertise and Investigation Expertise in the group who spots and disarms almost all the traps effortlessly, the traps weren't pointless. They add to the dramatic tension of being trapped in this place, and they impose costs for exploration that make mapping out dead ends and the physical exploration/navigation of the maze more exciting.

You can add an extra layer of detail if there is a pattern to the trap layouts which the players can discern and exploit. E.g. if there are lots of floor traps at corridor intersections, players may start avoiding intersections whenever possible even if they have to go the long way around, or jumping over them, and this is good and intended.

[djreynolds]

But perception doesn't do the job. Perception tells you that there are small holes in the wall. It tells you that that one plate is different than the rest. But actually disarming or avoiding traps requires Investigation, something familiars are crap at.

Or you use traps that are unavoidable or complex. Simple traps in the middle of no-where are pointless. Don't use them, for the reasons you've figured out. Traps backed up with monsters (traps as environmental hazards) or complex traps that you have to trigger and be there to get where you're going, or traps as alarms (where you might not even know you triggered one).

For example, take a hallway where the walls are carved into leering devil faces. Unless you look very carefully and specifically, you'll never notice that some of them have holes in them for people to watch through. Skeletons, in fact, with levers that set off a silent alarm elsewhere, alerting the enemy to your presence.

Oh, and how are the owl familiars handling door knobs? They don't exactly have hands suited for such things. Plus, they're only a +3 Perception (at advantage for sight, but disadvantage from darkness, so +8 in the light or dim light and +3 in darkness) without any of the tricks to bump that higher. And they can't exactly understand anything--their INT is only 2.

But this exactly what I have to do, I have to make stuff really tough. I have to get creative, and I do not mind.

I really like 5E, it simplifies a lot of stuff. But the weapon and skill areas do need work

5E has taken away having to need a cleric as the healer and rogue and the trap finder, its great. Plenty of regular soldiers have had to disable mines

I often find skills difficult to judge in the case of perception and investigation and again I do not want to derail the conversation. But in 5E I find all characters are just better prepared to sniff out traps and ambushes. And again, I like that 5E took away with the dedicated thief dealing with traps. But unless I drastically up the DC of spotting something with perception and increase the DC of determining what something is with investigation, my table sniffs them out.

Maybe I just have really good veteran players, and the reality is that players do sink a lot of effort into their builds, so I can't begrudge them

I have thought about taking away expertise or ability modifiers when dealing with traps.... but its the same thing if I just increase the traps DC, and unfair to players who have invested in making their characters really good at sniffing out traps. And making players have to take a feat or level in a class again would ruin what I like about 5E, not needing a rogue for traps or cleric for healing

But the reality of 5E is an 8th level cleric with 20 wisdom has +8 to perception checks, they only need a 12 to beat a 20DC

My table does not fear traps or ambushes in a dungeon

[JoeJ]

Frequently, the point of simple traps is not to hurt the PCs, but to slow them down. For the most part, the PC's should find the traps if they're being careful, but being careful means not rushing. And once found, a trap still needs to be dealt with, which also takes time. That's more time for wandering encounters. More chances of being detected. More time for the alarm to spread, and for the inhabitants to organize a defense. More time for the BBEG to escape with the loot. More time for the rooms behind the party to be reoccupied, potentially cutting off retreat.

[Tawmis]

Has Dungeons and Dragons outgrown the Dungeons?


I think, in general, yes.
But, I am currently DMing a campaign (several, actually) in my custom world - and one of the parties is heading to an area called The Broken Lands (once lush forests, reduced to barren wastelands after a massive magical war) - and ancient runes have been surfacing as the windows blow, hinting at the civilization that existed before the great war... and they will be delving into dungeons.

[Tawmis]

I agree. Dungeons are fine, but megadungeons like DotMM that become the majority of the campaign can become tedious at times.

I think a lot of things have influenced this.
Back in the day, there wasn't much to your character, but their stats (STR, INT, WIS, DEX, CON, CHR), their HP and their weapon (or spell) damage.
It was only spell casters who required any form of rest to regain spell slots.
Other classes like Fighters, Rogues, etc didn't have things like "Second Wind" or something that needed a short/long rest to recharge.
D&D also wasn't mainstream, so WotC/TSR was publishing modules that were quick "one shot" adventures (with a few "series" ones - all of which, could also be done as stand alone).

I think, for myself, the first change was when the Dragonlance modules came out. I was already familiar with the books.
So the idea of an adventure where I am reliving a book series I loved was mind blowing.
(I ended up not enjoying the DL Adventure modules because I felt too railroaded... but that could have been the DM, too).

After that, I, as a DM began working on adventures that had connected stories.

[ad_hoc]

D&D itself, despite still having rules largely focused on dungeon-crawling and related activities, has been rebranded as a one-stop shop for all fantasy roleplaying needs.

5e is very much Dungeons and Dragons. It is not a generic fantasy game and when people try to make it that the game suffers as a result.

You can 'refluff' things and move abilities about from one class to another.

You can throw out the dungeon adventuring day too.

It's just, it's not going to be a very good game. Plenty of other games do other things.



This has happened alongside a shift in the community's attitude toward dungeons and violent adventures generally. The notion that lengthy backstories and frequent conversations are needed for a sophisticated mature roleplaying experience has come at the expense of the traditional dungeon. To spend entire sessions doing nothing but killing monsters in a dark hole is considered 'immature' because it doesn't indulge enough improv-conversation for the community's liking.

Have you read the published adventures?

Dungeons doesn't mean spending your time non-stop killing things. There are 3 pillars of play and the adventures are written with them in mind.

5 is not designed for lengthy backstories, that is what choosing a background is for.

I think what you think of as the 5e community is just your small sphere.

[GreyBlack]

5e is very much Dungeons and Dragons. It is not a generic fantasy game and when people try to make it that the game suffers as a result.

You can 'refluff' things and move abilities about from one class to another.

You can throw out the dungeon adventuring day too.

It's just, it's not going to be a very good game. Plenty of other games do other things.



Have you read the published adventures?

Dungeons doesn't mean spending your time non-stop killing things. There are 3 pillars of play and the adventures are written with them in mind.

5 is not designed for lengthy backstories, that is what choosing a background is for.

I think what you think of as the 5e community is just your small sphere.

Soooo..... Dungeons and Dragons has remained Dungeons and Dragons?

D&D has always had that weirdness baked into it. Like Expedition to the Barrier Peak, or Starjammer. D&D has _always_ been that generic fantasy game.

[Willie the Duck]

D&D has always had that weirdness baked into it. Like Expedition to the Barrier Peak, or Starjammer. D&D has _always_ been that generic fantasy game.

Those sound like examples of how it isn't a generic fantasy game.

I think this highlights that we're all using the term generic fantasy game with different qualifiers.

IMO, D&D is definitely not generic in that it has plenty of its own things (hydras with legs, color-coded dragons, odd monsters which inform more about what children's toys Gygax had lying around than any real mythology) and things with some outside inspiration but no specific reason to be a primary thing (potentially-undead-hunting priests with genuine miracle-working in fiction? sure. Having said option as one of three original character models? A D&D-ism). It's also has rules sets which incentivize, and work best with, certain playstyles and worse with others. It plays The Hobbit better than it does LotR, and it plays medieval Indiana Jones or Goonies even better still.

[MThurston]

1970 Video Games vs Table Top RPG

Winner TTRPG

1980 VG vs TTRPG

Winner TTRPG

1990 VG vs TTRPG

Winner TTRPG

2000 VG vs TTRPG

Winner TTRPG

2010 VG vs TTRPG

TIE

If 2020 beings VR upfront and very interactive then it has a chance to defeat TTRPG. If not then it will be a Tie again.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Those sound like examples of how it isn't a generic fantasy game.

I think this highlights that we're all using the term generic fantasy game with different qualifiers.

IMO, D&D is definitely not generic in that it has plenty of its own things (hydras with legs, color-coded dragons, odd monsters which inform more about what children's toys Gygax had lying around than any real mythology) and things with some outside inspiration but no specific reason to be a primary thing (potentially-undead-hunting priests with genuine miracle-working in fiction? sure. Having said option as one of three original character models? A D&D-ism). It's also has rules sets which incentivize, and work best with, certain playstyles and worse with others. It plays The Hobbit better than it does LotR, and it plays medieval Indiana Jones or Goonies even better still.

Yeah. D&D is not generic (outside of attempts to genericize the d20 system) in the same sense that say, M&M is generic superheroes. D&D does not attempt to allow players to emulate other fantasy works or recreate the stories. It is a particular breed of heroic adventure fantasy, and (relatively) closely bound to it. It has lots of D&D-isms, as you say. It's a mashup of lots of different things, but transformatively so. It, like a gelatinous cube, absorbs those other influences and makes them its own.

It pays homage to (and is influenced by) LotR. But it is not LotR, nor can it be expected to reproduce those adventures (very well). It pays homage to (and is influenced by) the Leibner (sp?) era sword-and-sorcery, but it is not those works, nor can it be expected to reproduce their adventures.

D&D is D&D. Nothing else, nor does it (in 5e at least) have any pretensions of being anything else.

[Vogie]

It has, but in a different way.

Originally, the game only had dungeons. You would go into the dungeon, defeat the dragon, and get the loot. There were people who made systems about what to do with the movement between different dungeons, random encounters and whatnot, but it was all about the dungeons. Each DM would run "their dungeon" and your party would meet up with them, and clean it out... or die trying.

Now we're in a different place. We have published books that include no dungeons, or only optional ones - Dragon Heist, for example, only has villain lairs as an optional thing, not actually tied to the plotline, and only 2 of them are really dungeons in the original sense. Instead, the entirety (80+%) of the 5 level adventure is above ground, running around the city of Waterdeep, interacting with the denizens and powers that are in that environment.

D&D has outgrown the concept of the Dungeon being a muderhole in the ground that has unknown monsters and loot in it... by potentially making the "Dungeons" the size of cities and countries filled with not-monsters next to them, and the loot is redefined by those contexts. It may be that the players have to hunt the monsters, or that they are the monsters being hunted. The Dungeons have grown into entire worlds that may or may not look like dungeons in the traditional sense.

[Unoriginal]

Now we're in a different place. We have published books that include no dungeons, or only optional ones - Dragon Heist, for example, only has villain lairs as an optional thing, not actually tied to the plotline, and only 2 of them are really dungeons in the original sense. Instead, the entirety (80+%) of the 5 level adventure is above ground, running around the city of Waterdeep, interacting with the denizens and powers that are in that environment.

The module still has 2 dungeons that the PCs are expected to go in, though.

[Vogie]

The module still has 2 dungeons that the PCs are expected to go in, though.

The sewer in the beginning and the vault in the end, sure... but compared to any old-school dungeon, they are so small they barely count. Manshoon's and Xanathar's Lairs are basically 100% classical dungeons, but you likely won't do both (although you certainly could).

[GreyBlack]

Those sound like examples of how it isn't a generic fantasy game.

I think this highlights that we're all using the term generic fantasy game with different qualifiers.

IMO, D&D is definitely not generic in that it has plenty of its own things (hydras with legs, color-coded dragons, odd monsters which inform more about what children's toys Gygax had lying around than any real mythology) and things with some outside inspiration but no specific reason to be a primary thing (potentially-undead-hunting priests with genuine miracle-working in fiction? sure. Having said option as one of three original character models? A D&D-ism). It's also has rules sets which incentivize, and work best with, certain playstyles and worse with others. It plays The Hobbit better than it does LotR, and it plays medieval Indiana Jones or Goonies even better still.


Yeah. D&D is not generic (outside of attempts to genericize the d20 system) in the same sense that say, M&M is generic superheroes. D&D does not attempt to allow players to emulate other fantasy works or recreate the stories. It is a particular breed of heroic adventure fantasy, and (relatively) closely bound to it. It has lots of D&D-isms, as you say. It's a mashup of lots of different things, but transformatively so. It, like a gelatinous cube, absorbs those other influences and makes them its own.

It pays homage to (and is influenced by) LotR. But it is not LotR, nor can it be expected to reproduce those adventures (very well). It pays homage to (and is influenced by) the Leibner (sp?) era sword-and-sorcery, but it is not those works, nor can it be expected to reproduce their adventures.

D&D is D&D. Nothing else, nor does it (in 5e at least) have any pretensions of being anything else.

I'll rephrase.

D&D has always called back to the origins of the fantasy genre, before the same 5 meters of Tolkien's yard became the norm. In old fantasy, such as Conan, the Jack Vance novels (from which Vancian Magic takes its name), or the John Carter stories, there's always been that weird mix of what some people call fantasy and science fiction, which was carried over into D&D.

As such, when we say "generic fantasy," if we refer to it specifically being some copy paste from LOTR, then yes, it's not generic fantasy. If we accept that fantasy has many roots, however, and that those roots allow for that genre mishmash, then it's generic fantasy.

As such, maybe the better term is "primordial fantasy"?

[Pex]

Sometimes you want to play your epic tale of heroic drama. Other times you just want kill orcs and goblins. Mix and match as you need.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll rephrase.

D&D has always called back to the origins of the fantasy genre, before the same 5 meters of Tolkien's yard became the norm. In old fantasy, such as Conan, the Jack Vance novels (from which Vancian Magic takes its name), or the John Carter stories, there's always been that weird mix of what some people call fantasy and science fiction, which was carried over into D&D.

As such, when we say "generic fantasy," if we refer to it specifically being some copy paste from LOTR, then yes, it's not generic fantasy. If we accept that fantasy has many roots, however, and that those roots allow for that genre mishmash, then it's generic fantasy.

As such, maybe the better term is "primordial fantasy"?

When I hear the term "generic fantasy" in this context, it's usually being used to make the (wrong) assertion that D&D is claiming to be able to be a 1-stop shop for fantasy gaming. That it can handle anything fantasy. And thus that its obvious failure at providing this is a sign that D&D is bad. When it's all based on a false assumption.

If you mean "generic fantasy" as "pulls from and interweaves a whole range of things loosely associated with fantasy" as opposed to "expy of <famous work>", sure.

One other caution I have is that we should avoid the genetic fallacy. 5e is not 4e is not 3e is not AD&D 2e is not... Just because it was a certain way, or was started with a particular set of inspirations (or even designed as a clone of XYZ), that does not mean it is that way today.

On the topic of dungeons, I think there are multiple meanings. People who grew up in the "dungeon-crawl" era of D&D associate them with loot-and-slay (or avoid), low-narrative gameplay. In my understanding, a dungeon is just another name for an adventure site. Whether it's outside, on another plane, underground, etc. And 5e D&D does site-based adventures really well, IMO. It's my default play-style. Go somewhere, stay there for a while. There may be a "safe base" nearby, so you may be taking day trips into the "dungeon". Or maybe not. My two current campaigns are basically this--one is confined entirely to a single city-worth of ruins, about 25 square miles. There's an allied base at one end, and different sectors of the city have different inhabitants and threats. But there's a driving narrative and mystery, and loot is the least important thing (to the point that they don't have written-down amounts of cash). The other is centered around an ancient battlefield/graveyard, with barrows and competitors and other people around. There two, there are several interwoven narratives going on.

[GreyBlack]

When I hear the term "generic fantasy" in this context, it's usually being used to make the (wrong) assertion that D&D is claiming to be able to be a 1-stop shop for fantasy gaming. That it can handle anything fantasy. And thus that its obvious failure at providing this is a sign that D&D is bad. When it's all based on a false assumption.

If you mean "generic fantasy" as "pulls from and interweaves a whole range of things loosely associated with fantasy" as opposed to "expy of <famous work>", sure.

One other caution I have is that we should avoid the genetic fallacy. 5e is not 4e is not 3e is not AD&D 2e is not... Just because it was a certain way, or was started with a particular set of inspirations (or even designed as a clone of XYZ), that does not mean it is that way today.

On the topic of dungeons, I think there are multiple meanings. People who grew up in the "dungeon-crawl" era of D&D associate them with loot-and-slay (or avoid), low-narrative gameplay. In my understanding, a dungeon is just another name for an adventure site. Whether it's outside, on another plane, underground, etc. And 5e D&D does site-based adventures really well, IMO. It's my default play-style. Go somewhere, stay there for a while. There may be a "safe base" nearby, so you may be taking day trips into the "dungeon". Or maybe not. My two current campaigns are basically this--one is confined entirely to a single city-worth of ruins, about 25 square miles. There's an allied base at one end, and different sectors of the city have different inhabitants and threats. But there's a driving narrative and mystery, and loot is the least important thing (to the point that they don't have written-down amounts of cash). The other is centered around an ancient battlefield/graveyard, with barrows and competitors and other people around. There two, there are several interwoven narratives going on.

One dungeon idea that I've always thought about doing but then quickly shied away from when I realized the amount of effort involved is to have the characters explore an abandoned city, picking through the ruins and discovering what happened to make it fall.

I think that, and then realize that cities are enormous, and you'd be trekking through MILES of dungeon that I'd have to design and I promptly say NOPE.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One dungeon idea that I've always thought about doing but then quickly shied away from when I realized the amount of effort involved is to have the characters explore an abandoned city, picking through the ruins and discovering what happened to make it fall.

I think that, and then realize that cities are enormous, and you'd be trekking through MILES of dungeon that I'd have to design and I promptly say NOPE.

I did it as a point-map adventure and it quickly spiraled. So there I broke it down into pieces:

There are 6 "zones", one of which is already clean (and serves as home base). Each zone is separated from the others by the remains of magical barriers. They can cross these barriers, but at the risk of them falling and the things inside (undead and demons, originally) getting loose.

Inside each zone are either factional sub-zones (for those with factions fighting for control) or points of interest--effectively dungeons within the "dungeon". Some of these need formal mapping, others are strongholds, landmarks, etc.

Of course due to the players it quickly became a "form an alliance to kick the demons out" quasi-political campaign and so it ended up with a lot more faction stuff than "dungeon" stuff. The rest is still there, just handwaved a bit and only brought up when important.

[Sharur]

Honestly, to answer the original question, "No, it hasn't...nor can it".

I feel that every adventure in D&D, if not every planned session, should have a Dungeon (which may or may not be an actual donjon dungeon) and a Dragon(which may or may not be an element-breathing flying lizard).

A Dungeon is a location of danger, where aid and safe rest are rarities, be it a monster lair, or hostile keep, or even hostile wilderness. This is because, mechanically, D&D is a game of resource management, be those resources be spell slots, hit points, or actions in initiative (see the term "action economy"). The role-playing comes from the our choices of prioritization: do we heal, or attack; move to a safe location to protect our own hit points, or stand as a vanguard, protecting someone else's hit points; take the safe route, or help the NPC?

A Dragon is an encounter that a) overwhelming challenges the party, and b) breaks the status quo in some way. The traditional scaly dragon has innate flight (which changes up from the typical 2d combat), and blends the line between traditional front line and back line roles: it can, through either spell casting or breath weapon, do massive and area damage like a back-line squishy, but has the defenses and melee ability of a front line combatant. The Beholder also is a game changer, via its antimagic cone, as can be a Ghast, due to its aura of turning resistance. Generally a Dragon comes at the end of the adventure, as a mechanical twist: Its no longer "how efficiently can you achieve your goal", but rather "what resources do you have left to overcome this last overwhelming obstacle".

[Aquillion]

Keep in mind DotMM has a lot of RP opportunities if the DM is open to it.It does, but it's worth pointing out that its systems aren't necessarily designed for that.

(On the other hand, a counter-argument I've seen before is that that's actually a good thing, and that systems that attach lots of mechanics to social interactions are actually, counterintuitively, often less popular with people who want lots of focus on heavy roleplaying, since what they actually want is to just play their character and not to have a bunch of mechanics tied to that.)

[OmSwaOperations]

I think a look at 90% of the modules and adventures written for D&D shows that it hasn't "outgrown" the dungeon, in the sense of contained locations with monsters, traps and treasure which player character's are supposed to explore.

Of course OP is also asking whether it *should* outgrow the dungeon, and there I disagree. The main reason being that a Dungeon is a really useful time and labour saving tool for the GM, as it enables him to create a delimited world with set factions, encounters, traps, puzzles, and so on. When the action is set in *a nation* or *a city* or another massive area, the DM usually faces three choices:

1. Railroad the players, because they don't have enough time to create everything that's out there.
2. Create everything that's out there, and spend ridiculous amounts of time doing so.
3. Create some things, but improvise most things on the fly.

Now I think option 3 is a wonderful option, and it's what I try and do with my games. But the thing is, it can be really hard, especially for a new GM. This means that there's a real risk of things descending into 1 and 2, which I think are generally poor options, especially compared with a good pre-prepared Dungeon.

[Willie the Duck]

1. Railroad the players, because they don't have enough time to create everything that's out there.
2. Create everything that's out there, and spend ridiculous amounts of time doing so.
3. Create some things, but improvise most things on the fly.

Now I think option 3 is a wonderful option, and it's what I try and do with my games. But the thing is, it can be really hard, especially for a new GM. This means that there's a real risk of things descending into 1 and 2, which I think are generally poor options, especially compared with a good pre-prepared Dungeon.

I am inclined to agree. I do think that a lot of gamers do want a #2/#3 style of game over dungeon-crawling, with a whole lot of social interaction, scenery chewing, and interacting with the world in scopes larger than 'go to the set-piece location, defeat the challenges, walk away with treasure'... some of the time. Some of the time, and that being mostly people who have played for a long time (the same people who are most likely to branch into non-D&D TTPRGs and/or kitbash D&D into what they wanted in the first place anyways).

[OverLordOcelot]

This thread seems to have a lot of misconceptions. To start off with, what exactly is 'the old days' of D&D? 1e D&D wasn't all about the dungeons - the base game expects you to adventure in dungeons to amass treasure, then use that treasure to found a castle or wizard's tower and start running a land and handling your big crowds of followers, henchmen, and hirelings who won't really fit into 20x20 rooms. They had plenty of 'here's a huge overland map to explore' adventures, and had major supplements like the Wilderness Survival Guide and Battlesystem, neither of which are suited to tight confines. BECMI similarly didn't limit itself to dungeon crawls - published BECMI modules include things like X1 Isle of dread (1981), B6 The Veiled Society (1984), B8 Journey to the rock (1985), B10 Night's Dark terror (1985) which are all outdoor or city adventures.

I know that the majority of my 1e games either didn't involve a dungeon at all, or had one only incidentally along the lines of one time in half a dozen sessions we'd enter a cave to retrieve an artifact. Yes, the majority of published modules were dungeon crawls, but that didn't mean the majority of what everyone played was. I encountered a number of campaigns that were definitely in the 'sandbox' category, and more that were somewhat railroaded but focused more on 'go here and talk to these people to solve a problem' than 'check for traps, kill the enemies, loot the bodies'. My experience was certainly not universal, and I'm certainly not going to claim that there were no dungeon crawls or campaigns focused on them, but the idea that things other than dungeons are somehow new is not based on reality.

On the flip side, CRPGs don't hold a candle to D&D for world interaction. CPRPGs are great at having very railroaded fights, where you do things that fit a specific ruleset and move around in narrowly handled terrain. But they boil down to basically a bunch of button-mashing or simple tactical puzzles linked (sometimes) by a story line that's very limited in how I can interact with it. If I play something like Skyrim, I can't really come in, find three different groups in a dungeon, and try to make a deal with one to kill off the other while fooling the third into actually doing the work unless it happens to be the exact scenario that was pre-programmed into the game, while that kind of thing is quite possible in Mad Mage. Even in simple combat the scope for role-playing is so much more open than in a game, in most CRPGs I can't even flip over a table in anger!

The majority of my 5e has been in AL games, which are significnatly more constrained and computer-like than homebrew, but the difference between D&D and CRPGs is vast. The actual 'dungeon crawl' type experience is just so much more rich in a live game. CRPGs have the advantage of not needing to coordinate with other people, commit to time, or even bother to put on pants, which is great if you're just trying to unwind for a bit before bed, but as far as the play I don't think they hold a candle to P&P. I don't think that VR tech and the like will change this, more immersive graphics won't alter the fundamental gameplay experience and I can visualize things much more easily than someone can program them. AI that can run the game in a human-like manner would, of course, completely change things, but I don't think we're anywhere near that.

[MrStabby]

The majority of my 5e has been in AL games, which are significnatly more constrained and computer-like than homebrew, but the difference between D&D and CRPGs is vast. The actual 'dungeon crawl' type experience is just so much more rich in a live game. CRPGs have the advantage of not needing to coordinate with other people, commit to time, or even bother to put on pants, which is great if you're just trying to unwind for a bit before bed, but as far as the play I don't think they hold a candle to P&P. I don't think that VR tech and the like will change this, more immersive graphics won't alter the fundamental gameplay experience and I can visualize things much more easily than someone can program them. AI that can run the game in a human-like manner would, of course, completely change things, but I don't think we're anywhere near that.

Yeah, in AL play they can be a bit fussy about the Pants.

So I heard.

From a friend.

[Willie the Duck]

This thread seems to have a lot of misconceptions. To start off with, what exactly is 'the old days' of D&D? 1e D&D wasn't all about the dungeons - the base game expects you to adventure in dungeons to amass treasure, then use that treasure to found a castle or wizard's tower and start running a land and handling your big crowds of followers, henchmen, and hirelings who won't really fit into 20x20 rooms. They had plenty of 'here's a huge overland map to explore' adventures, and had major supplements like the Wilderness Survival Guide and Battlesystem, neither of which are suited to tight confines. BECMI similarly didn't limit itself to dungeon crawls - published BECMI modules include things like X1 Isle of dread (1981), B6 The Veiled Society (1984), B8 Journey to the rock (1985), B10 Night's Dark terror (1985) which are all outdoor or city adventures.

I don't think the people discussing 'the old days' have any misconceptions, as they were there. I know 2d8HP, KorvinStarmast and myself are of the early 1e/BX generation (although I didn't own a set until 83, so got Mentzer, not Moldvay). However, I think we we simply more specifically referencing the same section of the game experience you are describing as 'adventure in dungeons to amass treasure.' Regardless, we are well aware of the other parts of early D&D. It should be noted that X1 Isle of Dread is notable specifically because it was an exception to the general trend of dungeon adventures. It was included in the Mentzer Expert set as an example piece for learning DMs on how to move your game out of the dungeon and into a hexcrawling adventure space (and boy is hexcrawling, and how to capture it for modern D&D, worthy of a thread onto itself).

Battlesystem (or, better yet, the WarMachine system in BECMI's Companion boxed set, which was therefore part of the core game), were definitely an assumed part of play. How much each group actually played high level as Lords and Leaders is still an open question. Half of Dragonsfoot (one of the imminent early-TSR-era D&D forums) seems to be spend hashing out how each person feels 'the old days' really played out :smallbiggrin:.

[mephnick]

Honestly, to answer the original question, "No, it hasn't...nor can it".

I feel that every adventure in D&D, if not every planned session, should have a Dungeon (which may or may not be an actual donjon dungeon) and a Dragon(which may or may not be an element-breathing flying lizard).

A Dungeon is a location of danger, where aid and safe rest are rarities, be it a monster lair, or hostile keep, or even hostile wilderness. This is because, mechanically, D&D is a game of resource management, be those resources be spell slots, hit points, or actions in initiative (see the term "action economy"). The role-playing comes from the our choices of prioritization: do we heal, or attack; move to a safe location to protect our own hit points, or stand as a vanguard, protecting someone else's hit points; take the safe route, or help the NPC?

A Dragon is an encounter that a) overwhelming challenges the party, and b) breaks the status quo in some way. The traditional scaly dragon has innate flight (which changes up from the typical 2d combat), and blends the line between traditional front line and back line roles: it can, through either spell casting or breath weapon, do massive and area damage like a back-line squishy, but has the defenses and melee ability of a front line combatant. The Beholder also is a game changer, via its antimagic cone, as can be a Ghast, due to its aura of turning resistance. Generally a Dragon comes at the end of the adventure, as a mechanical twist: Its no longer "how efficiently can you achieve your goal", but rather "what resources do you have left to overcome this last overwhelming obstacle".

You basically just wrote out my D&D field statement.