Dungeons, dungeons, why so many dungeons?

[Mastikator]

And why is each room its own little closed off eco system?

"You enter the room, there are 4 orcs"

"*kills the orcs*, next room please"

"You enter the next room, there are two orcs sacrificing a human and a heavily armored orc standing over them".

Why didn't those 4 orcs alert the other 3 orcs? How come they didn't hear the commotion? This is starting to feel like a video game. Is it just lazy design? Why are DMs so afraid of being outside?

[EggKookoo]

That sounds like a DM problem. There's no reason at all in-game for one group of orcs to not alert another group. Many published adventures, especially more recent ones, include that sort of thing. It's also possibly a player problem. Players often treat encounters as HP-removal duty, despite the best efforts of the DM. The DM does have more control over the situation, though.

As for why the game uses compartmentalized dungeons in the first place, it's because it makes it easier to provide immediate goals for the players. If you have a set of rooms to explore, you have a clear way to approach the task and a good way to understand your progress. But that's all it should be for. I uses classic dungeon crawls sparingly -- they're definitely fun for what they are, but if that's all the game is it can start to get boring.

Basically, the game isn't forcing you to play it like a video game. It's just designed such that it's easy to fall into that rut if you're not paying attention.

[Zhorn]

Why are DMs so afraid of being outside?
We're not going outside... there's dragons out there.
You either deal with dungeons... or deal with dragons...

[Amnestic]

You don't stop a sacrifice just because of invaders, come on, we've got a schedule to keep.

[Sandeman]

I think some junior DMs use dungeons because its convenient and they wont have to improvise stuff.

Me and my group much prefer outside/open adventures and often play in cities.
It is more demanding of the DM but we like it a lot more

[MoiMagnus]

Mostly because peoples want them, I'd guess.
If you play at a table where peoples don't want them, that doesn't occur.


This is starting to feel like a video game.

Video-game logic doesn't only exist for technical limitation.
Video-game logic often exists for convenience, to avoid some sort of complication, either unwanted by the designer or assumed to be unwanted by the players.

A lot of players/GM just want compartmentalization of the game. They want to be able to focus on an element of the game (a simple combat encounter) while not being bothered by the remaining of the universe (like what happen in the nearby room).

I conjecture that's one of the main reasons why there is very few long term injuries or other complication in 5e, this would mean that a combat has direct significant consequences on the following ones, which is unwanted by some.



Why are DMs so afraid of being outside?


Because it also comes with its set of issues? Like for example the fact that the combat is likely to start with the two sides far away (which is sad for melee fighters), rather than the conventional engagement with the two sides at one movement away from each others.

[MaxWilson]

And why is each room its own little closed off eco system?

"You enter the room, there are 4 orcs"

"*kills the orcs*, next room please"

"You enter the next room, there are two orcs sacrificing a human and a heavily armored orc standing over them".

Why didn't those 4 orcs alert the other 3 orcs? How come they didn't hear the commotion? This is starting to feel like a video game. Is it just lazy design? Why are DMs so afraid of being outside?

If you want a deep explanation of why dungeons are a simple and easy way for a new DM to create a fun adventure, start here (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15126/roleplaying-games/game-structures) and read the followup articles too. That will also give you some conceptual tools that can help you build other kinds of interactions too, without the pacing problems that can happen if you just try to wing it with freeform roleplay.

FWIW I say those orcs SHOULD hear each other unless the PCs take steps to stop it (casting Silence, or killing the first orcs so quickly they are too surprised to make a sound--at least arrows aren't as loud as gunshots!). Static location-based dungeons are easy to run but ultimately not the best experience. Wandering monsters were invented for a reason.

[Lacco]

Disclaimer: system agnostic answer. I'm not familiar with 5e, but familiar with the design choices that lead to this.


Dungeons, dungeons, why so many dungeons?

1. The game is Dungeons & Dragons. I'd change the question to "Why so few dragons...?"
2. Jokes aside, Dungeon is DM's character - after all, he's called Dungeon Master, not World Master or Universe Master, not even Game Master.
3. Even more jokes aside, it's the lowest common denominator, together with combat.

While there are definitely exceptions, most players enjoy the visceral experience of combat done in safe environment - also, the feeling of being smart, overcoming adversity, crushing obstacles, lowering opponents' numbers while increasing yours (Skinner's pigeons would be proud).

While I would like to address the intrinsic interest of most people who play games in ancient sites, secrets and artifacts, I'll address the fairy tales. I don't have too wide overview, but at least those in central Europe often deal with dragons in caves and their demise in hands of the local heroes.

Every battle needs a battlefield - and dungeons provide an exquisite one. Most people have seen a marketplace, a town hall or a castle - but so few have been to a real underground city of dwarves or dark elves. So you can let loose the usual rules and assumptions - and create the ideal battlefield for the monsters.

Also, one thing that helps a lot: when you get a new group, or are completely new to the hobby, one of the best pieces of advice is to limit the first few sessions in scope - give them a limited space, so you - the DM/GM - don't get lost, as you have to juggle the system, tools for player enjoyment, the story that keeps bouncing in your head and the stats and statistics necessary for the game. You have too much to do already, so at least limit the space the players can move in - it will keep your job easier.

Dungeons are a great way to do this: you go in, have a clear goal, a good dungeon has multiple choices and possibilities how to move on, but still - it's a limited space and you don't have to think what's outside.


And why is each room its own little closed off eco system?

Not in each system, no. But I have seen this kind of design: it's mainly for simplicity and for the "beer & pretzel" games. It decreases the time for development. It's mainly to satisfy the above needs for combat, number changing and dice rolling. Simplicity and player fanbase, I'd say.

Also, the influence of computer games. Due to limitations in hardware, software and maybe even developer knowledge, one room = one encounter was easier to manage than multitude of conditions (if players fight orcs, but make noise, and this is heard by the other orcs...). In addition, the games underwent a transition from sandbox (with a story) to story (with illusion of sandbox). And they sell, they sell much better than RPG books most of the time.

There will be people who will tell you it's mainly the issue of bad DM - but I'd venture further. It's a DM style - in its own way - and it fits with certain player groups. And for certain DMs.

Nothing is limiting anyone to this style, but if whole system is based on "kick down door - kick monster until dead - loot - write some numbers - repeat" and built solely for this purpose (again, system agnostic and not saying it's bad), then the DM who wishes to have a realistic answer for questions like "what do those orcs eat?", "where do they defecate?" and "doesn't it make them sick and/or attract parasites?", should think about switching systems or finding ways how to fix it.

An additional issue is marketing vs. product. When you want to sell a hammer as universal tool, everything needs to look like a nail. So you have a "kick down door, kill, loot, repeat" as your modus operandi, but you include a chapter on dungeon ecology, it's... confusing. But marketing tells you to do so - it will cover wider audience. So you get this strange combination, which does not fully satisfy but are told you can modify it to suit your needs.


Why didn't those 4 orcs alert the other 3 orcs? How come they didn't hear the commotion? This is starting to feel like a video game. Is it just lazy design? Why are DMs so afraid of being outside?

It is a lazy design and it's also efficient design.

When you put in effort to give X possibilities per encounter (e.g. 4 orcs can alert 3 orcs in next room, who may speed up or cancel the execution, send one to look or just run away) and GMs decide to not use any of them, it's additional work. And then you receive the review comments, stating you failed to include possibilities X+12, X+13, X+14... or that it was wasted space because nobody uses that.

When you don't put it in the effort, you get the same comment nevertheless, but only from those who care about it.

Smart books of this type include information that you - the DM - should read it first, get acquainted and modify as you see fit for your playstyle and party. Which basically says: if you want these answers, do the homework on your own.



Now the question if the DMs are afraid of being outside... no, mostly. But it's about limiting space: effort spent for creating a fantasy world vs. kingdom vs. city vs. a dungeon. If you want to keep the same level of details, good luck.

Many players don't like random encounters (story vs. sandbox).
Many players don't like to play through travel (hexcrawls are coming back, but only one hex per day).
Many players don't like downtime.

Many players don't have time to do those things even if they love them (you know, kids, job, ...).

Do you remember when you last went into a dungeon, mapped it on paper step-by-step? I do. It was long ago. The reason is time, going for the story & semi-instant gratification versus exploration & emergent narrative - one of those options requires terrible amounts of time.

...so, what was the question? :smallsmile:

Sorry for the rant.

[Zhorn]

after all, he's called Dungeon Master, not World Master or Universe Master, not even Game Master.
*glances to the left at own avatar*
How about Master of the Universe? :smallbiggrin:

[ImproperJustice]

Most modules, even going back to the 80s had rules for monsters alerting other monsters / noise.

As far as why are there so many dungeons is up to the world building.
But from a historical perspective: Egyptian Tombs, French Catacombs, Aztecs, burial mounds....
People don’t like the bodies of their loved ones messed with. And dead people have stuff. Important dead people have lots of stuff, and depending on beliefs they may want that stuff locked away with them, because they’re selfish or they think they need them in the afterlife.


Soooooo.... that’s why they have giant iron golems, gas traps, and undead servants to watch their stuff.

Aaaand why Dragons think it’s funny to set up shop in their strongholds and keep all their stuff there.

Or why an organized orc tribe might raid a burial vault to get stuff to better arm / finance themselves. Then hey, since we bypassed security, maybe this isn’t a bad place to live, etc...


But yeah, we throw wilderness encounters at people all the time. Outside is just a bad place to keep stuff.
Except for that stash of Elven magazine and Uncle Cletus’s Dwarven Spirits.

[schm0]

The real question is why isn't your DM playing the orcs more intelligently? Sure, they're no rocket scientists, but their legs, ears and intuition work just fine.

[Imbalance]

I feel sad to think that you have such a limited impression of video games. Goldeneye 64 changed the world nearly a quarter century ago, and AI has only advanced ever since.

That your DM appears to have a static imagination is no fault of the system.

[Valmark]

And why is each room its own little closed off eco system?

"You enter the room, there are 4 orcs"

"*kills the orcs*, next room please"

"You enter the next room, there are two orcs sacrificing a human and a heavily armored orc standing over them".

Why didn't those 4 orcs alert the other 3 orcs? How come they didn't hear the commotion? This is starting to feel like a video game. Is it just lazy design? Why are DMs so afraid of being outside?

Is this referred to a specific experience? Because nothing says each dungeon room is isolated from the others aside from the specific DM running it.

Tipically one gets dungeons because people don't leave themselves and their precious stuff unchecked. If you were a necromancer with enemies would you lazy around in a forest instead of preparing your lair in which to stay while plotting world domination (Reflavor the example homewever you want)?

That said, like in my first paragraph this is too up to whatever DM you have- amusingly, there's the opposite "problem" around my parts. Most games I partecipated in figured most exploration and fighting out of dungeons, not in (social encounters too, but that's more normal).

Lastly, what definition are you going with? There's not necessarily much of a difference between infiltrating an hostile fortress and delving sneakily into a temple, but I'd imagine some people define only one of those as an actual dungeon.

[J-H]

And why is each room its own little closed off eco system?

"You enter the room, there are 4 orcs"

"*kills the orcs*, next room please"

"You enter the next room, there are two orcs sacrificing a human and a heavily armored orc standing over them".

Why didn't those 4 orcs alert the other 3 orcs? How come they didn't hear the commotion? This is starting to feel like a video game. Is it just lazy design? Why are DMs so afraid of being outside?

It's all a trick. The Baatezu that the ritual sacrifice summons timed it so that he could offer you such a good deal.

[Mastikator]

Is this referred to a specific experience? Because nothing says each dungeon room is isolated from the others aside from the specific DM running it.

Tipically one gets dungeons because people don't leave themselves and their precious stuff unchecked. If you were a necromancer with enemies would you lazy around in a forest instead of preparing your lair in which to stay while plotting world domination (Reflavor the example homewever you want)?

That said, like in my first paragraph this is too up to whatever DM you have- amusingly, there's the opposite "problem" around my parts. Most games I partecipated in figured most exploration and fighting out of dungeons, not in (social encounters too, but that's more normal).

Lastly, what definition are you going with? There's not necessarily much of a difference between infiltrating an hostile fortress and delving sneakily into a temple, but I'd imagine some people define only one of those as an actual dungeon.

Looking at my own DM who definitely has a predisposition to dungeons. And online modules seem to always be one or at least focus heavily on them. And whenever I view a tutorial about "how to make a D&D campaign" it inevitably focuses heavily on "and here's how you make a dungeon". And each time it seems like it's constructed to be a series of rooms, each room being an isolated video game level.

Obviously I can't draw from the experience of the doubters in this thread, doing so would reveal too much of my stalking behavior as I've only my own experience (+ the internet) to draw from

[Silly Name]

And whenever I view a tutorial about "how to make a D&D campaign" it inevitably focuses heavily on "and here's how you make a dungeon".

I mean, the game is Dungeons & Dragons. Any tutorial on running the game has to deal with the expected parts of the game, which include dungeons (and combat, and social interactions, and so on).

Sure, you can run a campaign where there are effectively zero dungeons, and I'm sure there have been quite a few, but the basic expectation is that a game of D&D includes some dungeons.

As an aside, in quite a few occasions my players have managed to "bypass" a dungeon by using diplomacy or tricks, avoiding having to fight their way through waves of enemies.


And each time it seems like it's constructed to be a series of rooms, each room being an isolated video game level.

I've seen many blog posts/articles/videos actually discussing about this very problem, highlighting it, and discuss how to deal with it by making "realistic" dungeons and having their inhabitants interact with each other and the environment and react to what happens when the adventurers get it.

[J-H]

A dungeon is a good way to constrain the amount of prep work needed, and to ensure a sufficiently long adventuring day (to prevent the one-encounter nova days).
It also constrains party options to avoid "I fly the ring to Mount Doom on an eagle" solutions.

I think the OP's issue is more with uncreative, disconnected dungeons with non-reactive enemies.

[Unoriginal]

And why is each room its own little closed off eco system?

"You enter the room, there are 4 orcs"

"*kills the orcs*, next room please"

"You enter the next room, there are two orcs sacrificing a human and a heavily armored orc standing over them".

Why didn't those 4 orcs alert the other 3 orcs? How come they didn't hear the commotion? This is starting to feel like a video game. Is it just lazy design? Why are DMs so afraid of being outside?

Before anything, would you please give us a list of those "each room is its own little closed off ecosystem" dungeons you're talking about?

I mean, if you encounter them enough for them to be "starting to feel like a video game", then it should be easy to make a list. Heck, if there's too many to list, the last five times it happened should be enough to demonstrate the pattern you observed.

I've personally never seen such a thing in 5e, and the only times I've seen it mentioned is people telling others to avoid it.


Now, if you want to know why dungeons exist in-universe, it's pretty simple:

People who have stuff generally like to keep having stuff (the stuff in question can be anything, mind: riches, secrets, lives...), which leads them to use a dungeon, aka a space which will protect said stuff. Then other people show up, take the stuff, and eventually will accumulate enough that they will want a space in order to keep having stuff, which leads them to use a dungeon...

Any sufficiently successful adventurer will become a dragon, metaphorically speaking.

[LudicSavant]

And why is each room its own little closed off eco system?

"You enter the room, there are 4 orcs"

"*kills the orcs*, next room please"

"You enter the next room, there are two orcs sacrificing a human and a heavily armored orc standing over them".

Why didn't those 4 orcs alert the other 3 orcs? How come they didn't hear the commotion? This is starting to feel like a video game. Is it just lazy design? Why are DMs so afraid of being outside?

*Shrug* Couldn't tell ya why some people do that. The dungeons I run aren't like that at all.

[Telonius]

And why is each room its own little closed off eco system?

"You enter the room, there are 4 orcs"

"*kills the orcs*, next room please"

"You enter the next room, there are two orcs sacrificing a human and a heavily armored orc standing over them".

Why didn't those 4 orcs alert the other 3 orcs? How come they didn't hear the commotion? This is starting to feel like a video game. Is it just lazy design? Why are DMs so afraid of being outside?


I think that would be an interesting plot hook. PCs enter the room, and overhear an Orc (or a Goblin, Kobold, or some other cannon fodder-y race) asking his friends exactly why they have to stay in the room. Then, the questioner is suddenly struck down by an unseen/unknown force, writhes on the floor for a second, and rises back up as a grimly silent defender. Or, he resists and begs the party for help.

Is it a curse? Mind control? Evil deities? Did our Orc just break out of the Matrix?

[Catullus64]

Dungeons provide structure in a way that's narratively authentic. When working in a world made up of doors, rooms, traps, secrets, and corridors, your tools as a Dungeon Master for presenting challenges and story beats are at their most precise. You can pace challenges, control player movement and information, present specific choices to the players. Claustrophobic environs are also great for atmosphere and tension. In short, Dungeons are wonderfully economical game-storytelling.

If you tried to structure things that exactly in a forest or a city, you'd have to resort to some very noticeable railroading. Players are conditioned to accept a more controlled, more antagonistic environment when they step into a dungeon.

There is a real issue in the "orcs in two rooms" scenario you describe. Namely, if you do as other posters suggest, and have systems in place for enemies to alert other enemies, how do you avoid the opposite extreme, in which of all the enemies in the dungeon dogpile the intruders within the first few rounds? Some approaches I've tried to take towards this problem:

1. Make dungeons that take place over a much more distended space. When making my usual dungeon map on a 5x5 foot grid, mark sections of corridors as representing ten-minute or hour-long stretches, so that it makes sense for the various encounters to be so separate. This only works for things like mines, sewers, cave systems, etc, less so for temples and castles.

2. As could work in the Orc example of the first post, give the enemies in the dungeon something to do that they keep at while being invaded. That way, it makes sense for the PCs to fight through staggered defenses rather than the whole mob at once.

3. Divide the dungeon enemies into factions, all to some extent hostile to the PCs, but not keen on rushing to each other's aid either. Only near the end, when all of them have had their noses bloodied by the intruders, would they reinforce each other.

[Unoriginal]

There is a real issue in the "orcs in two rooms" scenario you describe. Namely, if you do as other posters suggest, and have systems in place for enemies to alert other enemies, how do you avoid the opposite extreme, in which of all the enemies in the dungeon dogpile the intruders within the first few rounds?

It's not really the DM's problem to avoid this, though.

PCs entering a dungeon are deliberately stepping into hostile territory, and should realize that if they give the enemies the chance to raise the alarm they'll get swarmed by most of the locals. It's part of their job as adventurers to avoid that (or to survive the consequences if they don't avoid it).

I realize many DMs do not want that kind of end for the PCs, but aside from reminding the players about it from time to time OOC it is my belief a DM shouldn't prevent that if it's the normal consequence for someone doing what the PCs do.

Then again (and this is something I noticed and consider an actual issue) a lot of DMs also play enemy NPCs as if they have no sense of self-preservation and will fight to the death all the time. IMO unless the NPC doesn't realize the kind of danger they're in or have something that will make them fight to the death (mind control, too much anger to think rationally, knowledge they'll die if they flee anyway, etc), then the NPC should flee or at least retreat when they think continuing the fight will lead to their death (even when they are mistaken in this assumption).

Man I really should write my essay on the subject. But writing is hard.

[noob]

It's not really the DM's problem to avoid this, though.

PCs entering a dungeon are deliberately stepping into hostile territory, and should realize that if they give the enemies the chance to raise the alarm they'll get swarmed by most of the locals. It's part of their job as adventurers to avoid that (or to survive the consequences if they don't avoid it).

I realize many DMs do not want that kind of end for the PCs, but aside from reminding the players about it from time to time OOC it is my belief a DM shouldn't prevent that if it's the normal consequence for someone doing what the PCs do.

Then again (and this is something I noticed and consider an actual issue) a lot of DMs also play enemy NPCs as if they have no sense of self-preservation and will fight to the death all the time. IMO unless the NPC doesn't realize the kind of danger they're in or have something that will make them fight to the death (mind control, too much anger to think rationally, knowledge they'll die if they flee anyway, etc), then the NPC should flee or at least retreat when they think continuing the fight will lead to their death (even when they are mistaken in this assumption).

Man I really should write my essay on the subject. But writing is hard.
Or maybe even surrender?
I mean an armed force of super elite soldiers that can defeat all your army at once without losses walks in.
Suddenly surrender seems the most likely option to survive.
Even an armed force that can just kill half of your soldiers can mandate diplomacy.
What is a quite fun thing is that actually using meteor shower and other flashy impressive attacks as often as possible can actually make the adventurers more feared and thus reduce the number of actual engagements they have.

[Willie the Duck]

Dungeons, dungeons, why so many dungeons?
If you want a historical reason, it is this:-- Dave Arneson, co-creator of the game, was playing a different type of game (mostly Chainmail the wargame, plus a then-unpublished domain-style game called Braunstein, along with copious house rules), where one army was besieging a fortified town. He invented rules for individual soldier would participate in the mining/countermining effort. To shake things up, he included some traps and treasure and similar. What he discovered was that people enjoyed playing the odd little underground treasure hunt part of things so much that they neglected the original game and goals. He was put in contact with Gary Gygax, one of Chainmail's creators, and about a half century later we're playing D&D the downstream iterations of that system. The game has changed in many (many) ways, including significant opening up of the scope. However, there's still an assumption (apparently born out by sales numbers, as one thing I trust WotC to do is to make a buck) that people want to spend a significant part of the time (at least enough that there are still copious rules governing, and examples in published adventures) exploring dungeons.


And why is each room its own little closed off eco system?
"You enter the room, there are 4 orcs"
"*kills the orcs*, next room please"
"You enter the next room, there are two orcs sacrificing a human and a heavily armored orc standing over them".
Why didn't those 4 orcs alert the other 3 orcs? How come they didn't hear the commotion?
That's a good question. Why didn't they? There's nothing in the ruleset indicating that this is the case. There certainly are examples counter to this concept (as an example, Knock's sending off a sound which can be heard from a great distance seems to indicate that 'what you do might send more enemies coming to investigate' is a thing the game expects to happen), although true to form this edition doesn't necessarily spell that out in perfectly clear language.
As to isolated ecosystem, there certainly are or have historically been dungeons which don't make sense except as a mad funhouse for adventurers to clear, with questions like 'but what do they eat?' not having clear answers. I forget if it was Rob Kunze or Mike Mornard (two early gamers and Dave and Gary's tables), but after a question like that, one of them designed a dungeon with a food court. :smallbiggrin:

[/quote] This is starting to feel like a video game. Is it just lazy design? Why are DMs so afraid of being outside?[/QUOTE]
I will never understand why 'video game' is such a pejorative amongst some TTRPG players. Video games do some things really really well, other things really poorly, and highlight the 'why' of things quite often (dungeons being a really good 'inherently mostly-bounded' environ, for example). Anyways, whether putting up constraints in adventure parameters is lazy or elegant often is a matter of perspective (or just situational--if constraining the field of play allows you to design some really interesting things within that field, it can be the opposite of lazy, although 'good' is still an orthogonal third concern).

[Willowhelm]

FWIW I say those orcs SHOULD hear each other unless the PCs take steps to stop it (casting Silence, or killing the first orcs so quickly they are too surprised to make a sound--at least arrows aren't as loud as gunshots!).

Relevant video if you ever wondered what arrows sound like as they fly by your head:
https://youtu.be/56_FE0kRY9o

[Unoriginal]

I will never understand why 'video game' is such a pejorative amongst some TTRPG players. Video games do some things really really well, other things really poorly

It's used as a pejorative because of said other things video games do really poorly.

Also because if you're playing a TTRPG, you mostly likely don't want the same things out of it than when you're playing a video game, and trying to copy/paste what makes one medium great into a fundamentally different one generally leads to poor result.

For example: a video game cutscene can be frustrating because the player wants the character they control to act differently than what the scripted event makes them do, but it's understood as a limitation of the medium (since the video game medium cannot allow too much freedom from its given storyline). A GM declaring that a group of PCs act a certain way against the wishes of the players, however, should rightfully be called out.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Hate to break it to ya, but every campaign is a dungeon.

A dungeon is a series of locations (rooms) where scenes (encounters) take place that resolve conflict between the players goals and the residents goals, between which are exits (doors) and transitions (hallways).

[Sigreid]

Dungeons with each room/area being an isolated situation makes it much easier on the players and DMs from a management standpoint. It's particularly great for starting out when everyone is learning though I think most groups grow out of that eventually as they become more comfortable with the game and gaming in general. Nothing at all wrong with an old school dungeon crawling game though. They're particularly good for a beer and chips group.

[EggKookoo]

There will be people who will tell you it's mainly the issue of bad DM - but I'd venture further. It's a DM style - in its own way - and it fits with certain player groups. And for certain DMs.

I should point out that when I called it a DM problem, I was operating under the assumption that the OP thought of it as a problem as well. If it's a problem that the game runs this way, it's likely a "DM problem." If it's not a problem for everyone at the table, it's a feature!

[Willie the Duck]

It's used as a pejorative because of said other things video games do really poorly.

Also because if you're playing a TTRPG, you mostly likely don't want the same things out of it than when you're playing a video game, and trying to copy/paste what makes one medium great into a fundamentally different one generally leads to poor result.

For example: a video game cutscene can be frustrating because the player wants the character they control to act differently than what the scripted event makes them do, but it's understood as a limitation of the medium (since the video game medium cannot allow too much freedom from its given storyline). A GM declaring that a group of PCs act a certain way against the wishes of the players, however, should rightfully be called out.


I'm pretty sure it was you who did this last time I said this basic statement. For the record, I'm well aware of why people use the term negatively, that was hyperbole on my part. I was pointing out that I felt the OP was using the term video game as a blanket negative that needed no explanation or delineation on how it was like one or why that was bad, as though being like a video game was inherently a negative. I will remember to be more literal in my responses in the future.


Dungeons with each room/area being an isolated situation makes it much easier on the players and DMs from a management standpoint. It's particularly great for starting out when everyone is learning though I think most groups grow out of that eventually as they become more comfortable with the game and gaming in general. Nothing at all wrong with an old school dungeon crawling game though. They're particularly good for a beer and chips group.
It's also good for any kind of gamist take on playing an RPG. If your goal is to achieve more success with less resources or a personal best or anything similar, than doing so within a defined framework (or where somehow breaking the framework is the insightful and genius winning move) helps create a gauge of how well you succeeded.

[JonBeowulf]

I think that would be an interesting plot hook. PCs enter the room, and overhear an Orc (or a Goblin, Kobold, or some other cannon fodder-y race) asking his friends exactly why they have to stay in the room. Then, the questioner is suddenly struck down by an unseen/unknown force, writhes on the floor for a second, and rises back up as a grimly silent defender. Or, he resists and begs the party for help.

Is it a curse? Mind control? Evil deities? Did our Orc just break out of the Matrix?

This is really freaking cool. I gotta find a place to insert this.

[noob]

Hate to break it to ya, but every campaign is a dungeon.

A dungeon is a series of locations (rooms) where scenes (encounters) take place that resolve conflict between the players goals and the residents goals, between which are exits (doors) and transitions (hallways).

So the campaign where the adventurers wants to build a bridge to connect two halves of a town that was split by a freak catastrophe and then they decide "we are going to build it ourself instead of encountering the people that could help us to do so" and use their raw strengths and physical muscle to build a suspended bridge is in fact a dungeon even if they did basically ignore all the encounters, met no conflicts with the goals of the residents and used no "exits" or "hallways" since they were always in the same "room".
Campaigns are dungeons only if you are doing linear thinking and do not try to do out of the box thinking.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

When I first became a DM I was literally out there winging it. IDK if I even had notes - I'm sure I had some ideas in mind about the story, but overall I just let that jawn go wherever it went. It was all theatre of the mind. No miniatures, no maps, no positioning: "you start climbing up the hill and are attacked by seagulls, roll initiative" with a kind of JRPG/Final Fantasy style combat. At that kind of play, where the encounters are mainly in the player's imagination, dungeons (and maps in general) become less useful. The DM might have a map of a dungeon, but there's no real way to show the players how the dungeon is structured without revealing too much away, and you can't effectively visualize a dungeon without being pedantic ("you enter a 20 ft wide by 50 ft long room, the entrance is at the center of the north wall, there is a door 10 ft. to your right and 10 ft. forward, and another door blah blah blah . . .").

When I started using virtual tabletop, then there became more incentive for things like battlemaps and planning and proper dungeons. The tools were there, the toybox open, so why not play with it. Whenever there's a visual aspect (miniatures, tokens, etc.), there's going to be a want (sometimes an expectation) to plan out something, something tangible that the players can see. But of course, there's only so much a single person can plan (as mentioned previously in the thread), so if there are to be maps and tokens and all that jazz, it makes sense to try and have a single map that can fill out multiple sessions, or otherwise provide a large amount of content for a relatively small(er) time investment. Especially when the DM wants to make their own map from scratch, that takes a lot of time and effort, so they want what content they have specifically made for the party to be utilized as much as it can be.

I think if you want places/games to be more open, more free form: either find (or be) a GM who plans less, or a GM who can plan a lot more

[Kurt Kurageous]

So the campaign where the adventurers wants to build a bridge to connect two halves of a town that was split by a freak catastrophe and then they decide "we are going to build it ourself instead of encountering the people that could help us to do so" and use their raw strengths and physical muscle to build a suspended bridge is in fact a dungeon even if they did basically ignore all the encounters, met no conflicts with the goals of the residents and used no "exits" or "hallways" since they were always in the same "room".
Campaigns are dungeons only if you are doing boring thinking and do not try to do out of the box thinking.

I dunno, what you described (a no conflict campaign) is a one room dungeon with one way in and one way out. That seems pretty dull. Where's the drama?

And where's the raw materials? Sure, strengths and muscle. But where'd they get the rope and wood? And who knows how to build a safe bridge?

Is the local leadership totally ok with completely unskilled people building infrastructure in their backyard? What happens when the townies decide their bridge will be built where you are building yours?

I think you missed my point about conflict being central to the story. Your story is a heroic one about PCs addressing a central conflict (civilization vs nature). There are sub-conflicts present beneath the the central conflict, and foreseeable transitions between them. It's a dungeon. It's a story. Same thing.

[Imbalance]

So the campaign where the adventurers wants to build a bridge to connect two halves of a town that was split by a freak catastrophe and then they decide "we are going to build it ourself instead of encountering the people that could help us to do so" and use their raw strengths and physical muscle to build a suspended bridge is in fact a dungeon even if they did basically ignore all the encounters, met no conflicts with the goals of the residents and used no "exits" or "hallways" since they were always in the same "room".
Campaigns are dungeons only if you are doing linear thinking and do not try to do out of the box thinking.

This, at a glance, isn't far off from the Tom Hanks movie Volunteers. Your DM completely left out the drug lord and the CIA, right?

[noob]

I dunno, what you described (a no conflict campaign) is a one room dungeon with one way in and one way out. That seems pretty dull. Where's the drama?

And where's the raw materials? Sure, strengths and muscle. But where'd they get the rope and wood? And who knows how to build a safe bridge?

Is the local leadership totally ok with completely unskilled people building infrastructure in their backyard? What happens when the townies decide their bridge will be built where you are building yours?

I think you missed my point about conflict being central to the story. Your story is a heroic one about PCs addressing a central conflict (civilization vs nature). There are sub-conflicts present beneath the the central conflict, and foreseeable transitions between them. It's a dungeon. It's a story. Same thing.

There was 10 billions ways to solve it many of which not even sharing a location or encounter.
The pcs instead of bruteforcing with all the equipment they already had could have met the mayor and started discussing(and started the encounter chain the gm intended).
They could also have left for far away and paid an expert team to do the job without even seeing the town.
They could also have just decided that it was time for space exploration because it is a totally reasonable first step toward building a bridge.
They could also have searched for a way to travel through time then interrupt the catastrophe before it happened.
It would also have been imaginable to just convince all the people they should live on the same side(for example by starting to murder people on the other side) and then carry all the people one by one and reap profits doing so through shenanigans.
They could also have left here while thinking "they will probably build the bridge on their own without us here and even if we would have wanted to build a bridge we are not the best for that"

The point is that unlike a dungeon where you try to get the treasure(door,monster, treasure playstyle) there is no specific destination.
And nearly surely the gm did not plan in advance many of those locations because which gm plans "oh bridge building so it it time to make the map of the moon".

[sethdmichaels]

A lot of good answers in this thread; it also seems very table-specific. Two of the last three sessions my group played involved no combat, no dungeon (literal or metaphorical), and very few dice rolls. The first combat we got into last session (in a very dungeony space), one of our opponents used his first action to ring a big alarm gong and the moments after combat were spent scrambling to figure out how to avoid the reinforcements. Another session we were dungeon-crawling but avoided any actual combat and used our first contact with the potential enemy to talk our way out of trouble. The rules are structured to *enable* dungeon-crawl, encounter-by-encounter play but they don't *require* it.

[Democratus]

Yeah. Kurt is right. It's all dungeons.

The physical dungeon is "training wheels" to teach you that very lesson.

There are obstacles to overcome, a goal to reach, and a number of ways to get there.

The dungeon is a metaphor for the story.

[Kurt Kurageous]

There was 10 billions ways to solve it many of which not even sharing a location or encounter.
The pcs instead of bruteforcing with all the equipment they already had could have met the mayor and started discussing(and started the encounter chain the gm intended).
They could also have left for far away and paid an expert team to do the job without even seeing the town.
They could also have just decided that it was time for space exploration because it is a totally reasonable first step toward building a bridge.
They could also have searched for a way to travel through time then interrupt the catastrophe before it happened.
It would also have been imaginable to just convince all the people they should live on the same side(for example by starting to murder people on the other side) and then carry all the people one by one and reap profits doing so through shenanigans.
They could also have left here while thinking "they will probably build the bridge on their own without us here and even if we would have wanted to build a bridge we are not the best for that"

The point is that unlike a dungeon where you try to get the treasure(door,monster, treasure playstyle) there is no specific destination.
And nearly surely the gm did not plan in advance many of those locations because which gm plans "oh bridge building so it it time to make the map of the moon".

You made my point. Just like a dungeon, there's more than one way to resolve the immediate conflict. And that is what makes it interesting. And yes, there is a specific destination in a dungeon. Survive to the exit. It's all a dungeon, it's just modded to look like "not a dungeon."

[noob]

You made my point. Just like a dungeon, there's more than one way to resolve the immediate conflict. And that is what makes it interesting. And yes, there is a specific destination in a dungeon. Survive to the exit. It's all a dungeon, it's just modded to look like "not a dungeon."

You lost the point of having a word if you use it in a too generic way.
I could say "everything is a potato" with such generalisation of terms.
1: Dungeons have limited room count: a dungeon with 10^959999 rooms is not a dungeon in any classical meaning of the term.
2: Dungeons are limited in size: a dungeon which spans billions of cubic kilometers and all the eras is probably not a dungeon in the classical sense of the term.
That or you admit I successfully trapped you in a dungeon called the universe.

[Asisreo1]

Yeah. Kurt is right. It's all dungeons.

The physical dungeon is "training wheels" to teach you that very lesson.

There are obstacles to overcome, a goal to reach, and a number of ways to get there.

The dungeon is a metaphor for the story.
Life is a dungeon. We open doors, rest, fight, and die.

[Kurt Kurageous]

You lost the point of having a word if you use it in a too generic way.
I could say "everything is a potato" with such generalisation of terms.

Ok, you win. Enjoy your trophy, "Best at trying to be understood instead of trying to understand."

[noob]

Ok, you win. Enjoy your trophy, "Best at trying to be understood instead of trying to understand."

Also there is adventures that are won by dying so the survive thing is not even a fact.
Like one adventure about how the world is ending and there is nothing you can do to stop that.
Unless you consider the dungeon was all along the basement in which the players met with the gm.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Yeah. Kurt is right. It's all dungeons.

The physical dungeon is "training wheels" to teach you that very lesson.

There are obstacles to overcome, a goal to reach, and a number of ways to get there.

The dungeon is a metaphor for the story.

Thank you. My fault this time, apparently, was not being clear enough and directly saying "the dungeon is a metaphor for the story."

{Scrubbed}

[Lacco]

I should point out that when I called it a DM problem, I was operating under the assumption that the OP thought of it as a problem as well. If it's a problem that the game runs this way, it's likely a "DM problem." If it's not a problem for everyone at the table, it's a feature!

Yeah, I understand that - and I don't say you were wrong. In many cases, this is an issue of DM not knowing what the players expect (or not caring, or just plainly not having enough time/energy/experience/skill to run a game they want). It can be an issue of players not communicating their expectations well.

But my lingering suspicion is that the failure is there in the manual. To use a work term, it could be a systematic failure. Of course there will be a workaround (see most posters and their helpful comments here) for a systematic failure, but that does not fix the failure in the manual. And I can't really say for sure - I have seen only rulebooks of past incarnations of D&D, so no idea about 5e.

Still, the opening post was like something I'd expect from first edition of this game (which was built on the model, so it was a feature), not fifth.

But what do I know? *shrugs*

I'm just the guy who plays the crazier stuff.

[arnin77]

And why is each room its own little closed off eco system?

"You enter the room, there are 4 orcs"

"*kills the orcs*, next room please"

"You enter the next room, there are two orcs sacrificing a human and a heavily armored orc standing over them".

Why didn't those 4 orcs alert the other 3 orcs? How come they didn't hear the commotion? This is starting to feel like a video game. Is it just lazy design? Why are DMs so afraid of being outside?

You enter a clearing, there are 4 gnolls.

Kills the gnolls, next clearing please

You enter the next clearing, there are two gnolls sacrificing a human and a heavily Armored gnoll standing over them.

Anything that can be done in a dungeon can be done outside and vice versa. Sounds like a DM decision. Maybe they are new or maybe they don’t have a good style yet. Who knows.

However, if you don’t like the DM style; do it yourself. That way it will be done just the way you want it.

[KorvinStarmast]

And why is each room its own little closed off eco system?

"You enter the room, there are 4 orcs"

"*kills the orcs*, next room please"

"You enter the next room, there are two orcs sacrificing a human and a heavily armored orc standing over them".

Why didn't those 4 orcs alert the other 3 orcs? How come they didn't hear the commotion? This is starting to feel like a video game. Is it just lazy design? Why are DMs so afraid of being outside? Because the DM is not thinking of the dungeon as a system.
Suggestion: take a good look at the Sunless Citadel published adventure. It has significant detail on "if this happens, kobolds from over here come to help" and so on. So too do The Final Enemy adventure from Ghosts of Salt marsh.

[Asisreo1]

Jest aside, Dungeons are incredibly fun and rewarding when used correctly, and despite newer DM's commonly dismissing them, they're actually much more beginner friendly than even your starting town as a DM.

The limitations on where they can actually go lets you control the narrative and discovery of lore without having to pull them by strings. There's a book listing out the lore of the ancient king but you want them to face an undead jester first? Just put the jester a room and a floor ahead of the book.

As higher-level adventures happen, want to know how to limit powerful spells? Dungeons. Many anti-divination/teleportation/summoning spells can be countered through various means, but most of these require setups that are stationary for long durations.

Dungeons are, in my opinion, the epitome of a well-designed adventure. I'm sure there's some that exists, but I've yet to enjoy an adventure given to me as a player that didn't have some form of dungeon in it.

[Dork_Forge]

And why is each room its own little closed off eco system?

"You enter the room, there are 4 orcs"

"*kills the orcs*, next room please"

"You enter the next room, there are two orcs sacrificing a human and a heavily armored orc standing over them".

Why didn't those 4 orcs alert the other 3 orcs? How come they didn't hear the commotion? This is starting to feel like a video game. Is it just lazy design? Why are DMs so afraid of being outside?

The real answer can simply be: it's easier for the DM, that's not lazy design, handling a bunch of optional scenarios and conditions is not something every DM wants to do (when DMs already do more than everyone else at the table).

Though this seems very specific, are you complaining about module writing? What module?

In the exmaple you gave, they could have heard the fighting and were just hoping to finish their ritual first so a Fiend could clean up for them.

What might seem like compatmentalizing might have story reasons and vice versa. If you don't like it ask how every one else feels about it, fights snowballing might not sit well if the party is beer and pretzels just there to kill stuff and unwind.

[MrStabby]

Dungeons are awesome.

Firstly they tell a story just by being there. An ancient underground bathhouse or a wizards tower or a tomb says something about the world just by existing.

Then you can flesh them out. Most are built by people - there is a culture, a style, a purpose that can be conveyed in a way that "you are on the side of a mountain, it is rocky with some patches of snow" just doesnt.

Dungeons are easier to find stuff in, or at least less boring. Searching an unstructured, relatively unbounded forest for a magic axe sucks.

Dungeons can have more plausible obstacles and rewards than the outside world. Enemies that just happen to be next to traps that happen to be next to magical wellspring that happen to be next to chests with gold in that happen to be within 300ft of a library with the knowledge you seek in... a location built to contain these things in a coherent way doesnt strain credibility when such things are inside it.


Dungeons also help with game balance. Protecting the treasure with a forbidance spell is pretty standard and works well when you can surround the treasure with a dungeon that must be fought through. When a party can just teleport to the edge and walk in with only one epic battle it screws the balance between classes.

Dungeons preserve a degree of parity between melee and ranged combat.

Basically a dungeon can constrain the players enough that the DM has a shot at giving everyone a time to shine.

Dungeons make lighting a lot more interesting - glowing fungus, oil lamps, radiant magic weapons... creatures of shadow and flame advancing towards the party. Much more fun than just day/nightime.

Dungeons preserve mystery.

"We know there is a dangerous monster guarding the treasure".
"Its a red dragon. I can see it from here"
It's just not as suspenseful.

"We know something dangerous is guarding the treasure"
"Well whoever runs this place likes their books"
"There are a lot of holy symbols form ancient religions here - I wonder if that's a clue"

You get to build suspense and control the flow of information as a DM if there are a finite number of ways forward.

Tactical positioning, hiding and movement is much more fun in an asymmetric environment than in the open.

[MaxWilson]

Hate to break it to ya, but every campaign is a dungeon.

A dungeon is a series of locations (rooms) where scenes (encounters) take place that resolve conflict between the players goals and the residents goals, between which are exits (doors) and transitions (hallways).

I don't agree that every campaign or adventure is a dungeon. Every railroad maybe, but not every adventure.

Dungeons are a particular type of game structure which have convenient properties, especially for new players/DMs, such as having a clear default goal ("kill the monsters, loot the treasure") and a clear default action that leads to interesting gameplay whenever the players don't know what to do next ("pick a door and go through it, see if there are monsters or treasures there").

If you try to run an urban mystery or wildnerness adventure with the same procedures you learned on dungeons, you'll frustrate your players.

DM: you're standing on a corner. It's late at night and no one is around. A sign says Main Street. What do you do?

Player: uh, I want to talk to Inspector Giverre, so... which direction should I go?

DM: what approach do you take to gaining the information you need?

Player: I guess I'll wander around until I find a guardsman or something and ask them?

DM: Okay. Right now, there are streets to your north, south, east, and west. There's a fishy smell coming from the south, and you can see a city wall to the west several blocks away. What you do?

Player: I go west.

DM: [describes the new location, etc.]

Using the wrong game structure for the game content you are trying to interact with (e.g. clues scattered throughout a city) can make the game incredibly frustrating.

[Tanarii]

The real question is: why so few Dragons?

The draw of the dungeon for a Dungeon master are somewhat limited conceptual space for things the players might do or where they might go.

The draw of a dungeon for players are threefold: exploration/mapping, enemies, and most importantly loot.

One of my favorite part about some of the better old style dungeons is how important mapping is for the players to do. It can indicate hidden passageways, alternate routes in/out of the dungeon, etc. Plus it's fun and tangible.

[noob]

The real question is: why so few Dragons?

The draw of the dungeon for a Dungeon master are somewhat limited conceptual space for things the players might do or where they might go.

The draw of a dungeon for players are threefold: exploration/mapping, enemies, and most importantly loot.

One of my favorite part about some of the better old style dungeons is how important mapping is for the players to do. It can indicate hidden passageways, alternate routes in/out of the dungeon, etc. Plus it's fun and tangible.

The lack of dragons is due to the over-inflation of their characteristics.
If dragons had lower statistics and were not all supposed to eventually grow to be super strong(And thus super evasive and worried about trying to not fight most of their life hoping to grow big enough to smash all their opponents) you would be able to place more of them thorough the game.
I mean why could there not be a kind of dragon that does not caps above or at "hp: way too much" and "flying+ wide aoe high dmg attack" but instead stops at just being big and having reasonable hp(like 60) so that you could feasibly encounter multiple adults without needing to be epic level?

[MaxWilson]

The lack of dragons is due to the over-inflation of their characteristics.
If dragons had lower statistics and were not all supposed to eventually grow to be super strong(And thus super evasive and worried about trying to not fight most of their life hoping to grow big enough to smash all their opponents) you would be able to place more of them thorough the game.
I mean why could there not be a kind of dragon that does not caps above or at "hp: way too much" and "flying+ wide aoe high dmg attack" but instead stops at just being big and having reasonable hp(like 60) so that you could feasibly encounter multiple adults without needing to be epic level?

What's wrong with Wyrmlings and 80ish-year-old Young Adults?

[noob]

What's wrong with Wyrmlings and 80ish-year-old Young Adults?

the fact some people feel bad about killing children and that some gms considers that the young adults should be smart enough to realise they could be stronger just by staying hidden a few hundred years (which is even easier if you use the old lore saying dragons can feed on anything rock included).
Which is why I think some variants of dragons should cap out at a much lower strength.

[Elbeyon]

the fact some people feel bad about killing children and that some gms considers that the young adults should be smart enough to realise they could be stronger just by staying hidden a few hundred years (which is even easier if you use the old lore saying dragons can feed on anything rock included).
Which is why I think some variants of dragons should cap out at a much lower strength.Maybe this is a branding issue? Declare wyrmlings to be adults. Now, they dragons are called Adult Dragon, Old Dragon, Ancient Dragon, Wyrm Dragon. The growing in power thing could be made more nebulous. Maybe dragons get stronger like adventurers by doing deeds :V Maybe, adult is the soft cap unless they do stuff to get more powerful. That way strength is not gained through being passive and hiding.

[quinron]

One of my favorite part about some of the better old style dungeons is how important mapping is for the players to do. It can indicate hidden passageways, alternate routes in/out of the dungeon, etc. Plus it's fun and tangible.

I'm going to credit the gradual fading of this habit to a growing overcomplication in dungeon design. I've run a few of 5e's pre-written adventures, and I tried having players map things a couple times, but I was either a) spending half the session describing and re-describing the placement of the entrances/exits of every given room, or b) having to double-check and correct their maps so often that I was basically drawing them myself. Eventually it became easier to just copy down the maps myself and gradually reveal them as they progress.

[Lacco]

I'm going to credit the gradual fading of this habit to a growing overcomplication in dungeon design. I've run a few of 5e's pre-written adventures, and I tried having players map things a couple times, but I was either a) spending half the session describing and re-describing the placement of the entrances/exits of every given room, or b) having to double-check and correct their maps so often that I was basically drawing them myself. Eventually it became easier to just copy down the maps myself and gradually reveal them as they progress.

It's most probably a matter of several factors: overcompication in dungeon design, moving from exploration to storytelling (unfortunately partially removing the emergent gameplay), expectation of better "graphics", and mainly time consumption.

The competition - from mobile games, computer games, etc. - is fierce and requires RPGs to keep focus on things that have good time/enjoyment ratio (e.g. combat). So they had to cut off some parts with low time/enjoyment ratio - like mapping.

It's a loss, but the problem is, even I don't have enough time to play an old school hexcrawl or dungeon crawl.

Pointcrawls are a good "in between" option.

[truemane]

My personal pet theory is that the kind of people likely to enjoy the kind of play that a dungeon/hex-crawl does well gravitated toward video games (which in general are a much better platform for that kind of play experience).

The stuff that tabletop playing does that no other medium can do (social interaction and doing cool stuff that might or might not be in the script) is the kind of stuff that more narrative-heavy material tends to do better.

(plus or minus X amount of oversimplification and Y amount of overlap)

[KorvinStarmast]

(plus or minus X amount of oversimplification and Y amount of overlap) That got a laugh out of me. :smallbiggrin:

[truemane]

That got a laugh out of me. :smallbiggrin:
The internet is a CYA sort of place.

[Sigreid]

Just had the weird thought that you can kind of think of your work or school day like a dungeon. A series of encounters that can but don't necessarily intertwine.

[Imbalance]

Just had the weird thought that you can kind of think of your work or school day like a dungeon. A series of encounters that can but don't necessarily intertwine.

Absolutely. Sometimes it's not much of a stretch to the imagination when you run into the same hazards, monsters, and obstacles as you'll find in the game. The golf-playing engineers I work with don't like having to survey old steam tunnels on a given campus reno project, while I'm like, "I've been training for this."

[truemane]

The golf-playing engineers I work with don't like having to survey old steam tunnels on a given campus reno project, while I'm like, "I've been training for this."
What? Who doesn't want to survey an old steam tunnels? That sounds like the best day ever! I got to go on the roof of my work last year and it was all I talked about for a week.

[Imbalance]

What? Who doesn't want to survey an old steam tunnels? That sounds like the best day ever! I got to go on the roof of my work last year and it was all I talked about for a week.

I consider it a perk. Generally, I try to stay professional and keep interests and hobby-related things under my hat, but the PM I work with most of the time - a straight-laced fellow who eschews the odd and is a bit of a neat freak/ germaphobe - surprised me after we did a study survey this year. He was clearly uncomfortable in this cadaver lab, as expected, so we quickly took down the information we needed and moved on to the next space. I'd been in plenty of clinical cold storage rooms before, but there were some firsts even for me, and I soaked in the experience like I normally do while staying on task. Ever since, the first thing he mentions when we discuss the project is how neat the brains in jars were, never seen anything like it, that was weird, etc. and I can't help but grin.

[Sigreid]

I consider it a perk. Generally, I try to stay professional and keep interests and hobby-related things under my hat, but the PM I work with most of the time - a straight-laced fellow who eschews the odd and is a bit of a neat freak/ germaphobe - surprised me after we did a study survey this year. He was clearly uncomfortable in this cadaver lab, as expected, so we quickly took down the information we needed and moved on to the next space. I'd been in plenty of clinical cold storage rooms before, but there were some firsts even for me, and I soaked in the experience like I normally do while staying on task. Ever since, the first thing he mentions when we discuss the project is how neat the brains in jars were, never seen anything like it, that was weird, etc. and I can't help but grin.

People often aren't the same at work as they are away. You may just see a persona he puts on for work.

[Asisreo1]

People often aren't the same at work as they are away. You may just see a persona he puts on for work.
True. Straight-faced and no-nonsense at work for me but when I'm with friends, they think I'm the goofiest person in the world. I remember the look of my coworkers when I first invited them to a party.

[Willie the Duck]

What? Who doesn't want to survey an old steam tunnels? That sounds like the best day ever! I got to go on the roof of my work last year and it was all I talked about for a week.
Heh. Sometimes it's fun just being able to code for a while. I can't imagine getting to do something vaguely dungeon-y at work (although sometimes dealing with legal can feel like trap-avoidance :smalltongue:).


True. Straight-faced and no-nonsense at work for me but when I'm with friends, they think I'm the goofiest person in the world. I remember the look of my coworkers when I first invited them to a party.
I have to be the boss as well, and that makes it even harder to be a great big goof in some way.

[greenstone]

As for why the game uses compartmentalized dungeons in the first place, it's because ...[good reasons snipped]
It's also because it makes it easier to run the module at a convention or tournament (where most early modules were first presented).

As for "why dungeons?", I figure its because the above-ground things have all been looted clean decades ago, leaving just the dark, dangerous, underground places.

[Witty Username]

Looking at my own DM who definitely has a predisposition to dungeons. And online modules seem to always be one or at least focus heavily on them. And whenever I view a tutorial about "how to make a D&D campaign" it inevitably focuses heavily on "and here's how you make a dungeon". And each time it seems like it's constructed to be a series of rooms, each room being an isolated video game level.

Obviously I can't draw from the experience of the doubters in this thread, doing so would reveal too much of my stalking behavior as I've only my own experience (+ the internet) to draw from

Rooms tend to be a distinct portion of a building, that is how rooms work. Isolated is relative, the tend to have doors or hallways that create distance giving some amount of isolation.
Noise, coordination, and wandering monsters should all impact a dungeon run. But Managing those things the rooms, doors, hallways and traps become advantages.
Also, it is an easy way to make ranged attacks less good.

The big advantage of a dungeon is meaningful, finite choices. Left or right, hurry to the next room or investigate for hidden items, complete the mission or explore more and find more value or invite danger from monsters and traps. Wilderness can get infinite and paralyzing quickly or borrow from dungeon design anyway as the DM maps it out to create these meaningful choices.

[Lacco]

From a different thread:

Dungeons are a straight way to your goal (if you know which way to go). The traditional approach. You have your guardian, your door, your NPC. This is the Skyrim way – their dungeons often have one single highway to the goal and few side attractions. Build a highway.

Dungeons are safe storages. If talking about crypts & catacombs, it’s easy to understand why there is actual loot: people put shiny stuff to their dead. They do not wish for it to get stolen, and may add stuff later (and bodies too), so there need to be guardians, doors and traps. Traps must be deadly, but the right guy should be able to bypass them. Doors may require keys (that’s why we drag the thief around) or may be of the „puzzle“ type, because people tend to lose keys but know how their crest looks.

Dungeons are puzzles themselves. Think of the dungeon as the puzzle. Players have to solve it: how to reach that room we see up there? How to open the damned door? Where is the damned door now? Navigating the dungeon can be easy for the guys who know their ancient languages, but if not, they will not decipher the runes below the moss. So: start adding other roads, how to get where. Shortcuts. Hidden corridors. Solving the dungeon also means finding the optimal loot. Think the trolley problem – there are few smaller gems and one large statue that looks rather expensive, but if you try to remove it, the floor may collapse (a trap and puzzle!), getting you deeper into the dungeon (which some may like).

Dungeons are stories. The first part was built by dwarves. The other part by dark elves. Dwarves and elves met in the middle, and had a long, protracted war – thus the fortifications. Many died, but when the earthquake came, almost nobody was left standing. Dwarven colony became locals‘ catacombs, the elven part was occupied by goblins and thus walled off as soon as they were discovered. Think about the history – the buildings will stand, but their purpose will change. Their contents and occupants will change. In the end, mostly vermin, monsters and undead will stay. But before that, there were proud cities, tombs of kings. Writings on the wall, engravings, scrolls – they should find those all the time. And the changes will be noticeable – the players should be able to discern „what the hell happened here?“

Dungeons are collections. Collectibles are something that most people enjoy. So: the guy who built it could easily put his most interesting stuff there. The strangest stuff, maybe – for safekeeping. As you walk the halls, you see a large behemoth of a cauldron, hanging from chain whose links are thicker than your leg. Don’t tell your players it was a kitchen. Let them guess and then find it out – they will feel smarter. The strange apparatus on the table? A teleportation box, but not finished. Where is the other side? If you repair it you may know...

Dungeons are strange. As someone mentioned above: players will readily poke & test strange stuff. I once managed to stall a group of heroes in single room with an Eye-of-the-Beholder style niche in the wall & button. You insert something into the niche, push the button, something else appears (sometimes good, sometimes bad). There was a method to this madness, and they started to put almost everything inside. They did not care why it was there, but amused themselves.

Dungeons are sidequests. Your NPC is there. That’s the highway. Now give them few side streets and alleys. Each is a sidequest. There are other NPCs, some will be helpful if you help them. Some will need something, others will just want to shoo the PCs away from their door. But when they find a scroll describing king’s old sword, stored on his catafalque – that should be a sidequest. With its own highway, with its own guardian, door and maybe a trap or two.

Dungeons are ruins. Ever went into a decrepit building? Half-broken stairs, floor that gives way, the strange mold – well, that’s modern day adventuring. Your players venture into ancient halls of mystery, which means not only traps and puzzles, but traps and puzzles of natural decay. Each room will have debris of some kind. But the debris can be a puzzle, a trap, an obstacle, or even NPC. The nice bridge that leads to upper level? Broken. The ramp that leads below to the lower level? Flooded. The door to the guardian? Locking mechanism is in the lower level, stuck and also flooded, and it’s on timer (because once you pull the lever, the water pressure will again make it close).

Dungeons are combat arenas. I think everyone knows this part well, so no comment here. Okay, one comment: think of all the things above. A fight on a narrow bridge to stall a group of attackers is fine. The same fight on a narrow bridge right over the guardian’s lair is better. Especially if the guardian is a giant octopus and the bridge is starting to collapse.

[Tanarii]

From a different thread:

Dungeons are a straight way to your goal (if you know which way to go). The traditional approach. You have your guardian, your door, your NPC. This is the Skyrim way – their dungeons often have one single highway to the goal and few side attractions. Build a highway.

Bad dungeons are linear.

[Lacco]

Bad dungeons are linear.

That's why there is 'if you know which way to go'.

[Tanarii]

That's why there is 'if you know which way to go'.
That doesn't counteract the strong statements in the rest of the text that implies that linear is superior.

[Willie the Duck]

That doesn't counteract the strong statements in the rest of the text that implies that linear is superior.

Statement (qualifier upon statement including the word 'if') absolutely counteracts (amends, ads nuance to, etc.) the strong statement. That's how qualifiers work.

[Democratus]

Bad dungeons are linear.

Bad campaigns are linear. :)

[Tanarii]

Statement (qualifier upon statement including the word 'if') absolutely counteracts (amends, ads nuance to, etc.) the strong statement. That's how qualifiers work.
No. It does not. It explicitly tells you to build one single highway to the goal like Skyrim. There is an implied statement that this solves the if statement.

In other words:

Dungeons are a straight way to your goal (if you know which way to go). The traditional approach. You have your guardian, your door, your NPC. This is the Skyrim way – their dungeons often have one single highway to the goal and few side attractions. Build a highway [so the players know the way to go].


Bad campaigns are linear. :)
Lol

[sethdmichaels]

Just had the weird thought that you can kind of think of your work or school day like a dungeon. A series of encounters that can but don't necessarily intertwine.


Recently rewatched "Speed" and that movie is a lot like a one-shot module: one overarching plot with a big bad guy taunting our hero, who has to go through a series of discrete puzzles and physical challenges to thwart the BBEG's plans and meet him in a final underground combat.

[Lacco]

linear is superior.

I did not state this, you did.

The same way you cut the rest of the text.

Let's do it a bit differently this time - let's discuss the intent behind the statement. I understand that I might have not phrased it correctly - and I will attempt to clarify. Please, bear in mind that English is not my native language.


No. It does not. It explicitly tells you to build one single highway to the goal like Skyrim. There is an implied statement that this solves the if statement.

The intention was to give a starting point and to give a clear example - state, that this is the way they did it mainly in Skyrim.


In other words:

Dungeons are a straight way to your goal (if you know which way to go). The traditional approach. You have your guardian, your door, your NPC. This is the Skyrim way – their dungeons often have one single highway to the goal and few side attractions. Build a highway [so the players know the way to go].

Take a look at any dungeon you have played, or even better, DMd: if you know exactly where the "goal" is, where the paths lead, where the monsters are and how the riddles are solved, it only becomes an issue of pathing. Yes, some backtracking may be included - so the highway metaphor does not always stand on both feet - but too much backtracking and you actually have a different issue on your hands. If someone wants to speedrun the Tomb of Horrors, they can, but they will lose some enjoyment (if there is any in that infamous dungeon).

When a DM stops at the first step, you get a linear dungeon. Yes. But that was not the intention of the text: you should add the other stuff. And yes, if the PCs know the ancient language the directions are written in, if they have a map, superior intelligence (via scrying) and know where exactly they want to go, the dungeon becomes linear nevertheless. But in that case, they already invested time and effort and should not be punished just because they want to speedrun the thing.

So the intention was not "Build a highway so the players know the way to go", but more "Build a highways, so the players that invest time and effort to speedrun the damn thing don't need to backtrack and feel cheated."

I hope this was a clearer explanation - but thank you for pointing out the discrepancy between my intent and the text. I learn every day :smallwink:

[Tanarii]

Here is a series on non-linear dungeons (and why) you may wish to read, to understand my point:
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/13085/roleplaying-games/jaquaying-the-dungeon

[Lacco]

Here is a series on non-linear dungeons (and why) you may wish to read, to understand my point:
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/13085/roleplaying-games/jaquaying-the-dungeon

I have read that long ago, and I use most of the points still. Have a big orange sheet with bullets that contain most of the article series advice :smallbiggrin:.

To elaborate a bit: when I create a dungeon for exploration, I use the rules from the article all the time. They are perfect for exploration & discovery. And I like these aesthetics - but not everybody does. My players are... here for the story. So they prefer the linear, Skyrim-like dungeons with few twists & crossroads. But nothing they can get lost. And they need to have clear goal - except for a single one, they have no real interest in exploring dungeons just to enjoy the exploration.

So for a party that is focused on the narrative part, not the exploration part, jacquaying is actually loss of time. I know I enjoy it and enjoy the dungeons that result from it (my usual advice is for DMs to play How to Host a Dungeon and then apply the advice from the article you suggested), but they are not for everyone.

Is D&D5e focused on exploration? You tell me.

[quinron]

Here is a series on non-linear dungeons (and why) you may wish to read, to understand my point:
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/13085/roleplaying-games/jaquaying-the-dungeon


I have read that long ago, and I use most of the points still. Have a big orange sheet with bullets that contain most of the article series advice :smallbiggrin:.

To elaborate a bit: when I create a dungeon for exploration, I use the rules from the article all the time. They are perfect for exploration & discovery. And I like these aesthetics - but not everybody does. My players are... here for the story. So they prefer the linear, Skyrim-like dungeons with few twists & crossroads. But nothing they can get lost. And they need to have clear goal - except for a single one, they have no real interest in exploring dungeons just to enjoy the exploration.

So for a party that is focused on the narrative part, not the exploration part, jacquaying is actually loss of time. I know I enjoy it and enjoy the dungeons that result from it (my usual advice is for DMs to play How to Host a Dungeon and then apply the advice from the article you suggested), but they are not for everyone.

Is D&D5e focused on exploration? You tell me.

I think jaquaying is one of the elements that's turned mapping into a thing that the DM does for the players, instead of something the players do for themselves as they explore. If a gradual incline from floor 2 puts you back on floor 1, then a ladder takes you down to floor 3, then a staircase leads back up to floor 2, then how is the player supposed to intuitively conceive of that bizarre 3D space on a 2D sheet of mapping paper? At least assuming you're not exploring and re-exploring the same rooms over and over, Dark Souls style.

That's not to say I'm innately opposed to it. But it definitely creates certain requirements for the game.

[Tanarii]

Is D&D5e focused on exploration? You tell me.
It absolutely can be. All you have to do is set up the campaign to allow it. Especially making sure they have a mapper.

Players still love mapping as much as they used to IMX, you just need to make it meaningful. If it's pointless, it might as well go the way of encumbrance, light sources, or time mattering.


I think jaquaying is one of the elements that's turned mapping into a thing that the DM does for the players, instead of something the players do for themselves as they explore. If a gradual incline from floor 2 puts you back on floor 1, then a ladder takes you down to floor 3, then a staircase leads back up to floor 2, then how is the player supposed to intuitively conceive of that bizarre 3D space on a 2D sheet of mapping paper? At least assuming you're not exploring and re-exploring the same rooms over and over, Dark Souls style.

That's not to say I'm innately opposed to it. But it definitely creates certain requirements for the game.That's the entire point. If the DM does it for the players, they've missed the point entirely.

[Lacco]

I think jaquaying is one of the elements that's turned mapping into a thing that the DM does for the players, instead of something the players do for themselves as they explore.

I have seen few people trying to rework mapping to suit this a bit better: pointcrawls are one of the better results.


It absolutely can be. All you have to do is set up the campaign to allow it. Especially making sure they have a mapper.

"Can be" does not equal "is". Blood Bowl rules can be used to simulate a dwarven court - but they are not meant to. ...damn, now I want to try to use BB rules to simulate a dwarven court...


Players still love mapping as much as they used to IMX, you just need to make it meaningful. If it's pointless, it might as well go the way of encumbrance, light sources, or time mattering.

It's a matter of GM toolbox and practicality. There are games (groups/tables) where mapping is a loss of time - because they wouldn't do it even if their lives depended on it - and games where players happily spend an hour fiddling around a room to find and open the secret door. The former group would look at a map as a prop, the latter as a tool.

Some of the games I GM tend to include encumbrance, light sources, fatigue, sickness, lots of downtime and extreme amount of player decisions. Some are... looked down upon exactly because they include such things as bleeding, infections, detailed wound systems... some players like it. Some don't. Some of my games were rather linear (because the players requested a specific story - it works best for horror-focused games). I've had games where rule of cool governed everything (I'm looking at Shadowrun, incidentally) and games where players were the equivalent of level 1 fighting man out of D&D, on a hexcrawl (pointcrawl) with no handholding and no "story" except what they built out of the trouble they met.

Still, I don't think exploration/mapping/discovery is pointless, I think it's one of the tools: it's only good or bad for a specific table/group/game.


That's the entire point. If the DM does it for the players, they've missed the point entirely.

Here we agree: if a map is to be used as a tool, it should be done by the players. I myself was always the mapper when I used to play, but sadly, I am now only the map creator as a GM :smallbiggrin:

By the way, have you seen/read/tried Torchbearer? That one has a relatively neat mapping mechanic.

[Tanarii]

Some of the games I GM tend to include encumbrance, light sources, fatigue, sickness, lots of downtime and extreme amount of player decisions. Some are... looked down upon exactly because they include such things as bleeding, infections, detailed wound systems... some players like it. Some don't. Some of my games were rather linear (because the players requested a specific story - it works best for horror-focused games). I've had games where rule of cool governed everything (I'm looking at Shadowrun, incidentally) and games where players were the equivalent of level 1 fighting man out of D&D, on a hexcrawl (pointcrawl) with no handholding and no "story" except what they built out of the trouble they met.

Still, I don't think exploration/mapping/discovery is pointless, I think it's one of the tools: it's only good or bad for a specific table/group/game.If you're not using it as a tool, like light, encumbrance, or time mattering, if all you care about is "story" ... then the question does indeed become: Dungeons, dungeons, why so many dungeons?

It also becomes: why D&D? In this regard, it's one of the failing of modern D&D. It doesn't even do what it was good for very well anymore. It's only purpose is to be D&D, for people who are used to playing D&D. You have to make what used to make D&D meaningful and emphasize it to get something useful out of 5e.

Edit: Another okay use for it is if you go for something a bit Wuxia. Of course, 4e did wuxia far better.

Edit2: however I went back and read your list again from the perspective of D&D 5e as "story", and it checks out. So specific play style objection aside, well done. 👍

[Lacco]

If you're not using it as a tool, like light, encumbrance, or time mattering, if all you care about is "story" ... then the question does indeed become: Dungeons, dungeons, why so many dungeons?

It also becomes: why D&D? In this regard, it's one of the failing of modern D&D. It doesn't even do what it was good for very well anymore. It's only purpose is to be D&D, for people who are used to playing D&D. You have to make what used to make D&D meaningful and emphasize it to get something useful out of 5e.

I completely agree. The answer to the question becomes "It's a tradition."


There's an old joke about a woman that decided to bake a strudel one day. Her husband noticed she cut off the ends of the strudel before putting it on the baking pan and inquired why she did so.

Her answer was "My mother always did it this way."

When they went to visit the in-laws, he asked if his mother could bake a strudel and noticed she did the same. So again, he asked why.

"My mother always did it this way."

So he went to see the grandmother and asked directly if she baked strudel this way and why she did it. And she answered.

"Well, I had only this short baking pan, and it wouldn't fit all in."


Jokes aside, maybe it's nostalgia talking, but I feel like something was lost.

The question "Why D&D?" is not for me to answer - I have found my holy grail of systems, so far away from D&D that I should not even post in this area (but the topic was intriguing and the discussion proved to be enlightening). And that would be also my advice:

If all you have is D&D, everything looks as a dungeon or a dragon (or a dragon inside a dungeon) :smallbiggrin:. People should try out other systems: but they should not use them to emulate D&D, because all will invariably fail. D&D is good for playing D&D (and I'd even say each edition is its own game with its own merit). There are games that simulate the original dungeon crawling (Torchbearer comes to mind) in a way that could challenge the old school gamer, but would satisfy the new guys. But if you want court intrigue, game that is meant for dungeon delving will not be the ideal choice.


Edit2: however I went back and read your list again from the perspective of D&D 5e as "story", and it checks out. So specific play style objection aside, well done. 👍

Thank you - that was the intention.

My list for building an ideal dungeon for exploration would be different - and would use most of the recommendation from Alexandrian. But that is a discussion for other thread and for other day. If there will be one, I'll see you there :smallsmile:. Thank you for the debate.

[Imbalance]

If a gradual incline from floor 2 puts you back on floor 1, then a ladder takes you down to floor 3, then a staircase leads back up to floor 2, then how is the player supposed to intuitively conceive of that bizarre 3D space on a 2D sheet of mapping paper?

I think I've been in that room, though it was a chiller plant instead of a dungeon and there were another two levels of mezzanine catwalks. There was a witty tinknocker who stood in the middle, reaching as high as he could, going, "look, I'm a six-story giant!"

[MaxWilson]

I think jaquaying is one of the elements that's turned mapping into a thing that the DM does for the players, instead of something the players do for themselves as they explore. If a gradual incline from floor 2 puts you back on floor 1, then a ladder takes you down to floor 3, then a staircase leads back up to floor 2, then how is the player supposed to intuitively conceive of that bizarre 3D space on a 2D sheet of mapping paper?

Drawing it is difficult, but spatially it's not bizarre. It's just shaped like any building with an indoor ramp, whether it's an airport parking garage or that building at the beginning of Men In Black where Will Smith catches the alien.

And if having ramps and inclines makes the game too difficult for your players, you could always just... not use slight inclines.

Anyway, I agree with those who suspect it's more about the competition from computers. I don't use mazes and mapping in my current games, but I've always wanted to, and yet I believe it requires better tool support than I have. I have ambitions to run a semi-automated game of 5E (with the DM taking care of the creative, human stuff like designing dungeons and ruling on creative player plans, and the machine handling the tedious stuff like showing the currently-visible layout of the dungeon from where you're standing, and moving monsters/rolling dice for them in combat) and in the meanwhile I prefer to focus my actual games on other types of play than mapped dungeon crawls, like wilderness adventure and space exploration. It's not that I don't see the appeal, but the competition from a product that isn't even built yet (!) keeps me from running those Bard's Tale-style dungeon crawls today.

[Dork_Forge]

Drawing it is difficult, but spatially it's not bizarre. It's just shaped like any building with an indoor ramp, whether it's an airport parking garage or that building at the beginning of Men In Black where Will Smith catches the alien.

And if having ramps and inclines makes the game too difficult for your players, you could always just... not use slight inclines.

Anyway, I agree with those who suspect it's more about the competition from computers. I don't use mazes and mapping in my current games, but I've always wanted to, and yet I believe it requires better tool support than I have. I have ambitions to run a semi-automated game of 5E (with the DM taking care of the creative, human stuff like designing dungeons and ruling on creative player plans, and the machine handling the tedious stuff like showing the currently-visible layout of the dungeon from where you're standing, and moving monsters/rolling dice for them in combat) and in the meanwhile I prefer to focus my actual games on other types of play than mapped dungeon crawls, like wilderness adventure and space exploration. It's not that I don't see the appeal, but the competition from a product that isn't even built yet (!) keeps me from running those Bard's Tale-style dungeon crawls today.

It's not all what you want, but VTTs can deliver a good chunk of this for you (the following will be Roll20 because that's what I'm familiar with):

-You can use dynamic lighting to only reveal what the players see at the time instead of unlocking the whole map progressively

-Macros for attacks/damage can greatly streamline the process

[Redwood0517]

And why is each room its own little closed off eco system?

"You enter the room, there are 4 orcs"

"*kills the orcs*, next room please"

"You enter the next room, there are two orcs sacrificing a human and a heavily armored orc standing over them".

Why didn't those 4 orcs alert the other 3 orcs? How come they didn't hear the commotion? This is starting to feel like a video game. Is it just lazy design? Why are DMs so afraid of being outside?

Game is not a math problem. Who like math any more? DMs and players put a little more life into these skeletons. :annoyed:

[MaxWilson]

It's not all what you want, but VTTs can deliver a good chunk of this for you (the following will be Roll20 because that's what I'm familiar with):

-You can use dynamic lighting to only reveal what the players see at the time instead of unlocking the whole map progressively

-Macros for attacks/damage can greatly streamline the process

Yeah, I know. And now that I'm thinking about workarounds, it occurs to me that I could do a pretty good job of faking it just by using a dungeon map tileset, and just showing players a few tiles at any given time. I think I'd rather do that than use Roll20.

Or spend a couple of hours hacking one of my maze generators to (1) include monsters and traps and (2) "forget" discovered terrain that isn't currently in like of sight, so that players have to map. It won't be perfect but if Worse Is Better it may be good enough to be fun.

[Tvtyrant]

And why is each room its own little closed off eco system?

"You enter the room, there are 4 orcs"

"*kills the orcs*, next room please"

"You enter the next room, there are two orcs sacrificing a human and a heavily armored orc standing over them".

Why didn't those 4 orcs alert the other 3 orcs? How come they didn't hear the commotion? This is starting to feel like a video game. Is it just lazy design? Why are DMs so afraid of being outside?

Ironically it's not that approach feels like a video game, it is that video games have absorbed that approach. D&D was more like that and then video games did the same thing but prettier and with less effort.

If I was going to make straight dungeon crawls now I would go Kingdom Hearts approach: Lot's of different places are melting together and the dungeons are just bits that got stuck to one another. They are actively shifting as you try to make your way out of the chaos zone.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, I know. And now that I'm thinking about workarounds, it occurs to me that I could do a pretty good job of faking it just by using a dungeon map tileset, and just showing players a few tiles at any given time. I think I'd rather do that than use Roll20.
You're making me miss Gloomhaven. :smallamused:

[quinron]

Drawing it is difficult, but spatially it's not bizarre. It's just shaped like any building with an indoor ramp, whether it's an airport parking garage or that building at the beginning of Men In Black where Will Smith catches the alien.

It's the drawing issue that irks me. If I expect the players to map an area and be able to keep track of where individual rooms are relative to each other, I need to either make the map straightforward or make the dungeon dynamic and interesting to continue re-exploring, that way difficult mapping isn't just a slog of walking back and forth between emptied rooms to try to figure out how they connect.

Admittedly, that latter point is something I'm interested in working on a bit more. I expect the next dungeon I design, regardless of its complexity, to involve a lot more restocking and re-use of rooms.

[Tanarii]

It's the drawing issue that irks me. If I expect the players to map an area and be able to keep track of where individual rooms are relative to each other, I need to either make the map straightforward or make the dungeon dynamic and interesting to continue re-exploring, that way difficult mapping isn't just a slog of walking back and forth between emptied rooms to try to figure out how they connect.
Yeah, that's a very different expectation from why players were expected to map in the old days.

DMs expected players to try to map an area and be able to keep track of where individual rooms are relative to each other, and there were consequences if they didn't. Players wanted to map for similar reasons.

Consequences like: Not getting lost, being able to find your way back out again before running out of supplies or dying to wandering encounters. Finding secret passages and rooms just by logical deduction. Figuring out how alternate paths connected to bypass some of the dangers on future expeditions, so you could push on. Knowing where you've already been, so you don't waste time searching there, or intentionally returning to places to search more thoroughly.

And when you've got limited resources for an expedition, knowing where you (and even better, other parties) have already explored helps planning enormously. And of course you can always sell your map to the highest bidder when done so they can pick up where you left off.

[quinron]

Yeah, that's a very different expectation from why players were expected to map in the old days.

DMs expected players to try to map an area and be able to keep track of where individual rooms are relative to each other, and there were consequences if they didn't. Players wanted to map for similar reasons.

Consequences like: Not getting lost, being able to find your way back out again before running out of supplies or dying to wandering encounters. Finding secret passages and rooms just by logical deduction. Figuring out how alternate paths connected to bypass some of the dangers on future expeditions, so you could push on. Knowing where you've already been, so you don't waste time searching there, or intentionally returning to places to search more thoroughly.

And when you've got limited resources for an expedition, knowing where you (and even better, other parties) have already explored helps planning enormously. And of course you can always sell your map to the highest bidder when done so they can pick up where you left off.

Yeah, I think some of this is tied up in edition changes to magic - it's ridiculously cheap to cast create food and water or at least goodberry every day, and unless the GM is making random encounters super frequent, equally challenging to planned encounters, or both, I think it would actually be pretty difficult to deplete resources to the degree that a party with access to either of these spells would ever be seriously threatened by loss of resources.

[Sandeman]

As a player I expect the DM to draw the map on paper or build it up with dungeon tiles.
Having to draw a map based on spoken instructions is a horrible waste of play time and is not the slightest fun as it almost always leads to confusion about how the rooms/corridors looks like.

[Tanarii]

As a player I expect the DM to draw the map on paper or build it up with dungeon tiles.
Having to draw a map based on spoken instructions is a horrible waste of play time and is not the slightest fun as it almost always leads to confusion about how the rooms/corridors looks like.
As far as I'm concerned that's fine as long as they only show the area where the players are. Not where they've been.

If players want their characters to have a map of where they've been (and how to get out), the players should draw it.

Edit: If the players want their characters to remember the way, if there's any doubt, that's what Int checks are for.

[Willie the Duck]

For me, it's going to depend on the group I am with and the preferred playstyle. I've played the old 'DM describes and players map' mode where perfect mapping fidelity was a goal and 'this does not add up' was as likely evidence of an unobvious teleport effect as it was player-DM communication issue*. That type of challenge is a real and potentially fruitful one, for a certain preferred type of gameplay. I've also played with groups where the characters map, but the players don't (as the time required for such is simply not considered worth any potential payout in interesting challenge). I don't think I have a clear favorite in that regard.
*or a clue that the DM has put in a gradual incline making the PCs unknowingly descend to a lower dungeon level, increasing the difficulty of wandering monsters

[Dork_Forge]

As a player I expect the DM to draw the map on paper or build it up with dungeon tiles.
Having to draw a map based on spoken instructions is a horrible waste of play time and is not the slightest fun as it almost always leads to confusion about how the rooms/corridors looks like.

Some rough guides for at the time sure, but expecting mapping like that based on it being 'a horrible waste of play time' sounds like taking for granted all of the effort the DM has to put into doing those things. Even if a DM doesn't map a single room, they still have far more work to do than any player could.

[Tanarii]

I've also played with groups where the characters map, but the players don't (as the time required for such is simply not considered worth any potential payout in interesting challenge). I don't think I have a clear favorite in that regard.
Which sounds like a Cartographer's tool check if there's any doubt as to accuracy.

Of course, I've had plenty of players that do a basic lines and nodes map to remember routes to/from places. That's often sufficient for that purpose. It just won't reveal things like possible elevation changes or secrets.

[Imbalance]

I haven't been in enough in-person campaigns with the same people to default into the role of map guy, but it's very similar to part of what I do for a living that I just can't help it. Even if I'm not writing down, a given description will automatically draft itself into my brain, and I can usually recall the layout accruately if not all of the exact details. When I do write it down, there's an even worse occupational hazard: I start figuring cost estimates...

[MaxWilson]

Some rough guides for at the time sure, but expecting mapping like that based on it being 'a horrible waste of play time' sounds like taking for granted all of the effort the DM has to put into doing those things. Even if a DM doesn't map a single room, they still have far more work to do than any player could.

I don't think saying verbal-based mapping is a waste of play time is taking the DM for granted--I'd say that as a DM I also find drawing on a whiteboard (often) faster and more efficient communication than spoken words when it comes to conveying irregular shapes. That is, I also apparently view words as a waste of time in certain situations, compared to pictures. Surely I'm not taking myself for granted?

On the other hand, I guess a DM doesn't have to use irregular shapes. If you want to use spoken words only, you can certainly keep everything in the dungeon rectangular and in increments of 10'.

[MoiMagnus]

Who draw the maps, and how much effort is place in it, has to be correlated to "What is the purpose of drawing the map?".
+ If the goal of the map is just to remind the players the list of room they explored, set up some ambiance, the map doesn't even need to be fully correct and it doesn't really matters who draw it. The map is no different from a log that a player or GM would fill as the session advance as a trace of what was done. [And as said by others, the actual details of the map can be handled through skill checks from the players when needed]
+ If the goal of the map is to hint at secret passages or to grant circumstantial advantages to players clever enough to find them, then it's obviously up to the players to draw the map.
+ If the goal of the map is to clearly organise information that is unpractical to describe with words, then it's obviously up to the GM to draw the map. (Some GMs are much better at drawing than narrating, and some players are very bad at understanding without a visual clue)

[Dork_Forge]

I don't think saying verbal-based mapping is a waste of play time is taking the DM for granted--I'd say that as a DM I also find drawing on a whiteboard (often) faster and more efficient communication than spoken words when it comes to conveying irregular shapes. That is, I also apparently view words as a waste of time in certain situations, compared to pictures. Surely I'm not taking myself for granted?

On the other hand, I guess a DM doesn't have to use irregular shapes. If you want to use spoken words only, you can certainly keep everything in the dungeon rectangular and in increments of 10'.

Sketching something out to facilitate something at the time (what the players are seeing) would fall under rough guides, what I'm talking about more is the expectation for a whole dungeon to be mapped that can be looked back at. The only thing verbal mapping would really be used for navigating already explored areas or determining hidden aspects through irregularities, which is more player engaging than just roll a check. It's definitely a playstyle difference, what I said was it sounds like taking the DM for granted becuase it was expected of the DM when the DM has plenty of things to do already.

This could be coloured by being primarily a VTT DM, where finding maps, sketching things out on a blank grid and all of the other set up involved is a substantial amount of additional work.