That's a better summation than my pages of botched misunderstandings.
I love the story telling, but to say that the motives and enjoyment of playing now are somehow more "refined" than in the past is just wrong..... window dressing aside, it's frustratingly annoying how much focus is just on hitting things and feeling justified because you've self proclaimed yourselves to be "the heroes".
All the rest surrounding it is just justifying why that's the case, and if anything the older editions didn't make you feel like the heroes out the gate, and that is why I feel today's version is even more of a dungeon crawl experience. That heroism is reinforced more now than ever, and there's no moments of reflection and there's somehow less moral ambiguity. You're always on the side of right, the HP bags are always the most vilest evil ever....
I would only add..... and that's ok
Like I wouldn't want anyone to think that I or anyone else has some right to proclaim how "it should be", but I do think conversations in which we are dishonest about "how it is" are equally unhelpful because it's quite natural for our reflections to be colored by our perspective on the game.
I think the problem with conversations about D&D in general is that everyone's experience is different and on a deeper level, even people who come from the same group and game session and have the same experiences, have a different perspective on what those experiences were/are and how they would describe them.
Like I could go to my players and ask them "what was last week's session about" and I'm going to get five distinctively different answers that will barely be related, it would sound like these guys played 5 completely different games. There is no "truth" that can be discerned from that about what really happened or what it was really about. But I did DM the game, I know as an objective fact that they crawled around in a jungle ruin, looted the place and then started 3 fights they could have avoided very much on purpose because they wanted the fight. Like.. that is objectively what actually happened in the session, but if I confronted them with that truth they would all argue with me.
I don't know if it makes any sense but its sort of like asking two guys to describe a painting. They are both looking at the same thing, but they see totally different things. Only the artist actually knows what the painting is. It then begs the question, is anyone right? That is what it's like trying to get people to describe what D&D is about. Everyone has their own take.... there is a bottom line, the guys who wrote the stuff know exactly what it's about but despite that, they still aren't an authority on the subject as they can't really control what people that use what they created see.
So this debate.. how much of the game is Dungeon crawling for example. Yeah.. for some its 100%, for a guy in the same group sitting next to the guy who thinks its a 100% its 0%. Who is right? I think the answer is.. both of them or maybe its 50%? split the difference? I have no idea, your guess is as good as mine.
What I do know is what my experience with D&D is and what D&D is to me and I also know that everyone who thinks they know what my experience with D&D is and what D&D is about for me, is 100% wrong.
That's a better summation than my pages of botched misunderstandings.
I love the story telling, but to say that the motives and enjoyment of playing now are somehow more "refined" than in the past is just wrong..... window dressing aside, it's frustratingly annoying how much focus is just on hitting things and feeling justified because you've self proclaimed yourselves to be "the heroes".
All the rest surrounding it is just justifying why that's the case, and if anything the older editions didn't make you feel like the heroes out the gate, and that is why I feel today's version is even more of a dungeon crawl experience. That heroism is reinforced more now than ever, and there's no moments of reflection and there's somehow less moral ambiguity. You're always on the side of right, the HP bags are always the most vilest evil ever....
I would only add..... and that's ok
Like I wouldn't want anyone to think that I or anyone else has some right to proclaim how "it should be", but I do think conversations in which we are dishonest about "how it is" are equally unhelpful because it's quite natural for our reflections to be colored by our perspective on the game.
I think the problem with conversations about D&D in general is that everyone's experience is different and on a deeper level, even people who come from the same group and game session and have the same experiences, have a different perspective on what those experiences were/are and how they would describe them.
Like I could go to my players and ask them "what was last week's session about" and I'm going to get five distinctively different answers that will barely be related, it would sound like these guys played 5 completely different games. There is no "truth" that can be discerned from that about what really happened or what it was really about. But I did DM the game, I know as an objective fact that they crawled around in a jungle ruin, looted the place and then started 3 fights they could have avoided very much on purpose because they wanted the fight. Like.. that is objectively what actually happened in the session, but if I confronted them with that truth they would all argue with me.
I don't know if it makes any sense but its sort of like asking two guys to describe a painting. They are both looking at the same thing, but they see totally different things. Only the artist actually knows what the painting is. It then begs the question, is anyone right? That is what it's like trying to get people to describe what D&D is about. Everyone has their own take.... there is a bottom line, the guys who wrote the stuff know exactly what it's about but despite that, they still aren't an authority on the subject as they can't really control what people that use what they created see.
It's fair to say that.
There's also different levels of skill, and one of the things to consider is that not many people are good at the role play.
Even though I'm not the best, throughout high school I definitely was the kid that got bullied a lot and whom everyone considered weird and creepy, and I just learned to lean into it, taking whatever weird things they thought my personal life was like, (I worked not one but two 20 hour part time jobs so not much of a life really), and how st spinning the most fantastical bullshit from it.
Somehow being tired and groggy from a late night washing dishes would turn into everyone thinking I was some sort of necromancer channelling the dead and speaking in Latin or German... lol... (Why is it always those two languages??)
It's a skill that's useful when it comes to games like this... plus the aforementioned love of stories.
But not everyone is like that. Even the theater people have their own hangups, becoming drama queens for a piece of the spotlight, etc.
But mostly people are just inexperienced, and I think that is why they do the dungeon crawl style of play as well. And why they shy from RP.
Hell, as I said, my first d&d was walking into a bar with my sword in me and I promptly got knocked out for not remembering to abide by custom.
It's not disregarding everything I said before but another reason why dungeon crawls persist. (And remember, all this is because someone said the dungeon crawl is dead).
My group is a bit large but not everyone shows.l, so for myself, I like to send a recap out to all players of the previous session. Typically I try to take the chaos of the night prior and weave it into a coherent synopsis while it's fresh in my head, and give some players and characters a bit more polish and shine and paint it in the best light. It makes players feel better and more confident. Hopefully one day they'll decide to search for clues than burst through doors and bum rush as a first response.
I AM tempted to one day have the police show up when they do that, and the villain to get away....
As such the premise of Dungeon Crawls is by association under scrutiny as people are questioning the ethics of going into say a Goblin cave and killing everyone there. Rather than seeing it as a monster lair, they see it as "People who live in caves minding their own business"..
Just saying that if that is a thing for you, that doesn't mean the Dungeon Crawl baby needs to be tossed out with the "sensitivity committee" bathwater. You can simply put whatever you think qualifies as "Monster" into Dungeons and the issue is resolved.
No, it really isn't. What you have to fix isn't whether the contents are "monsters". What you have to fix is whether the contents are "minding their own business".
None of this prevents dungeon crawls. What it prevents is static dungeons. The reason you rush into Xanathar's lair and beat him up isn't because he's a monster, it's because he's got minions out there killing, stealing, kidnapping people for his personal arena fights, replacing people's brains, etc.
The reason you rush into Xanathar's lair and beat him up isn't because he's a monster, it's because he's got minions out there killing, stealing, kidnapping people for his personal arena fights, replacing people's brains, etc.
But why does that justify you smashing in doors, chasing after him on the whims of what some guy in a bar might say?
If he's doing all this is the middle of a city, what does that tell you about that city and it's inhabitants?.
It's not much different than a goblin party that raids.
In fact, being xanathar and humanized (remember his goldfish), makes him sympathetic too. His book on everything means he shouldn't be viewed as a monster to just set out to destroy everything.
Nihiloor is not just a mind flayer in service to an elder brain but an individual working for xanathar. He himself has agency, interests and fields of study and a modicum of what we call "humanity".
I'm not trying to be overly pendantic, but the lore has humanized a lot of these villains. More so than just saying "yeah, so goblins are people" (let's skip the comments about goblins being a race allegory for them moment. I get that. It's not the point I'm making).
There's a certain dehumanization or black and white morality needed to justify just taking down xanathar or some of his named minions.
Both come from the same emotional place, and regardless of who or what you put in there, it's doing to create limitations, and some of those limitations are going to be that you can only stray so far from black/white morality or you can only really kill the non-humanoid, non-intelligent creatures.
EDIT: I'm sorry. I misread what I'm responding to.
Yeah, motive is a huge part of it too. I was reading it as goblins because goblins and xanathar cause he's just xanathar. Both be doing what they usually do and seemingly unbothered by local law enforcement.
It's not disregarding everything I said before but another reason why dungeon crawls persist. (And remember, all this is because someone said the dungeon crawl is dead).
Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you, to claim Dungeon Crawls are dead is more a statement of desire and/or some sort of weird attempt at gatekeeping. It's objectively false.
One of the things 5e actually does really well is taking old classic dungeon adventures and modernizing them. Ghost of Saltmarshes is an awesome remake. Definitely, the best Castle Ravenloft I have seen, better than the original, Princes of the Apocalypse is great sandbox dungeon crawl, pretty much everything in the Tales from the Yawning Portal, The Mad Mage is a freaking super dungeon, Rime of the Frostmaiden I just got...don't want to spoil it but yeah, good dungeon crawling in that one and of course Lost Mines of Phandelver and of course can't not mention the Tomb of Annihilation.
I mean, I don't know how anyone can play 5e and claim there are no dungeon crawls... can anyone actually name a 5e adventure without a dungeon? I mean I don't have all the books as many of them really didn't speak to me conceptually but I don't see any signs of any such thing.
As such the premise of Dungeon Crawls is by association under scrutiny as people are questioning the ethics of going into say a Goblin cave and killing everyone there. Rather than seeing it as a monster lair, they see it as "People who live in caves minding their own business"..
Just saying that if that is a thing for you, that doesn't mean the Dungeon Crawl baby needs to be tossed out with the "sensitivity committee" bathwater. You can simply put whatever you think qualifies as "Monster" into Dungeons and the issue is resolved.
No, it really isn't. What you have to fix isn't whether the contents are "monsters". What you have to fix is whether the contents are "minding their own business".
None of this prevents dungeon crawls. What it prevents is static dungeons. The reason you rush into Xanathar's lair and beat him up isn't because he's a monster, it's because he's got minions out there killing, stealing, kidnapping people for his personal arena fights, replacing people's brains, etc.
That seems to me almost entirely from a specific faction. They seem to be the ones who insist that orcs have to be evil so you can safely kill them without having to think about whether you are doing the right thing or not.
That's..... everybody. In day to day life, that's literally everybody all the time, 24/7.
"I'm justified in taking cookies out of the cookie jar because Mary in accounting did it first."
"That person who cut me off is an evil jerk face who kicks puppies. (The unsaid part is that I wasn't in the wrong by not paying attention myself...)"
"I hate the people who support the other political party because they are mean and want to make me do things I don't like..."
In groups out groups, choosing factions, simplifying our morality to make it easier....
The closest you can come to this is something I remember from the late 80's/early 90's, in the form of a choose your own adventure book that used d6's and you fought monsters within the CYOA book. It was weird, and I found out later on there were a handful of them published, by the name of it escapes me.
Endless Quest series, an entire product line. Rose Estes was the editor for the book line that was one of TSR's most profitable products. She saw an example of CYOA style effort, thought it was wonderful, told her boss we should do these. He ignored her. Eventually he said "just write it yourself.
So she did. The first six Endless Quest books outsold *every other product TSR produced*. In all 36 books were created, and the last official TSR products were Endless Quest books.
I think perhaps your confusing the concept of Dungeons as a "definition". Like, Dungeons doesn't just mean "Dungeons". Its any form of exploring a place, be it a crypt, a cemetery, a town, ruin, a jungle .. whatever. Essentially anywhere you go you are tracking movement on an area by area, where each area is defined with stuff that happens there which may include traps, monsters, finding treasure, meeting someone interesting or what have you.
any time you start to talk about Dungeons you should always introduce a definition of it, because after all, the term comes from the name for a castle, slightly deprecated to refer to the jail of a keep by mid 20th century. "Goin to the dungeon, dearie" Jas said as he grabbed his cap. "Prithee the Lord dun take mah hands!".
Note as well the shift in language around what was once called Modules and is now called Adventures.
Note that under the definition you provide, there is no adventure that cannot be called a Dungeon, even a Hexcrawl, which is historically used to describe the act of exploring a place, with anywhere you go you are tracking movement on an area by area, where each area is defined with stuff that happens there which may include traps, monsters, finding treasure, meeting someone interesting or what have you, butis typically considered distinct from a dungeon.
Note that I disagree, mind, just pointing it out. However, in so doing I will note that Dungeons, then, include every published Adventure, ever, and that they are not separated from moral quandaries or grey area issues or the assertion that folks just want or don't want to slice their way through things.
On complex, potentially controversial, possibly political stories/dungeon/adventures/settings.
This isn't to call out anyone here specifically. I have seen many threads, across different forums, on Reddit on private groups, and so forth and there is a strong, substantial minority of players (and yes, I am saying that correctly) who consistently assert that D&D no longer allows for there to be these "dark", "morally questionable", "edgy" things.
That's poppycock. WotC won't publish certain things themselves, but they did publish "let's all go to hell and drive armed dune buggies around". Anyone who has played both the original Curse of Strahd and the current Curse of Strahd will tell you they made Strahd more questionable, more powerful, and gave him a whole new layer of stuff in that vein. Yes, they have "fixed the Vistani" in order to avoid the issue with the Roma, but it is a partial fix, and to argue that 5e is now "free of racism" is both ignorant and asinine.
It is laughable to me that folks confuse things like "all the people of this sort should have X score because C" and "No kind of people are inherently evil" with everything suddenly being a moral challenge about "Should I walk into that Goblin's house and kill them and take their stuff?".
"But Wizards won't do it". Sorry, but if you want something that looks different from FR, stop bleeping looking to wizards for it, because it aint gonna happen. That's the old man shouting at the wind in action right there, unless one is not a man or old, in which case one is merely acting like it. WotC won't do that because it needs to keep growing the population of people who play the game, and the ore of that stuff you have, the smaller your market size will be. That's it.
That doesn't mean that it cannot be done. Or that it isn't being done.
There are a host of guides about "how to identify a fascist". Now, what if you took those guides, and used them to create a culture? Make it an empire. Use those philosophies an value systems, those ideals and Vices and made them the things that culture takes pride in, values. Have them spy on each other, have them do all the nasty stuff that you can think of. Do it with all the negative, horrible things you have heard about other political groups. It isn't hard. Hell, its easier to do than mashing two or three different cultures together to make something new. And you get an evil kingdom for your world. Then add in a resistance and a place where those who escaped those "terrible horrible places" can go and be free. bam, you have a place of evil and those who come from there are probably going to be evil or seen as evil and they could be of any species.
In a particular world there are three kingdoms. At the border of these three kingdoms lies a salt mine. Kingdom Abba says to its soldiers that Kingdom Baab and Kingdom Shiv are filled with nothing but the lowest form of scum, evil through and through. The other two kingdoms do the same.
A group of adventurers from different backgrounds meets up. Two are from each of the three kingdoms. They all see through the propaganda, but more importantly, they all understand that their party members aren't like the rest of those other people from those kingdoms.
That's a really basic set up with some peculiar details that establishes a lot of stuff (not just D&D, but also, for example, star wars) from pretty much any form or fashion of entertainment produced since 1980 for mainstream audiences. 1980 matters because it was the end of the first backlash to the Civil Rights Act.
That's how D&D currently handles it. Let me point out that the above *is crammed full of bad*. Life sucks, grab yer bucket, keep bailing.
On FR, is there any Red Wizard of Thay that doesn't deserve killing? Seriously -- I have no idea if there is or isn't. FR is like my least favorite setting of all time, lol. It is everything wrong with setting building to me (to me, not speaking for anyone else).
A moral quandary is the Evil Vampire ensures that people in the village always have plenty of food and are taken care of and their children are safe, but he also eats them (ok, ok, drinks them dry) when he gets hungry -- but if he is killed, the village will begin to starve and the people will be rendered homeless.
That's an adventure WotC would publish.
Calling it a dungeon? Sure.
Edit: Oddly enough, this is not a graded nor formal (and therefore paid for) inquiry. As such, citations are not required -- additionally, relying on citations is bad form, as it is presumed that participants on a forum access via the internet have access to the internet and the wit to effectively search for relevant facts on their bleeping own, not to mention that doing so is calling to authority. Also, i will personally attest to experienced racism from said individual.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The reason you rush into Xanathar's lair and beat him up isn't because he's a monster, it's because he's got minions out there killing, stealing, kidnapping people for his personal arena fights, replacing people's brains, etc.
But why does that justify you smashing in doors, chasing after him on the whims of what some guy in a bar might say?
Having loose standards of evidence is a rather common component of adventure fiction. You could probably turn W:DH into a police procedural, but it would be a very different module.
The reason you rush into Xanathar's lair and beat him up isn't because he's a monster, it's because he's got minions out there killing, stealing, kidnapping people for his personal arena fights, replacing people's brains, etc.
But why does that justify you smashing in doors, chasing after him on the whims of what some guy in a bar might say?
Having loose standards of evidence is a rather common component of adventure fiction. You could probably turn W:DH into a police procedural, but it would be a very different module.
I'm not asking for a police procedural, but it's awfully funny how the first person an adventurer sees seems to always have a very clear "go beat these guys up" quest, and you're just taking them at their word...
And that somehow your adventurers never have an issue just rolling up to some Noble's house and busting down the door and beating the crap out of people.
At least that was my original point in that quoted text, and it was to point out player actions and their in game preferences as to how to play.
any time you start to talk about Dungeons you should always introduce a definition of it, because after all, the term comes from the name for a castle, slightly deprecated to refer to the jail of a keep by mid 20th century. "Goin to the dungeon, dearie" Jas said as he grabbed his cap. "Prithee the Lord dun take mah hands!".
Note as well the shift in language around what was once called Modules and is now called Adventures.
Note that under the definition you provide, there is no adventure that cannot be called a Dungeon, even a Hexcrawl, which is historically used to describe the act of exploring a place, with anywhere you go you are tracking movement on an area by area, where each area is defined with stuff that happens there which may include traps, monsters, finding treasure, meeting someone interesting or what have you, butis typically considered distinct from a dungeon.
Note that I disagree, mind, just pointing it out. However, in so doing I will note that Dungeons, then, include every published Adventure, ever, and that they are not separated from moral quandaries or grey area issues or the assertion that folks just want or don't want to slice their way through things.
So far as I can tell, 1e B/X or BECMI adventures were called Dungeon Modules while 1e AD&D stuff was called Game Adventures or Adventure Modules. In either case the transition took place during 1st edition, so its not like they were called Modules until 5e came out or something, they have been adventure modules since 1e.
Not trying to make a point or anything, just an interesting factoid that has no bearing on anything other than the fact I had never noticed it before :)
I do think there is a subtle distinction between a Hex Crawl and a Dungeon Crawl, at least in 1e B/X there were two distinct mechanics that worked differently. For overland travel, you had Wilderness Adventures and Seafaring Adventure rules, while for Dungeons you had Dungeon Adventure Rules. It had mostly to do with the sort of activities you could do during a "turn", which in an overland adventure was essentially a day while in a dungeon was 10 minutes. Still general process was the same, you explored, dealt with whatever was listed in the area, had random encounters etc...
Procedurally hex crawls and dungeon crawls were a little different but I can't think of a published hex crawl adventure that didn't also include a dungeon to explore. Even stuff like Test of the Warlord which was primarily focused on Hex Crawling, politics and Kingdom building had several dungeons to explore.
But lets limit the concept of a Dungeon to "something underground". Even under that definition, can anyone name an adventure module without a dungeon?
I'm not asking for a police procedural, but it's awfully funny how the first person an adventurer sees seems to always have a very clear "go beat these guys up" quest, and you're just taking them at their word...
Oh sure. A lot of adventures are still quite dubious in their morality, but they at least make a gesture, rather than the plot hook just being "You should go beat these guys up because they have valuable stuff you can steal".
On complex, potentially controversial, possibly political stories/dungeon/adventures/settings.
This isn't to call out anyone here specifically. I have seen many threads, across different forums, on Reddit on private groups, and so forth and there is a strong, substantial minority of players (and yes, I am saying that correctly) who consistently assert that D&D no longer allows for there to be these "dark", "morally questionable", "edgy" things.
That's poppycock. WotC won't publish certain things themselves, but they did publish "let's all go to hell and drive armed dune buggies around". Anyone who has played both the original Curse of Strahd and the current Curse of Strahd will tell you they made Strahd more questionable, more powerful, and gave him a whole new layer of stuff in that vein. Yes, they have "fixed the Vistani" in order to avoid the issue with the Roma, but it is a partial fix, and to argue that 5e is now "free of racism" is both ignorant and asinine.
It is laughable to me that folks confuse things like "all the people of this sort should have X score because C" and "No kind of people are inherently evil" with everything suddenly being a moral challenge about "Should I walk into that Goblin's house and kill them and take their stuff?".
"But Wizards won't do it". Sorry, but if you want something that looks different from FR, stop bleeping looking to wizards for it, because it aint gonna happen. That's the old man shouting at the wind in action right there, unless one is not a man or old, in which case one is merely acting like it. WotC won't do that because it needs to keep growing the population of people who play the game, and the ore of that stuff you have, the smaller your market size will be. That's it.
That doesn't mean that it cannot be done. Or that it isn't being done.
In a particular world there are three kingdoms. At the border of these three kingdoms lies a salt mine. Kingdom Abba says to its soldiers that Kingdom Baab and Kingdom Shiv are filled with nothing but the lowest form of scum, evil through and through. The other two kingdoms do the same.
A group of adventurers from different backgrounds meets up. Two are from each of the three kingdoms. They all see through the propaganda, but more importantly, they all understand that their party members aren't like the rest of those other people from those kingdoms.
That's a really basic set up with some peculiar details that establishes a lot of stuff (not just D&D, but also, for example, star wars) from pretty much any form or fashion of entertainment produced since 1980 for mainstream audiences. 1980 matters because it was the end of the first backlash to the Civil Rights Act.
That's how D&D currently handles it. Let me point out that the above *is crammed full of bad*. Life sucks, grab yer bucket, keep bailing.
On FR, is there any Red Wizard of Thay that doesn't deserve killing? Seriously -- I have no idea if there is or isn't. FR is like my least favorite setting of all time, lol. It is everything wrong with setting building to me (to me, not speaking for anyone else).
A moral quandary is the Evil Vampire ensures that people in the village always have plenty of food and are taken care of and their children are safe, but he also eats them (ok, ok, drinks them dry) when he gets hungry -- but if he is killed, the village will begin to starve and the people will be rendered homeless.
1. As for controversial topics, the problem is avoiding them at all costs is infantile and doesn't let anything get addressed, only left to fester.
It's also an automatic shutdown of opposition but also criticism within. It leads to purity purges within a group and radicalization.
Look, I tried writing this next part 3 times and it either just leads to too much personal info or things that get scrubbed for censorship here.
I'm just leaving it at that. The knee jerk response to call people fascist or racist, or anything without at least getting an actual proof/comment is REALLY REALLY REALLY ungood.
If you have a question what they mean, ask for clarification and draw it.out. make them say it.
Trust me, they will.
2. Your three kingdoms is basically 1984. Propaganda, the three factions, all of it..lol.
3.Evil vampire is what I'd love to see, but I see it going either 1 or 2 ways: 1. Players do what players do and kill vampire cause evil, 2. Get frustrated. Possibly get past it, but will probably go for #1 and say they had no choice and something about railroading....
any time you start to talk about Dungeons you should always introduce a definition of it, because after all, the term comes from the name for a castle, slightly deprecated to refer to the jail of a keep by mid 20th century. "Goin to the dungeon, dearie" Jas said as he grabbed his cap. "Prithee the Lord dun take mah hands!".
Note as well the shift in language around what was once called Modules and is now called Adventures.
Note that under the definition you provide, there is no adventure that cannot be called a Dungeon, even a Hexcrawl, which is historically used to describe the act of exploring a place, with anywhere you go you are tracking movement on an area by area, where each area is defined with stuff that happens there which may include traps, monsters, finding treasure, meeting someone interesting or what have you, butis typically considered distinct from a dungeon.
Note that I disagree, mind, just pointing it out. However, in so doing I will note that Dungeons, then, include every published Adventure, ever, and that they are not separated from moral quandaries or grey area issues or the assertion that folks just want or don't want to slice their way through things.
So far as I can tell, 1e B/X or BECMI adventures were called Dungeon Modules while 1e AD&D stuff was called Game Adventures or Adventure Modules. In either case the transition took place during 1st edition, so its not like they were called Modules until 5e came out or something, they have been adventure modules since 1e.
Not trying to make a point or anything, just an interesting factoid that has no bearing on anything other than the fact I had never noticed it before :)
I do think there is a subtle distinction between a Hex Crawl and a Dungeon Crawl, at least in 1e B/X there were two distinct mechanics that worked differently. For overland travel, you had Wilderness Adventures and Seafaring Adventure rules, while for Dungeons you had Dungeon Adventure Rules. It had mostly to do with the sort of activities you could do during a "turn", which in an overland adventure was essentially a day while in a dungeon was 10 minutes. Still general process was the same, you explored, dealt with whatever was listed in the area, had random encounters etc...
Procedurally hex crawls and dungeon crawls were a little different but I can't think of a published hex crawl adventure that didn't also include a dungeon to explore. Even stuff like Test of the Warlord which was primarily focused on Hex Crawling, politics and Kingdom building had several dungeons to explore.
But lets limit the concept of a Dungeon to "something underground". Even under that definition, can anyone name an adventure module without a dungeon?
Won't speak to B/X (because BECMI adopted the AD&D format), but the official term for the published items was Modules until 3e arrived.
Most modules were often described as "an adventure for # to # characters of levels #-#", but the name of them was modules. Wizards is the one who reset that to Adventures (which, really, makes sense).
I presume a Cellar or basement would count as "underground for purposes of identifying something?
Also, note that some of the books are actually collections of adventures -- and those individual ones would count.
If basements and cellars don't count, then "Reach for the Stars" from Golden Vault would qualify.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Won't speak to B/X (because BECMI adopted the AD&D format), but the official term for the published items was Modules until 3e arrived.
Most modules were often described as "an adventure for # to # characters of levels #-#", but the name of them was modules. Wizards is the one who reset that to Adventures (which, really, makes sense).
I presume a Cellar or basement would count as "underground for purposes of identifying something?
Also, note that some of the books are actually collections of adventures -- and those individual ones would count.
If basements and cellars don't count, then "Reach for the Stars" from Golden Vault would qualify.
Not that it actually matters, not even sure why I'm arguing this but that is factually incorrect.
B/X adventures were called Dungeon Modules
1st edition adventures were called Fantasy Adventure Modules
2nd- present-day adventures were called simply Adventures
So it was actually TSR that renamed it Adventures not Wizards of the Coast
If basements and cellars don't count, then "Reach for the Stars" from Golden Vault would qualify.
I think its about as close as we are going to get, though you peaked my interest, I might have to get this one
On complex, potentially controversial, possibly political stories/dungeon/adventures/settings.
This isn't to call out anyone here specifically. I have seen many threads, across different forums, on Reddit on private groups, and so forth and there is a strong, substantial minority of players (and yes, I am saying that correctly) who consistently assert that D&D no longer allows for there to be these "dark", "morally questionable", "edgy" things.
That's poppycock. WotC won't publish certain things themselves, but they did publish "let's all go to hell and drive armed dune buggies around". Anyone who has played both the original Curse of Strahd and the current Curse of Strahd will tell you they made Strahd more questionable, more powerful, and gave him a whole new layer of stuff in that vein. Yes, they have "fixed the Vistani" in order to avoid the issue with the Roma, but it is a partial fix, and to argue that 5e is now "free of racism" is both ignorant and asinine.
It is laughable to me that folks confuse things like "all the people of this sort should have X score because C" and "No kind of people are inherently evil" with everything suddenly being a moral challenge about "Should I walk into that Goblin's house and kill them and take their stuff?".
"But Wizards won't do it". Sorry, but if you want something that looks different from FR, stop bleeping looking to wizards for it, because it aint gonna happen. That's the old man shouting at the wind in action right there, unless one is not a man or old, in which case one is merely acting like it. WotC won't do that because it needs to keep growing the population of people who play the game, and the ore of that stuff you have, the smaller your market size will be. That's it.
That doesn't mean that it cannot be done. Or that it isn't being done.
In a particular world there are three kingdoms. At the border of these three kingdoms lies a salt mine. Kingdom Abba says to its soldiers that Kingdom Baab and Kingdom Shiv are filled with nothing but the lowest form of scum, evil through and through. The other two kingdoms do the same.
A group of adventurers from different backgrounds meets up. Two are from each of the three kingdoms. They all see through the propaganda, but more importantly, they all understand that their party members aren't like the rest of those other people from those kingdoms.
That's a really basic set up with some peculiar details that establishes a lot of stuff (not just D&D, but also, for example, star wars) from pretty much any form or fashion of entertainment produced since 1980 for mainstream audiences. 1980 matters because it was the end of the first backlash to the Civil Rights Act.
That's how D&D currently handles it. Let me point out that the above *is crammed full of bad*. Life sucks, grab yer bucket, keep bailing.
On FR, is there any Red Wizard of Thay that doesn't deserve killing? Seriously -- I have no idea if there is or isn't. FR is like my least favorite setting of all time, lol. It is everything wrong with setting building to me (to me, not speaking for anyone else).
A moral quandary is the Evil Vampire ensures that people in the village always have plenty of food and are taken care of and their children are safe, but he also eats them (ok, ok, drinks them dry) when he gets hungry -- but if he is killed, the village will begin to starve and the people will be rendered homeless.
1. As for controversial topics, the problem is avoiding them at all costs is infantile and doesn't let anything get addressed, only left to fester.
It's also an automatic shutdown of opposition but also criticism within. It leads to purity purges within a group and radicalization.
Look, I tried writing this next part 3 times and it either just leads to too much personal info or things that get scrubbed for censorship here.
I'm just leaving it at that. The knee jerk response to call people fascist or racist, or anything without at least getting an actual proof/comment is REALLY REALLY REALLY ungood.
If you have a question what they mean, ask for clarification and draw it.out. make them say it.
Trust me, they will.
2. Your three kingdoms is basically 1984. Propaganda, the three factions, all of it..lol.
3.Evil vampire is what I'd love to see, but I see it going either 1 or 2 ways: 1. Players do what players do and kill vampire cause evil, 2. Get frustrated. Possibly get past it, but will probably go for #1 and say they had no choice and something about railroading....
That whole issue of "avoiding stuff" though, actually has a rule in 5e, you know. The Zero Session. The core premise is to discuss what players in a game will and will not have an issue with. Since this is all within the context of "in a game", of course, it is usually far less stressful.
THe forums, however, well, they are not so much, and there is an excellent primer on the method of operations for the larger structural nature of such things in action.
I can say that I have never used either of those terms in a knee jerk way. But I know many who do (often the very people the terms are flung at most often). However, you are wise to have avoided more, Time and Place -- neither is now.
And of course they will. It is one of my gifts to bring it out, lol. I just rarely have the patience for it anymore because I've been doing it since I was 5.
Two
Not just 1984. Star Trek, Star Wars, Krull (been dying to make that reference) -- hell, you can likely grab any major work of speculative fiction and while the third kingdom may be offscreen, they still exist. It is a certain way to handle such "problem children" that derives from the significant lack of awareness on the part of the layfolk on the function and operation of these social systems (Gender, Race, Sexuality, Social Role, Religion, Capability, et alia) at a level above the personal that perpetuates them, and in doing, has been co-opted by those very forces to further its purposes, lol.
Imagine my joy watching tv shows -- I can't *not* see it.
Three
A way that you may not have seen is that players will opt to make the three week journey to the nearest noble, ask for him to grant them the estates if they can overcome the deep and abiding evil and take the oath to care for the peasants, then journey back with an entire wagon train of supplies and start a year long side quest to be Robin Hoods.
They *did* kill the Vamp, but they also gained a base, a host of loyal followers, and immense renown. Then they gave it to the family that helped them, lol.
Always remember players will never do what you expect them to do, lol. And it was a SIDE QUEST!
THe miserable rotten stinkin...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Won't speak to B/X (because BECMI adopted the AD&D format), but the official term for the published items was Modules until 3e arrived.
Most modules were often described as "an adventure for # to # characters of levels #-#", but the name of them was modules. Wizards is the one who reset that to Adventures (which, really, makes sense).
I presume a Cellar or basement would count as "underground for purposes of identifying something?
Also, note that some of the books are actually collections of adventures -- and those individual ones would count.
If basements and cellars don't count, then "Reach for the Stars" from Golden Vault would qualify.
Not that it actually matters, not even sure why I'm arguing this but that is factually incorrect.
B/X adventures were called Dungeon Modules
1st edition adventures were called Fantasy Adventure Modules
2nd- present-day adventures were called simply Adventures
So it was actually TSR that renamed it Adventures not Wizards of the Coast
If basements and cellars don't count, then "Reach for the Stars" from Golden Vault would qualify.
I think its about as close as we are going to get, though you peaked my interest, I might have to get this one
I could go deeper on the naming (because many B/X didn't even have a designation properly, but AD&D did) but nah...
Golden Vault is...
interesting. The central conceit is a series of heists, at least two very obviously inspired by mission impossible films (early ones). Not really any new mechanics, an interesting choice in one to place a casino in a series of caves (that can easily moved to a surface level), A surface adventure with a "1 room dungeon" inside a crystal worn around the neck of a noblewoman, and some pleasant idea driving stuff.
I'm unlikely to use them as written -- even localized -- but some of them have some interesting ideas I am quite fond of (especially since I have a planned later adventure based on the four modern Ocean's movies plus the original).
I give it a 6/10, but I note that I am grudging and biased, and my highest rating for a current published adventure is a 7, which is Curse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
On complex, potentially controversial, possibly political stories/dungeon/adventures/settings.
This isn't to call out anyone here specifically. I have seen many threads, across different forums, on Reddit on private groups, and so forth and there is a strong, substantial minority of players (and yes, I am saying that correctly) who consistently assert that D&D no longer allows for there to be these "dark", "morally questionable", "edgy" things.
That's poppycock. WotC won't publish certain things themselves, but they did publish "let's all go to hell and drive armed dune buggies around". Anyone who has played both the original Curse of Strahd and the current Curse of Strahd will tell you they made Strahd more questionable, more powerful, and gave him a whole new layer of stuff in that vein. Yes, they have "fixed the Vistani" in order to avoid the issue with the Roma, but it is a partial fix, and to argue that 5e is now "free of racism" is both ignorant and asinine.
It is laughable to me that folks confuse things like "all the people of this sort should have X score because C" and "No kind of people are inherently evil" with everything suddenly being a moral challenge about "Should I walk into that Goblin's house and kill them and take their stuff?".
"But Wizards won't do it". Sorry, but if you want something that looks different from FR, stop bleeping looking to wizards for it, because it aint gonna happen. That's the old man shouting at the wind in action right there, unless one is not a man or old, in which case one is merely acting like it. WotC won't do that because it needs to keep growing the population of people who play the game, and the ore of that stuff you have, the smaller your market size will be. That's it.
That doesn't mean that it cannot be done. Or that it isn't being done.
In a particular world there are three kingdoms. At the border of these three kingdoms lies a salt mine. Kingdom Abba says to its soldiers that Kingdom Baab and Kingdom Shiv are filled with nothing but the lowest form of scum, evil through and through. The other two kingdoms do the same.
A group of adventurers from different backgrounds meets up. Two are from each of the three kingdoms. They all see through the propaganda, but more importantly, they all understand that their party members aren't like the rest of those other people from those kingdoms.
That's a really basic set up with some peculiar details that establishes a lot of stuff (not just D&D, but also, for example, star wars) from pretty much any form or fashion of entertainment produced since 1980 for mainstream audiences. 1980 matters because it was the end of the first backlash to the Civil Rights Act.
That's how D&D currently handles it. Let me point out that the above *is crammed full of bad*. Life sucks, grab yer bucket, keep bailing.
On FR, is there any Red Wizard of Thay that doesn't deserve killing? Seriously -- I have no idea if there is or isn't. FR is like my least favorite setting of all time, lol. It is everything wrong with setting building to me (to me, not speaking for anyone else).
A moral quandary is the Evil Vampire ensures that people in the village always have plenty of food and are taken care of and their children are safe, but he also eats them (ok, ok, drinks them dry) when he gets hungry -- but if he is killed, the village will begin to starve and the people will be rendered homeless.
1. As for controversial topics, the problem is avoiding them at all costs is infantile and doesn't let anything get addressed, only left to fester.
It's also an automatic shutdown of opposition but also criticism within. It leads to purity purges within a group and radicalization.
Look, I tried writing this next part 3 times and it either just leads to too much personal info or things that get scrubbed for censorship here.
I'm just leaving it at that. The knee jerk response to call people fascist or racist, or anything without at least getting an actual proof/comment is REALLY REALLY REALLY ungood.
If you have a question what they mean, ask for clarification and draw it.out. make them say it.
Trust me, they will.
2. Your three kingdoms is basically 1984. Propaganda, the three factions, all of it..lol.
3.Evil vampire is what I'd love to see, but I see it going either 1 or 2 ways: 1. Players do what players do and kill vampire cause evil, 2. Get frustrated. Possibly get past it, but will probably go for #1 and say they had no choice and something about railroading....
That whole issue of "avoiding stuff" though, actually has a rule in 5e, you know. The Zero Session. The core premise is to discuss what players in a game will and will not have an issue with. Since this is all within the context of "in a game", of course, it is usually far less stressful.
THe forums, however, well, they are not so much, and there is an excellent primer on the method of operations for the larger structural nature of such things in action.
I can say that I have never used either of those terms in a knee jerk way. But I know many who do (often the very people the terms are flung at most often). However, you are wise to have avoided more, Time and Place -- neither is now.
And of course they will. It is one of my gifts to bring it out, lol. I just rarely have the patience for it anymore because I've been doing it since I was 5.
Two
Not just 1984. Star Trek, Star Wars, Krull (been dying to make that reference) -- hell, you can likely grab any major work of speculative fiction and while the third kingdom may be offscreen, they still exist. It is a certain way to handle such "problem children" that derives from the significant lack of awareness on the part of the layfolk on the function and operation of these social systems (Gender, Race, Sexuality, Social Role, Religion, Capability, et alia) at a level above the personal that perpetuates them, and in doing, has been co-opted by those very forces to further its purposes, lol.
Imagine my joy watching tv shows -- I can't *not* see it.
Three
A way that you may not have seen is that players will opt to make the three week journey to the nearest noble, ask for him to grant them the estates if they can overcome the deep and abiding evil and take the oath to care for the peasants, then journey back with an entire wagon train of supplies and start a year long side quest to be Robin Hoods.
They *did* kill the Vamp, but they also gained a base, a host of loyal followers, and immense renown. Then they gave it to the family that helped them, lol.
Always remember players will never do what you expect them to do, lol. And it was a SIDE QUEST!
THe miserable rotten stinkin...
I have yet to see 3. Your players are far less prone to mayhem..... or at least property damage....lol
It does help that I have table rules for the use of Hero Points and Inspiration, include renown and piety, and that all of it has a real impact.
Of course, it also means I get stuff like the Barb leaping off the keep wall into a pack of wolves while the Rogue is tearing through the keep looking for the coffin, and the Cleric is watching the mage trade spells with the Vamp (simplified example of real events) -- they have no problem splitting up and driving me mad trying to keep it all straight.
On the other hand, they always bring "sunlight" spells with them now, Just in case, you know.
Those Zero Sessions are how we do character creation -- as a group. Also how we avoid the railroading factor in getting them all together: we do a single session of pure role playing where they have to figure out how they all meet. Then at the start of the first session there is a time jump, and they start wherever I dump them with whatever flimsy ass reason I give them for why they are there.
Next campaign starts in the middle of a sand sea.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I would only add..... and that's ok
Like I wouldn't want anyone to think that I or anyone else has some right to proclaim how "it should be", but I do think conversations in which we are dishonest about "how it is" are equally unhelpful because it's quite natural for our reflections to be colored by our perspective on the game.
I think the problem with conversations about D&D in general is that everyone's experience is different and on a deeper level, even people who come from the same group and game session and have the same experiences, have a different perspective on what those experiences were/are and how they would describe them.
Like I could go to my players and ask them "what was last week's session about" and I'm going to get five distinctively different answers that will barely be related, it would sound like these guys played 5 completely different games. There is no "truth" that can be discerned from that about what really happened or what it was really about. But I did DM the game, I know as an objective fact that they crawled around in a jungle ruin, looted the place and then started 3 fights they could have avoided very much on purpose because they wanted the fight. Like.. that is objectively what actually happened in the session, but if I confronted them with that truth they would all argue with me.
I don't know if it makes any sense but its sort of like asking two guys to describe a painting. They are both looking at the same thing, but they see totally different things. Only the artist actually knows what the painting is. It then begs the question, is anyone right? That is what it's like trying to get people to describe what D&D is about. Everyone has their own take.... there is a bottom line, the guys who wrote the stuff know exactly what it's about but despite that, they still aren't an authority on the subject as they can't really control what people that use what they created see.
So this debate.. how much of the game is Dungeon crawling for example. Yeah.. for some its 100%, for a guy in the same group sitting next to the guy who thinks its a 100% its 0%. Who is right? I think the answer is.. both of them or maybe its 50%? split the difference? I have no idea, your guess is as good as mine.
What I do know is what my experience with D&D is and what D&D is to me and I also know that everyone who thinks they know what my experience with D&D is and what D&D is about for me, is 100% wrong.
It's fair to say that.
There's also different levels of skill, and one of the things to consider is that not many people are good at the role play.
Even though I'm not the best, throughout high school I definitely was the kid that got bullied a lot and whom everyone considered weird and creepy, and I just learned to lean into it, taking whatever weird things they thought my personal life was like, (I worked not one but two 20 hour part time jobs so not much of a life really), and how st spinning the most fantastical bullshit from it.
Somehow being tired and groggy from a late night washing dishes would turn into everyone thinking I was some sort of necromancer channelling the dead and speaking in Latin or German... lol... (Why is it always those two languages??)
It's a skill that's useful when it comes to games like this... plus the aforementioned love of stories.
But not everyone is like that. Even the theater people have their own hangups, becoming drama queens for a piece of the spotlight, etc.
But mostly people are just inexperienced, and I think that is why they do the dungeon crawl style of play as well. And why they shy from RP.
Hell, as I said, my first d&d was walking into a bar with my sword in me and I promptly got knocked out for not remembering to abide by custom.
It's not disregarding everything I said before but another reason why dungeon crawls persist. (And remember, all this is because someone said the dungeon crawl is dead).
My group is a bit large but not everyone shows.l, so for myself, I like to send a recap out to all players of the previous session. Typically I try to take the chaos of the night prior and weave it into a coherent synopsis while it's fresh in my head, and give some players and characters a bit more polish and shine and paint it in the best light. It makes players feel better and more confident. Hopefully one day they'll decide to search for clues than burst through doors and bum rush as a first response.
I AM tempted to one day have the police show up when they do that, and the villain to get away....
No, it really isn't. What you have to fix isn't whether the contents are "monsters". What you have to fix is whether the contents are "minding their own business".
None of this prevents dungeon crawls. What it prevents is static dungeons. The reason you rush into Xanathar's lair and beat him up isn't because he's a monster, it's because he's got minions out there killing, stealing, kidnapping people for his personal arena fights, replacing people's brains, etc.
But why does that justify you smashing in doors, chasing after him on the whims of what some guy in a bar might say?
If he's doing all this is the middle of a city, what does that tell you about that city and it's inhabitants?.
It's not much different than a goblin party that raids.
In fact, being xanathar and humanized (remember his goldfish), makes him sympathetic too. His book on everything means he shouldn't be viewed as a monster to just set out to destroy everything.
Nihiloor is not just a mind flayer in service to an elder brain but an individual working for xanathar. He himself has agency, interests and fields of study and a modicum of what we call "humanity".
I'm not trying to be overly pendantic, but the lore has humanized a lot of these villains. More so than just saying "yeah, so goblins are people" (let's skip the comments about goblins being a race allegory for them moment. I get that. It's not the point I'm making).
There's a certain dehumanization or black and white morality needed to justify just taking down xanathar or some of his named minions.
Both come from the same emotional place, and regardless of who or what you put in there, it's doing to create limitations, and some of those limitations are going to be that you can only stray so far from black/white morality or you can only really kill the non-humanoid, non-intelligent creatures.
EDIT: I'm sorry. I misread what I'm responding to.
Yeah, motive is a huge part of it too. I was reading it as goblins because goblins and xanathar cause he's just xanathar. Both be doing what they usually do and seemingly unbothered by local law enforcement.
Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you, to claim Dungeon Crawls are dead is more a statement of desire and/or some sort of weird attempt at gatekeeping. It's objectively false.
One of the things 5e actually does really well is taking old classic dungeon adventures and modernizing them. Ghost of Saltmarshes is an awesome remake. Definitely, the best Castle Ravenloft I have seen, better than the original, Princes of the Apocalypse is great sandbox dungeon crawl, pretty much everything in the Tales from the Yawning Portal, The Mad Mage is a freaking super dungeon, Rime of the Frostmaiden I just got...don't want to spoil it but yeah, good dungeon crawling in that one and of course Lost Mines of Phandelver and of course can't not mention the Tomb of Annihilation.
I mean, I don't know how anyone can play 5e and claim there are no dungeon crawls... can anyone actually name a 5e adventure without a dungeon? I mean I don't have all the books as many of them really didn't speak to me conceptually but I don't see any signs of any such thing.
Semantics.. but sure.
That's..... everybody. In day to day life, that's literally everybody all the time, 24/7.
"I'm justified in taking cookies out of the cookie jar because Mary in accounting did it first."
"That person who cut me off is an evil jerk face who kicks puppies. (The unsaid part is that I wasn't in the wrong by not paying attention myself...)"
"I hate the people who support the other political party because they are mean and want to make me do things I don't like..."
In groups out groups, choosing factions, simplifying our morality to make it easier....
Every day. All day.
*yawns, stretches, smacks, scratches under boob*
Mornin all...
Endless Quest series, an entire product line. Rose Estes was the editor for the book line that was one of TSR's most profitable products. She saw an example of CYOA style effort, thought it was wonderful, told her boss we should do these. He ignored her. Eventually he said "just write it yourself.
So she did. The first six Endless Quest books outsold *every other product TSR produced*. In all 36 books were created, and the last official TSR products were Endless Quest books.
any time you start to talk about Dungeons you should always introduce a definition of it, because after all, the term comes from the name for a castle, slightly deprecated to refer to the jail of a keep by mid 20th century. "Goin to the dungeon, dearie" Jas said as he grabbed his cap. "Prithee the Lord dun take mah hands!".
Note as well the shift in language around what was once called Modules and is now called Adventures.
Note that under the definition you provide, there is no adventure that cannot be called a Dungeon, even a Hexcrawl, which is historically used to describe the act of exploring a place, with anywhere you go you are tracking movement on an area by area, where each area is defined with stuff that happens there which may include traps, monsters, finding treasure, meeting someone interesting or what have you, but is typically considered distinct from a dungeon.
Note that I disagree, mind, just pointing it out. However, in so doing I will note that Dungeons, then, include every published Adventure, ever, and that they are not separated from moral quandaries or grey area issues or the assertion that folks just want or don't want to slice their way through things.
This isn't to call out anyone here specifically. I have seen many threads, across different forums, on Reddit on private groups, and so forth and there is a strong, substantial minority of players (and yes, I am saying that correctly) who consistently assert that D&D no longer allows for there to be these "dark", "morally questionable", "edgy" things.
That's poppycock. WotC won't publish certain things themselves, but they did publish "let's all go to hell and drive armed dune buggies around". Anyone who has played both the original Curse of Strahd and the current Curse of Strahd will tell you they made Strahd more questionable, more powerful, and gave him a whole new layer of stuff in that vein. Yes, they have "fixed the Vistani" in order to avoid the issue with the Roma, but it is a partial fix, and to argue that 5e is now "free of racism" is both ignorant and asinine.
It is laughable to me that folks confuse things like "all the people of this sort should have X score because C" and "No kind of people are inherently evil" with everything suddenly being a moral challenge about "Should I walk into that Goblin's house and kill them and take their stuff?".
"But Wizards won't do it". Sorry, but if you want something that looks different from FR, stop bleeping looking to wizards for it, because it aint gonna happen. That's the old man shouting at the wind in action right there, unless one is not a man or old, in which case one is merely acting like it. WotC won't do that because it needs to keep growing the population of people who play the game, and the ore of that stuff you have, the smaller your market size will be. That's it.
That doesn't mean that it cannot be done. Or that it isn't being done.
There are a host of guides about "how to identify a fascist". Now, what if you took those guides, and used them to create a culture? Make it an empire. Use those philosophies an value systems, those ideals and Vices and made them the things that culture takes pride in, values. Have them spy on each other, have them do all the nasty stuff that you can think of. Do it with all the negative, horrible things you have heard about other political groups. It isn't hard. Hell, its easier to do than mashing two or three different cultures together to make something new. And you get an evil kingdom for your world. Then add in a resistance and a place where those who escaped those "terrible horrible places" can go and be free. bam, you have a place of evil and those who come from there are probably going to be evil or seen as evil and they could be of any species.
That's a really basic set up with some peculiar details that establishes a lot of stuff (not just D&D, but also, for example, star wars) from pretty much any form or fashion of entertainment produced since 1980 for mainstream audiences. 1980 matters because it was the end of the first backlash to the Civil Rights Act.
That's how D&D currently handles it. Let me point out that the above *is crammed full of bad*. Life sucks, grab yer bucket, keep bailing.
On FR, is there any Red Wizard of Thay that doesn't deserve killing? Seriously -- I have no idea if there is or isn't. FR is like my least favorite setting of all time, lol. It is everything wrong with setting building to me (to me, not speaking for anyone else).
A moral quandary is the Evil Vampire ensures that people in the village always have plenty of food and are taken care of and their children are safe, but he also eats them (ok, ok, drinks them dry) when he gets hungry -- but if he is killed, the village will begin to starve and the people will be rendered homeless.
That's an adventure WotC would publish.
Calling it a dungeon? Sure.
Edit: Oddly enough, this is not a graded nor formal (and therefore paid for) inquiry. As such, citations are not required -- additionally, relying on citations is bad form, as it is presumed that participants on a forum access via the internet have access to the internet and the wit to effectively search for relevant facts on their bleeping own, not to mention that doing so is calling to authority. Also, i will personally attest to experienced racism from said individual.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Having loose standards of evidence is a rather common component of adventure fiction. You could probably turn W:DH into a police procedural, but it would be a very different module.
I'm not asking for a police procedural, but it's awfully funny how the first person an adventurer sees seems to always have a very clear "go beat these guys up" quest, and you're just taking them at their word...
And that somehow your adventurers never have an issue just rolling up to some Noble's house and busting down the door and beating the crap out of people.
At least that was my original point in that quoted text, and it was to point out player actions and their in game preferences as to how to play.
So far as I can tell, 1e B/X or BECMI adventures were called Dungeon Modules while 1e AD&D stuff was called Game Adventures or Adventure Modules. In either case the transition took place during 1st edition, so its not like they were called Modules until 5e came out or something, they have been adventure modules since 1e.
Not trying to make a point or anything, just an interesting factoid that has no bearing on anything other than the fact I had never noticed it before :)
I do think there is a subtle distinction between a Hex Crawl and a Dungeon Crawl, at least in 1e B/X there were two distinct mechanics that worked differently. For overland travel, you had Wilderness Adventures and Seafaring Adventure rules, while for Dungeons you had Dungeon Adventure Rules. It had mostly to do with the sort of activities you could do during a "turn", which in an overland adventure was essentially a day while in a dungeon was 10 minutes. Still general process was the same, you explored, dealt with whatever was listed in the area, had random encounters etc...
Procedurally hex crawls and dungeon crawls were a little different but I can't think of a published hex crawl adventure that didn't also include a dungeon to explore. Even stuff like Test of the Warlord which was primarily focused on Hex Crawling, politics and Kingdom building had several dungeons to explore.
But lets limit the concept of a Dungeon to "something underground". Even under that definition, can anyone name an adventure module without a dungeon?
Oh sure. A lot of adventures are still quite dubious in their morality, but they at least make a gesture, rather than the plot hook just being "You should go beat these guys up because they have valuable stuff you can steal".
1. As for controversial topics, the problem is avoiding them at all costs is infantile and doesn't let anything get addressed, only left to fester.
It's also an automatic shutdown of opposition but also criticism within. It leads to purity purges within a group and radicalization.
Look, I tried writing this next part 3 times and it either just leads to too much personal info or things that get scrubbed for censorship here.
I'm just leaving it at that. The knee jerk response to call people fascist or racist, or anything without at least getting an actual proof/comment is REALLY REALLY REALLY ungood.
If you have a question what they mean, ask for clarification and draw it.out. make them say it.
Trust me, they will.
2. Your three kingdoms is basically 1984. Propaganda, the three factions, all of it..lol.
3.Evil vampire is what I'd love to see, but I see it going either 1 or 2 ways: 1. Players do what players do and kill vampire cause evil, 2. Get frustrated. Possibly get past it, but will probably go for #1 and say they had no choice and something about railroading....
Won't speak to B/X (because BECMI adopted the AD&D format), but the official term for the published items was Modules until 3e arrived.
Most modules were often described as "an adventure for # to # characters of levels #-#", but the name of them was modules. Wizards is the one who reset that to Adventures (which, really, makes sense).
I presume a Cellar or basement would count as "underground for purposes of identifying something?
Also, note that some of the books are actually collections of adventures -- and those individual ones would count.
If basements and cellars don't count, then "Reach for the Stars" from Golden Vault would qualify.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Not that it actually matters, not even sure why I'm arguing this but that is factually incorrect.
B/X adventures were called Dungeon Modules
1st edition adventures were called Fantasy Adventure Modules
2nd- present-day adventures were called simply Adventures
So it was actually TSR that renamed it Adventures not Wizards of the Coast
I think its about as close as we are going to get, though you peaked my interest, I might have to get this one
That whole issue of "avoiding stuff" though, actually has a rule in 5e, you know. The Zero Session. The core premise is to discuss what players in a game will and will not have an issue with. Since this is all within the context of "in a game", of course, it is usually far less stressful.
THe forums, however, well, they are not so much, and there is an excellent primer on the method of operations for the larger structural nature of such things in action.
I can say that I have never used either of those terms in a knee jerk way. But I know many who do (often the very people the terms are flung at most often). However, you are wise to have avoided more, Time and Place -- neither is now.
And of course they will. It is one of my gifts to bring it out, lol. I just rarely have the patience for it anymore because I've been doing it since I was 5.
Two
Not just 1984. Star Trek, Star Wars, Krull (been dying to make that reference) -- hell, you can likely grab any major work of speculative fiction and while the third kingdom may be offscreen, they still exist. It is a certain way to handle such "problem children" that derives from the significant lack of awareness on the part of the layfolk on the function and operation of these social systems (Gender, Race, Sexuality, Social Role, Religion, Capability, et alia) at a level above the personal that perpetuates them, and in doing, has been co-opted by those very forces to further its purposes, lol.
Imagine my joy watching tv shows -- I can't *not* see it.
Three
A way that you may not have seen is that players will opt to make the three week journey to the nearest noble, ask for him to grant them the estates if they can overcome the deep and abiding evil and take the oath to care for the peasants, then journey back with an entire wagon train of supplies and start a year long side quest to be Robin Hoods.
They *did* kill the Vamp, but they also gained a base, a host of loyal followers, and immense renown. Then they gave it to the family that helped them, lol.
Always remember players will never do what you expect them to do, lol. And it was a SIDE QUEST!
THe miserable rotten stinkin...
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I could go deeper on the naming (because many B/X didn't even have a designation properly, but AD&D did) but nah...
Golden Vault is...
interesting. The central conceit is a series of heists, at least two very obviously inspired by mission impossible films (early ones). Not really any new mechanics, an interesting choice in one to place a casino in a series of caves (that can easily moved to a surface level), A surface adventure with a "1 room dungeon" inside a crystal worn around the neck of a noblewoman, and some pleasant idea driving stuff.
I'm unlikely to use them as written -- even localized -- but some of them have some interesting ideas I am quite fond of (especially since I have a planned later adventure based on the four modern Ocean's movies plus the original).
I give it a 6/10, but I note that I am grudging and biased, and my highest rating for a current published adventure is a 7, which is Curse.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I have yet to see 3. Your players are far less prone to mayhem..... or at least property damage....lol
Nah, they wreck everything. Point of pride.
It does help that I have table rules for the use of Hero Points and Inspiration, include renown and piety, and that all of it has a real impact.
Of course, it also means I get stuff like the Barb leaping off the keep wall into a pack of wolves while the Rogue is tearing through the keep looking for the coffin, and the Cleric is watching the mage trade spells with the Vamp (simplified example of real events) -- they have no problem splitting up and driving me mad trying to keep it all straight.
On the other hand, they always bring "sunlight" spells with them now, Just in case, you know.
Those Zero Sessions are how we do character creation -- as a group. Also how we avoid the railroading factor in getting them all together: we do a single session of pure role playing where they have to figure out how they all meet. Then at the start of the first session there is a time jump, and they start wherever I dump them with whatever flimsy ass reason I give them for why they are there.
Next campaign starts in the middle of a sand sea.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
DM? Check
Having fun with D&D? Check
Players having fun with D&D? Check
Are they having fun for the "right reason"? Question does not compute, we're all having fun, there is no right or wrong reason about it
Find my D&D Beyond articles here