Hi all first post here. I joined to discuss a dungeons and dragons predicament I find myself in, in hopes for some advice on my course of action.

I recently got back in to DnD and ran the Lost Mine's of Phandelver as the DM for a group of new players. Overall we had some good moments. One of the players invited me over to another group to be a player with a different DM. I was interested in getting involved as a player and so rolled a half-elf ranger and developed myself enough backstory to give my character some personality and some interesting hooks for the DM if they wanted to incorporate them.

Cutting across to the first session I've become aware now that this game is a homebrew campaign story setup to be a series of one-shots. Where we have no agency to go anywhere but where we are told. Which in this case is straight to the tavern where conversation is fruitless because in the morning our destination is predetermined. Our travel is described in a few sentences and we are dropped at the entrance to a dungeon.

The dungeon itself is a one way coil with only one direction to truly travel, filled with some interesting encounters and traps. Ending with a boss fight.

Overall, the first dungeon wasn't terrible, it was pretty fun. However. After a discussion about why we weren't able to travel the DM has told me the whole game is going to be this way. One shot after one shot. We're expected to finish each dungeon in the session time (I felt them hurry us along at the end of the first). Travel is pointless to them as we're not going to be able to pick the destination or make meaningful choices. As such they're not bothering with hunger, ammo tracking weight etc. This makes my well thought out ranger who loves the wild seem a bit neutered.

Essentially they've turned Dungeon's and Dragons in to a dungeon combat simulator video game and want to tell their story this way over months.

My question for anyone here is, have you ever played in a setup such as I'm describing and what would you do in this situation?

This is a valid style of play (one shot, single session dungeons that is), but that doesn't stop it not being to your tastes, or the tastes of your fellow players. No one is in the wrong, but what might be needed is some communication.

Maybe have a chat as a group about what kind of experience you all want from the game. The DM may want to run a 'dungeon of the week' format, but you and your fellow players might want something different. However, if you don't tell your DM that (in a non-confrontational/judgemental way), they're not to know.

Sometimes expectations misalign and it means there's friction/pain points in the game. Discuss them and see if a compromise can be found; maybe the DM can change their campaign strategy. Maybe they can't/won't and you as players have to decide between accepting that and playing on, or maybe one of you offers to DM instead, running a style more in keeping with what the group wants?

A lot of issues at the table can be resolved through communication. And those that can't, well no D&D is better than bad D&D, and a lot of friendships could be spared suffering if people were more willing to respectfully and kindly step away from a game they don't enjoy.

Sadly, or rather thankfully, I cannot say that I've had the (mis)fortune of playing in such a game as what you've described.

Were I in your shoes, I would probably do one of two things entirely dependent on how strong the desire to be on the other side of the DM screen is:

1. Accept the one-shot nature of the campaign and enjoy the combat-centric dungeon crawls for what they are.
2. Politely recuse myself from the campaign as I do not see myself enjoying it as much as I was hoping.

I don't think there's a lot of advice that can be given here. You've already spoken to the DM and/or table about the nature of the game so ultimately it falls to you to either accept or pass. I wouldn't criticize either choice; you said you had fun with the first dungeon so the potential for enjoyment is there but, at the same time, it doesn't sound entirely like what you were hoping for.

Perhaps you could save that character and backstory for a future game wherein what you've set up, plot hooks and all, can be more included in the campaign? That's usually what I choose to do with characters that end up being used in one-shot sessions (ie. play with it but make a copy that can be used in a story-centric campaign).

Perhaps you can request the DM to provide a few options the party can choose from, like a jobs board in a tavern or town hall. They can provide descriptions of 2-3 missions, each with a reward for completion, which would give the party a little agency. I have done that even when I only had one map ready. I just changed who occupied the dungeon to fit the choice the party made.

I appreciate the replies from both of you. I was aware one-shots were a valid thing, but I'd not seen someone try to run a campaign with a story within the framework of repeated one-shots.

I think you are right, I need to talk to the DM. I've already established the nature of the game and expressed that no travel makes me feel I've made a poor character choice. I think what I'll do in this circumstance is let them know I'm not certain I'd be interested in completing a campaign of that nature but am willing to stick it out until I grow tired of it.

I'll give them the option to politely give me the boot if that's going to be a problem so they can fill my position with someone more interested.

Definitely talk to the DM.

As some have pointed out, starting "at the entrance to the dungeon" is an absolutely valid way to play D&D, and it was the *only* way most people played back in the mid-70s when the game first came out.

Single-pathway dungeons are a bit rarer, but they are tools some DMs use to make sure that the encounters happen in a particular order, which may be necessary in some circumstances. They are used a lot in CRPGs because there is no GM in a CRPG, so the designers try to make sure the player can't "break" the story by going to the last room first, and not being strong enough to beat the boss. You don't really have to do that as a human GM, but many GMs who grew up on CRPGs think that's the correct way to make a dungeon.

One-shots definitely can be more railroady than longer campaigns. After all, if the GM just made up enough for a session or 2, and the party doesn't go on that adventure, you're going to have a problem. For a one-shot, you kind of need to give in to the premise and go along, or not bother playing. 

Running a campaign of one-shots requires a little more finessing but still... if you know going in that this is a game of one-shots, you should be prepared for *some* railroading (though it doesn't have to be quite this extreme).

Published books like Candlekeep Mysteries and Tales from the Yawning Portal are written around this style of play.  They contain a series of one-shots for increasing levels of player and it is suggested they can eithrer be run as standalone one-shots or as a campaign working through them.

They do a a few advantages,

• It makes life easier for the DM, they know exactly where you are going to go so doesn't need to prepare for several possibilities and/or  think smething up on the stop as you go somewhere they hadn't anticipated. 
• If you have different players every week it isn't an issue, even with a stable group if one person can not make a week in a normal campaign you have to decide between them being magically banished to a harmless plane until the start of the next session (where for some reason they arive back with the party even though they have travelled miles in that time) or having the DM or another player role play for the missing player which can cause issues if they get killed.

Regarding picking a character

If you have a stable group where everyone comes to every session there is no need to hurry through dungeons, if you end a session just before the boss fight and the next session fight the boss go back to the tavern and start your next adventure there is no extra work for the DM but you are still being railroded.

As always in cases like this talk about it out of character do the other players prefer this playstyle? Would the DM be happy to change it if the players prefer a more open campaign it not can a suitable compremise be found?  If you find you are not enjoying the game and the rest of the group are happy with it as it is then you are better off finding another group.

Regarding wanting to be able to use your ranger's abilities again speak to your DM. "one-shot" campaigns do not have t be in dungeons, maybe a dragon is taking a lot of livestock for food and you have to track it down and deal with it. Extreme railroad would say you always go the same route but if you roll badly with your survival rolls tyou start off possibly with exhaustion or down on hit points.  In an ideal world you migh be able to find it while outside its lair or you might have to go into it etc.

I do want to add, it would be absolutely fair to go to the DM and say, "Look, I made a ranger not realizing that we weren't really going to do much wilderness activity or traveling, and I would have made a different character choice if I had known that. Can I make up a different character to replace the ranger?" 

I feel like a reasonable DM would allow that.

I cannot add anything that other people haven't already said. What a great community :)

Session Zero for the win. I get that some people find it annoying to spend time talking about how they'll be playing instead of just playing, and that there are DMs who think that certain things they might state up front could scare players off who'd otherwise put up with them or maybe not even have a problem with them at all, but it does also prevent issues like this one. As others have said, playing a series of oneshots rather than a more sandboxy game is perfectly valid and even officially supported - it's just better when the players know this beforehand.

Some groups like the standard casual dungeon crawl playstyle, so I don't think any appeal you might make the group against the playstyle is likely to gain much traction. It might just be that either this isn't the table for you, or if you're able to lower your expectations of roleplay and fun character choice and just enjoy the mindless approach, the DM might let you roll a different character that meshes with that vibe better. 

You could try pitching a more open-ended campaign where player choice matters, but if the current DM isn't interested in running that style ofv game, it might fall on your even if it is something the group is interested in. 

I will say, my friends and I had tons of fun, and did plenty of RPing along the way, with the old-style "start at the dungeon entrance and crawl through" adventures. You might like it if you give it a fair trial.

Quote from BioWizard >>

I will say, my friends and I had tons of fun, and did plenty of RPing along the way, with the old-style "start at the dungeon entrance and crawl through" adventures. You might like it if you give it a fair trial.

 In the old style, TSR D&D, a lot of what now can be (but not necessarily is) handled via a straightforward skill check was done through RP - Investigation/Perception (to find stuff) and the interpersonal skills weren't always available as shortcuts.

Quote from l0ckian>>

I appreciate the replies from both of you. I was aware one-shots were a valid thing, but I'd not seen someone try to run a campaign with a story within the framework of repeated one-shots.

This style of play is called "episodic".  Most narrative entertainment consumed in installments can be divided into "serial" and "episodic".  What a lot of folks think of with as a modern D&D campaign, they're usually thinking serial.  However, the roots of D&D and how it's often played by casual groups leans more to episodic.  You can also have episodic moment within an otherwise serial campaign, or have a serial elements in an episodic campaign.  There's also what I call picaresque play which is largely episodic though there are some running jokes keeping the episodes together.  

I think you are right, I need to talk to the DM. I've already established the nature of the game and expressed that no travel makes me feel I've made a poor character choice. I think what I'll do in this circumstance is let them know I'm not certain I'd be interested in completing a campaign of that nature but am willing to stick it out until I grow tired of it.

I'll give them the option to politely give me the boot if that's going to be a problem so they can fill my position with someone more interested.

Well, I think I'd approach the DM encounter as an opportunity to determine whether or not you have a critical role, so to speak.  Casual games like that sometimes have a need, or entertain all comers.  If they're having fun, and you're not because of you want more of modern narrative/campaign style ... that's a big ask from the DM.  If you want to clear up whether the game is always episodic and the only thing maintaining continuity is the XP and loot tally, or if there actually is an overarching story to participate in, that's how I'd start.    I mean, it's likely this group plays in an episodic beer and pretzels style, but between that play style and a flushed out character story driven narrative game ... there's a lot of madness methods a game could land in.  I did a game in another system where I played a series of what they thought were one shots (even the genres were largely different) each ending in an almost total party kill. Then on the sixth session, the survivor character sheets got redistributed and the game really started.  

Remember, railroading isn't necessarily a pejorative, even though its used as such by a lot of players.  If the game is largely tactically combat and tactical exploration focused, some railroading to "get to the good part" is essential to prevent what players keyed that way would consider "dithering".  On the narrative side of play, in media res is a perfectly legitimate game start feature that is essentially railroading. 

Lastly, as far as playing a Ranger not made for that sort of game.  There's a sorta real life tactical ethos that's basically articulated as "find a job."  Let's say I'm on some sort of team that explores confined spaces and occasionally encounters inhabitants violently opposed to the team's exploration of said confined spaces.  My speciality is actually conflict mediation and de-escalation ... but we're not here to make friends.  So I become the defacto debrief/interogator.  We develop a standard operating procedure where if we engage sentients, we keep one alive for me to talk to, to get a better sense of threats down the way.  With a Ranger in a dungeon environment, rather than think "I can't do anything" work with the game to figure out what you can stretch to give your character a role.  You're now the rigger for any climbing, descending or otherwise spelunking.  If you can't find work, at that point ask of environmental challenges which your character can take the lead on the party's negotiation.  

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

Lastly, as far as playing a Ranger not made for that sort of game.  There's a sorta real life tactical ethos that's basically articulated as "find a job."  Let's say I'm on some sort of team that explores confined spaces and occasionally encounters inhabitants violently opposed to the team's exploration of said confined spaces.  My speciality is actually conflict mediation and de-escalation ... but we're not here to make friends.  So I become the defacto debrief/interogator.  We develop a standard operating procedure where if we engage sentients, we keep one alive for me to talk to, to get a better sense of threats down the way.  With a Ranger in a dungeon environment, rather than think "I can't do anything" work with the game to figure out what you can stretch to give your character a role.  You're now the rigger for any climbing, descending or otherwise spelunking.  If you can't find work, at that point ask of environmental challenges which your character can take the lead on the party's negotiation.  

On this advice it's actually what I did end up doing, almost exactly as you've described I took up the 'job' as the rigger and used rope to avoid some traps. However I was disappointed because not only was the dungeon linear, it was void of verticality. To me it seemed like roaming around 1987's Dungeon Master (video game).

I definitely did everything in my powers to squeeze the orange juice from the orange so to speak. But left the game thinking at least the first dungeon was setup to cater to classes that excel in strictly combat. 

Edit: I just want to add for anyone reading all this that I do understand that I might be coming across as one of those players that want the game to be 'all about me'. I just want to say this isn't the case at all, I made all efforts not to impede or dissuade any one else and give them the chance to play how they wanted. Davyd is right, this style is just not to my taste and feels like everything I love about DnD has been left on the cutting room floor. I could see a larger one shot that took more than a session with more freedom and less determinism being enjoyable but it doesn't seem like that's going to be the case. I'm not even sure if we're going to come across NPCs we can actually converse with at locale as in the first session there were none.

Quote from l0ckian >>

I think you are right, I need to talk to the DM. I've already established the nature of the game and expressed that no travel makes me feel I've made a poor character choice. I think what I'll do in this circumstance is let them know I'm not certain I'd be interested in completing a campaign of that nature but am willing to stick it out until I grow tired of it.

I'll give them the option to politely give me the boot if that's going to be a problem so they can fill my position with someone more interested.

 

So here'd be my take from this:

Keep in my when reading my post, my mindset is always "Plan for the worst, hope for the best.  If you expect disappointment and receive it, it doesn't hurt nearly as much.  Any positive will be felt 10 fold"

In the event you have the DM conversation, and you find out there will be zero roleplay to get to the destinations, no character input on the story? Why put yourself through that? I never understand the concept of "Man, that shit sandwich looks amazing!  Let me eat it.  OH MY, IT TASTES LIKE SHIT, WHO KNEW?" 

I love me a good dungeon crawl, and I'm the only DM/player in my group that will jump at the chance to do a megadungeon.  Absolutely enjoy it, 10/10 would play again.  It's definitely not for everyone, and in the current scope of D&D, mega dungeons are FAR less common than they used to be simply because the game is getting more RP heavy.  Game always had RP elements, but looking at the sources for AD&D 2nd versus 3 to 3.5 to 4 and now 5th, social outcomes can resolve encounters, and now encounters in modules specifically call out hey, you can talk your way out of this fight.  Groups always did it, but now its a "valid" tactic.  It's just been expanded on as editions have grown in number.

If you're insistant on eating the shit sandwich, then my advice would be try to roleplay some of the encounters out and see how the DM reacts.  If they offer zero RP opportunities there either?  Definitely time to exit.  

We can talk about no D&D is better than bad D&D, and I mostly agree with that line.  The expansion on the ideal is sometimes, D&D is bad, but the intent wasn't to be bad it just kind of happened and sucks.  This is pre-planned D&D your taste buds won't enjoy.  Now it's not even so much you didn't know you were being given a shit sandwich, you pre-ordered it, saw it was bad, contemplated still trying it, and THEN ate it.

Kind of like the Dark Alliance game(this thread is NOT about the Dark Alliance game, don't clog up posts specifically talking about gameplay or bugs please, I'm illustrating an opinion point with something I personally consider a shit sandwich).  Cancel your shit sandwiches, people.  Don't entertain them.  Don't eat them.  Don't keep making them.

Quote from Buzzardoftheages >>

Perhaps you can request the DM to provide a few options the party can choose from, like a jobs board in a tavern or town hall. They can provide descriptions of 2-3 missions, each with a reward for completion, which would give the party a little agency. I have done that even when I only had one map ready. I just changed who occupied the dungeon to fit the choice the party made.

 The power move here is to have the Party pick from the job board at the END of the session. It makes the next session's prep MUCH easier ;-)

Honestly this simply sounds like a difference in expectations and wants.  You guys need to talk as a group and figure out what kind of game you all mutually want to play, and if there isn't one, you probably gotta find a new group or see if someone else wants to DM.