Fuck 5 room dungeons. (Or don't, I don't know what you like)

 

 

5 room dungeons fucking suck. This might seem weird coming from me, as the only tRPG content I have ever published on my itch at this point is a 5 room dungeon (the one from this blog post), but I honestly believe they do. To me, 5-room dungeons are trash and I think this for three simple reasons: 

1. They enforce a narrative structure that I think oversaturates contemporary fiction, has thus become incredibly predictable and worst of all, gets presented as 'the one true way' of writing a 'good' story by people who seem to think every movie should be like the original star wars trilogy.
   
   
2. Enforcing a narrative structure of any kind on your players is antithetical to what I enjoy about tRPGs.
   
   
3. Writing enjoyable stories, even when using prepackaged narrative sturctures, is difficult.

1. The same old story

These days, almost all big budget story production has a three act structure. Basically everyone in the english speaking world is familiar with this structure, even if they haven't seen it isolated from the media they consume. In short, the three act structure looks like this:

• Act1: Exposition: Here we learn about the characters and the world in their 'normal' state. Exposition ends with the inciting incident which disrupts this 'normal' state and causes the story to happen.
  
  
• Act 2: Build Up: Here the majority of the story takes place as the dramatic tension builds up towards a climax. Often it contains the protagonist making a choice they think is correct but the viewer knows to be wrong, accelerating the rise toward the climax.
  
  
• Act 3: Release: This is where the dramatic tension reaches a climax and is then resolved, establishing a new, or a return to the old, normal way for the world and the characters to be. 

Some people will argue that this is not so much a prescriptive template for storytelling, as it is a lense through which you can analyse media and that almost every story can be split up in these three acts. 

Though they aren't incorrect that this is how the three act structure works in media analysis classes, I think they are overlooking how often this structure is explained to people who take writing classes as if it is in fact a prescriptive model. And today, it is everywhere...

Oversaturation

I might be in the minority when I say this, but personally I think the three act structure is overdone. Everything made by disney (including marvel and pixar movies), all blockbusters, most horror movies, most romcoms, a lot of longform television (which is astounding to me, as the format seems horrible for it), most AAA video games (which, again, is weird given the format) and a saddening amount of fiction books adhere to it as if it is somesort of guarantee for success. 

Personally, I am just so tired of seeing the same story beats over and over again. The best way to illustrate this fatigue might be to recount my feelings when I started reading some of the fairy tales in the Brother's Grimm collection. They were an absolute structural  mess, often stopping at random, sometimes not even having a climax, at times having no exposition to speak off and being at their best when they are more like a string of smaller plots, earlier ones not even being relevant anymore as the story continues. And I fucking love it.

These fairy tales have their own beats (a King's word is law, princesses are prices, the younger a girl the fairer she is, things often come in threes), and it would become equally boring if all stories started to incorporate these, but their lack of respect for the three act structure was so refreshing I was slightly taken aback by how much I longed for something else. 

This might also be why I like a lot of older movies, more experimental movies and movies from non-english speaking countries as much as I do. A lot of these are also established in a tradition, which have recurring beats, and I would loath for any of them to become as prevalent as the three act structure is, but they provide a variety which is an incredible delight given the prevalence of three act structures in popular media.

Predictability

Everytime I engage with a story that is very obvious in its adherence to the three act structure it is so easy to recognise where we are in the story and what will likely happen next. Even if not all of the details of the climax can be guessed from the exposition, it is so easy to predict the inciting incident, to anticipate the 'wrong choice which will accelerate into the climax' which often feels contrived and based on that to guess what the climax is going to be like. 

And it isn't because I am out to hate on these stories, or because I am actively trying to analyse the story as I read or watch it, but it just happens. Associative thinking makes me go 'oh, guess we needed to accelerate the climax, so that is why this contrived misunderstanding was forced in'. 

Predictability is not inherently bad, but I do think that combined with oversaturation it makes the experience of these stories incredibly boring and it is one reason I think it isn't suited for tRPGs. But I'll get into that later on.

One true story

People love Star Wars. I don't know why honestly, I don't find the movies to be all that entertaining and the world seems rather bland, but people love it and there is nothing wrong with that. Some people though, seem to think that Star Wars, especially the original trilogy, is the only way to write a good story and I think this is in part because it is such an obvious version of the three act structure: If something is seemingly everywhere, some people are going to mistake it as something natural or objective instead of something culturaly determined or relative.

Herbert Marcusse makes argument about capitalism and greed in order to explain why people aren't more critical about it and, more importantly, why he believed a sudden shift to an alternative to capitalism might be doomed to fail: people aren't naturally greedy, but people raised under capitalism most certainly are. When people mistakenly say that humans are inherently greedy, they are mistaking the effects of culture, which are omnipresent in their culture, for nature. 

I think this argument applies to the three act structure as wel, especially the favourite three act structure of folks that like to 'one true way' about stories, and the one that is most explicitely linked to 5 room dungeons: The Campbellian Monomyth, aka the Heroes Journey. 

One myth to rule them all

Campbell, inspired by Jung, thought that there was a single story that pervades all cultures because it was part of our collective unconscious. This story got retold in many different ways, but to him basically always came down to the same twelve story beats:

1. Ordinary world
2. Call to adventure
3. Refusal of the call
4. Meeting the Mentor
5. Crossing the first threshhold
6. Trials, Allies and Enemies
7. Approach
8. Ordeal
9. Reward
10. Road Back
11. Ressurection
12. Return with the Elixer

The problem with Campbell, as well as Jung, is that they present this as a structure that is universal to 'good' story telling. This is because this structure, as well as the archetypes it relies on are, supposedly, hardwired in our collective subconscious, though modern defenders will not use that nebulous term and instead argue it is hardwired in our brains instead. 

This makes the Monomyth very easily coopted by people who use it to dismiss more experimental storytelling, storytelling traditions of other cultures and people (rightfully) critiquing a lot of aspects of the traditional hero's journey as problematic (especially the archetypes). 

Obviously to anyone who is familar with other story structures and acquainted people from other cultural backgrounds, the idea that you can only tell good stories if you adhere to this western invention is rediculous and arguing that it is part of our brains even more so. 

Jung's theories, on which the Monomyth relies heavily, have zero scientific backing, as there is simply no empirical evidence to support his claims. Which isn't weird, psychology has made huge strides ever since he and Freud wrote their theories based on annecdotal evidence. 

And the Monomyth, though popular among writers, is in academic spheres not considered to be the 'one true way' of writing a good story. To name just one very well known alternative: Kishōtenketsu, a japanese four act structure, can clearly result in a good story (the Korean movie Parasite, which follows this structure, is rightfully a resounding success).

Relevance

One might rightfully be wondering right now if any of this is even relevant. Even if you agree with me so far, I haven't yet argued that the Monomyth is relevant for 5 room dungeons. The great thing is that I don't have to, because i) the person who claims credit for 5 room dungeons literally says they were meant to enforce the structure of the Monomyth right here, and ii) someone on reddit has already done the work of showing that 5 room dungeons correspond with the monomyth for me in this post right here. 

2. The medium is the message

Let's assume that you agree that the Campbellian Monomyth is at least part of the conception of the 5 room dungeon, but that it doesn't bother you as much as it bothers me. Heck, maybe you even enjoy having a structure you can hold on to while consuming a story and seeing the many different variations of the sorts of stories people tell using this structure. This is completely fair, there are many people who enjoy stories that conform to it and there is nothing wrong with that. 

However, even if you like the Monomyth, 5 room dungeons still suck because imposing a narrative structure inherently robs the players of agency. Think about it like this, by assuming there needs to be a climax, you've now made a decision for your players. Not only do they have to confront some sort of BBEG, they also have to do so in a climactic fashion. 

It is this sort of thinking I saw a lot when I was hanging around in online 5e spaces dedicated to discussions and advice. People there would often complain about 'encounter breaking', which is when players come up with a good plan and thus make something you intended to be threatening or climactic a cakewalk. If you want to tell a story similar to the Monomyth, or even just some other variant of the three act structure, this sucks as your story now does't conform to that structure anymore and it is now, from the perspective of this structure, a 'bad' story. So, you go online and ask for advice on how to prevent players from breaking the encounter, enter into discussions about encounter breaking spells and what to do about them and eventually end up resorting to tactics that overtly take decisions away from your players.

Quid by Kenneth Noland (1960)

Medium Specificity

But this is not what I like about tRPGs. I like it when players are free to do anything. In fact, 'encounter breaking' is often the result of exactly the sort of playstyle I like: scheming; and it shows that players are actually engaging with the world you have presented to them. 

Moveover, I like it when people lean into what makes a medium unique, which art theorist Greenberg calls 'medium specificity'. For example: Animation that is life-like is rather boring to me, especially when it is just regular people in regular places. You could have done the same with actors, so you aren't leaning into what makes the medium unique. If, instead, you make the artstyle more expressive, do things that would be impossible to do in live action and thus really lean into the possibilities you have in animation, the result is something specific to the medium and therefore it will stand out more from other kinds of media, which I often find more interesting.

TRPGs can do something that, at least at the time of writing, no other medium can do in the same way: They allow players to change the context they are presented. If a videogame presents you with an NPC, they have preprogrammed the ways in which you can interact with them. Depending on the game and the situation you can ignore them, talk to them, fight them, kill them, all depending on what the game allows players to do. 

In tRPGs, players can do anything they want as long as it makes some sort of sense. So, when they encounter a guard that refuses to let them pass, they can choose to engage with that like they would in a video game (if the guard talks, talk back; if you aren't punished for killing the guard, kill her; if you know the guard needs money, bribe her), but they can also come up with any number of weird schemes:

• Maybe they look for the guard's wife and hold her hostage, demanding free passage as long as the gaurd's wife is in their care.
  
  
• Maybe they cause a catastrophe elsewhere, requiring all guards to mobilise over there, leaving the entrance ungaurded.
  
  
• Maybe they write the guard love letters, becoming closer and closer, exchange ranchy notes with her until the fictional persona they have made says they wish to meet her in real life in the woods, where they have also lured the guard's wife with a similar scheme and now they have ruined a 5 year marriage, causing a huge fight during which the gaurd isn't at her station, allowing them to sneak in. 

The point is, what I like about tRPGs is what is often called 'tactical infinity'. Players can do whatever they want, not only within the context provided by the game, but by changing the context entirely; they are free to look at any situation they encounter and decide to change it.

Follow the Beat

As narrative structures reduce the tactical infinity by making decisions beforehand about how players are 'supposed' to interact with something, and as these are inherent to 5-room dungeons, it follows that 5-room dungeons are antithetical to the media specificity of tRPGs (or at least, what I consider the media specificity of tRPGs). This can be seen if we take a closer look at how the different 'rooms' in the 5-room dungeon are described:

In room 1 there is 'the guardian' which 'sets up early action to capture player interest and energize a session.' The guardian is a fight. There are alternatives given for things to put in room 1, but they all assume a particular approach as well.

In room 2 there is an alternative challenge, suggested is either a puzzle or a roleplay challenge as long as it is a 'trial that cannot be solved with steel'. Again, you are expected to predetermine an approach for your players to take, reducing tactical infinity. 

Room 3 is meant to be a setback or trick. It should mirror the darkest hour in three act structures and 'build tension'. What I dislike about this room is that it is phrased in such a way that the tricking of your players seems more important than presenting something that could be leveraged. It is a challenge to be overcome, not a knob in the dungeon that resourceful players could use. Story structure, again, reduces tactical infinity. 

The most egregious offender is, of course, room 4 with the climax. Not only is this expected to be a battle, it is supposed to be an epic one. Players are not supposed to break it, circumvent it or use any clever tricks or schemes to overcome this obstacle. It has all the problems of the more general 'boss fight', which isn't a situation players can interact with, but a scene in which players are forced to play a very specific role. 

Finally, room 5 is the reward or twist, to be obtained after room 4. I dislike forced twists like this, they often feel contrived as you have to keep them from players until it fits the narrative to do a big dramatic reveal. As for the reward, I feel like sometimes the big monster isn't there to protect anything in particular, it is just dangerous and this is where it lives. Also, some of the suggestions feel kind of dickish: 'A trap that resurrects or renews the challenge from Room Four.' What a great way to make the decisions of the players not matter, just for plot reasons. 

5 room dungeons, at as originally conceived, are just beats for the players to follow: They are allowed to play out the story you have written for them, and fill in the blanks you left for them like a string of mad libs.

3. Struggling artists

But all of this is just preference. It is preference that I dislike three act structures, it is preference that I want tactical infinity in my tRPGs. One of the internet's most beloved GM instructors, Matt Colville, clearly has different preferences. He argues that tRPGs are storytelling methods, that stories are about drama and that, thus, as a GM your job is to create dramatic moments. 

And obviously he has a point. Heck, even I don't dislike all stories that are structured with three acts. I don't even dislike all stories that follow the Monomyth. And I have experimented with tRPGs that seem to be more about collaborative storytelling and they are pretty interesting and were fun to play. 

However, I think there is something that advocates of the 'we're collaboratively playing a story I wrote' tend to forget sometimes. Writing a story is hard. Pacing a story, even harder. And pacing a story in which people are supposed to act the part despite not knowing the plot, or their lines, and often don't have any acting experience is even harder. Doing all of this on the fly, without the ability to edit what is happening before it will be seen by others adds yet another difficulty factor. 

Basically, tRGPs as enacting stories means you are working with improvising actors, which are expected to follow a prewritten plot, and somehow this is supposed to result in a more satisfying story than allowing the story to emerge solely from the players interacting with the world.  

Stirring the pot

The truth is, I think most of these kinds of stories suck. Whenever I hear people describe heavily plotted campaigns it just sounds like bad television and the same is true for almost all actual play podcasts I have tried to listen to. 

And what's more: I think the people playing in these sorts of games think the story sucks as well. I could be completely wrong, this might all just be my bias showing, however, I am not just saying this because I think my way of playing the game is correct and everyone else's is wrong. At least, I hope not. 

My reasoning is that almost always when I hear what people liked about their game, it was something the GM didn't prepare for. Either someone had hot dice and kept rolling great, or someone nearly died because they failed their save, or the players latched onto something minor as if it was something incredibly important, making it imporant in the process, the point is: it seems that even in these more pre-plotted games, it is everything that isn't the pre-written story that saves it from being just another boring 'prevent the dark lord from rising and destroying the world' rehash. 

Again, I could be completely wrong about this, which is fine. If I am not playing at your table, my opinion on any of this doesn't matter anyway. There is no wrong way of having fun with your friends. These are just the thougths of someone who started out with 5e and the expectations of play that are popular in that scene, got really frustrated with that scene and seeing three act structures being propagated as the best way of telling stories again, and wanted to present their gripes with one of the most overt tools used to tell these stories in tRPGs: 5-room dungeons. 

Conclusion: On the use and abuse of 5 room dungeons for tRPGs

This reference to a lovely book by Nietzsche was the original title of this post, because I make quite a lot of dungeons with 5 rooms using some of the 5-room dungeon elements. I just don't make them into 5-room dungeons. 

The reason for this is pretty simple: I find that I get completely exhausted if I run a game for more than about two hours. I also used to not play very regularly and when I started to play somewhat more regularly, I ended up having a varying group of players in the same world. For these reasons I prefer adventures that are 'over' after just one session and 5 rooms are just about the maximum of what I can fit into such a small amount of time. 

Only recently have I been blessed with a weekly game and a stable group of players: the students I run games for at the school I teach at. But even there, I initially wanted to sell them on the idea of playing 'D&D' by having them complete an entire story after a single session. We only recently started to explore a larger space (Skerple's Tomb of the Serpent Kings), but before then, writing small spaces that could be explored in about 1,5 hours was almost all I found enjoyable.

Therefore, I completely understand the desire for 5-room dungeons. They are great for one shots, easy to string together into a larger campaign and the nice variety baked into the different prompts for each room are decent inspiration for coming up with stuff to fill the dungeon with. 

However, you don't need 5-room dungeons to do this. You can do the same by thinking of the elements of a 5-room dungeon as situations, rather than plot points, or use other elements entirely. You could also jaquays the living hell out your smaller dungeons to make them less linear (which is what I did in Flame and Fortune, free download on my itch), and by letting go of the expectation that the only good story is one that is forced into a three act structure (go read some fairy tales or watch an acclaimed foreign movie or something! You don't have to, but you're missing out). 

Anyway, this is why 5-room dungeons fucking suck. Unless you disagree I guess, in which case they probably don't.