3:34 What?! The 5-room dungeon lines up perfectly with the 3-act structure that you laid out. It's just that the first 2 rooms aren't necessarily in the dungeon. Entry is the setup you get to see what the adventure will be about. The festival and burning effigy were the entry. Incident is what tells the story and you really get a purpose to the dungeon. The incident was the goblin attack. Plot twist is a setback. The king twist is the setback. The climax is most often the final battle. Then you have the final battle with the king. The resolution is the reward. You say you disagree then proceed to make an argument for the 5 room dungeon.
The 5RD assumes that the the dungeon has been set up in advance...that the party is heading to the dungeon on purpose, and thus that any set-up elements have already been established. The goal of the 5RD is to create a minimalist flowchart for a session's worth of content in an easy-to-build way. I do think including a part for the adventure set-up would aid the 5RD, but as you say, the dungeon entrance marks a boundary. It only concerns itself with what's actually IN the dungeon, and not the bits that lead the party TO the dungeon. It's an adventure site, not a complete adventure.
It's especially useful as advice for new adventure designers - as in, those create adventure modules - because no matter how much context a designer might bake into their module, it's ultimately up to the DM to slot the adventure into their campaign in a way that makes sense _for them._ You can't know what brings the party to the dungeon, because that's up to the DM and the Players in the moment. You, as budding adventure designer, can't control for that. What you can control is the layout of the dungeon itself and what you populate it with. DMs reading your adventure are much more likely to take what you've put in, if it's part of the "meat" of the module. THAT is what the 5RD system focuses on: making a compelling enough dungeon itself, such that DMs will want to run it as is. Or to use that basic framework as a scaffold for their own ideas, while needing to do as little work of their own.
Another consideration is the 5 room D can be a literal dungeon, but it’s really just 5 scenes that link together. Where they happen is not as important provided they link.
The flow charts went by fast, so here is my note on them. Rooster: e-> s-> P,B, or R After the initial entrance and setback, you have three rooms which present the puzzle, the big battle, and the reward. It makes sense as a "regular enemy" dungeon since an actual person would likely keep their valuables close to themselves, and have some lore-related tool next to them as well. The three choices makes it more interesting than a regular dungeon. The creator himself notes: "What if the setback mis-directs heroes toward the Puzzle, then the Boss circles around and attacks them from behind? And what if the passage to the Reward is a secret passage that the heroes miss?" Cross: E at the center, SPBR available anywhere. This is interesting since it's very unlikely a big boss would be easily encountered, therefore is more like a sandbox. This one allows you to take one step in any direction, thus being a versatile "choose your own adventure". I think one good example of this is Curse of Strahd where you select your decisions and random B(attles) may occur.
I'm not sure you've read the 5 room dungeon document you've shown by Johnn Four. He makes very similar points and explains how to foreshadow in his book. And while you're right about a narrative arc being often in three arcs, RPGs are not novels. They don't need to follow the same narrative function. Forcing that idea is tantamount to jamming the players down a single series of linear encounters to a conclusion. The 5RD is a simplistic design philosophy made to be adapted - not the be all and end all answer to making games. Do what works for your table.
He is saying the 5 room dungeon assumes the setup, but would be better if stated directly. The stuff that happens before the dungeon can be an important part of the dungeon.
@@AsciiKing Yeah - totally agree. But that's pretty much what the book says too. You can use the five-room dungeon fractally. Each section has 5 micro-challenges within it. Etc. I don't have a hard-on for five-room dungeons or anything, i just think that comparing a narrative arc for a story to how an rpg plays out is somewhat disingenous, and to imply that 5RD won't get you through a session if you need it too is unfair too. Idk. I've never seen someone ditch the 'mission giving npc' before, thats all.
@@SeraphsWitness Actually, you do? You are? It's more by default, not choice. Players don't make decisions based on narrative frameworks, they make decisions based on... well, all kinds of factors. (Some might make decisions based on narrative, but not necessarily in a "3-act structure" or broad, narrative format type of way.) The point is, they make decisions, irrespective of things like plot, narrative structure, and so on. RPGs are stories like going out and doing something *adventurous* is a story. Things happen as a result of interesting situations/circumstances meeting interesting character decisions meeting chance, and a story to tell develops as a result. RPGs aren't written beforehand, right? They get written in play. We play to find out what happens. This is true even in a "linear" campaign. Players can rock even the most sturdy and restrictive railroads off the tracks, easy. And that's a good thing, because RPGs excel at creating stories as a result of Player decisions, not following some predetermined structure like it's a play or movie. TL;DR: RPGs don't make movie stories, they make campfire stories you tell to your buddies like, "remember that one time...." The GM isn't a storyteller. The Players aren't in a pre-determined plot. There are different types of stories, RPGs (typically) aren't following the same rules as those told in set-in-stone, written media. (Some RPGs specifically *do* do that, but that's a different deal. They also do that in a very freeform way, at the mercy of Player decisions, which is good because, again, we aren't acting out a play here.)
@@sapientmuffin way too long. Condense your thoughts if you want me to read. You can ignore the structure if you want, but your game will have a subpar narrative, period. Some people dont care about story, that's fine. But if you do, you can't write a crappy one and use "its an RPG" as an excuse.
I use a similar "Act 1, 2 and 3" formula for my short one shots, but very condensed. I try to make each act about 1 hour. They work out great and players love them. The setup, the challenge, and the finale. There are usually 3 parts to the "dungeon" or encounter. A puzzle, a fight and the final battle, not always necessarily in that order. Sometimes, I put the BBEG first, then the players have to escape with the "treasure".
Extremely coincidentally, I just came across the 5RD concept a few days ago, in my fledgling DM career. In truth, I think the 5RD and the three-act story structure work in conjunction, with each supporting a need that the other doesn't supply. The three act structure provides the basic lay-out of how any story is best designed, but it doesn't tell you anything about what that story should be. 5RD gives you a blueprint for how to link a cohesive story together, which helps tremendously with content creation, but it will fall flat, if you don't also incorporate the three-act structure.
This is an interesting analysis of how to make a story-based campaign satisfying according to (western) narrative structure. But not all dungeon crawls have to be based on a story. A lot of players enjoy rpgs more like a board game, where the story can be only vaguely implied and the experience is still satisfying.
I just posted my first video to trying to articulate that stories do not "emerge" as naturally during D&D as many are claiming in the comments here. So glad to see other content creators working toward better games and better stories at our tables. Thank you for this video!
@3:09 I don’t think the subtitles are quite right unless I’ve misheard something - the subtitles say “the climax explodes” but it sounds more like “the climax resolves”
Great video! I love the layout. I've used the 5 Room Dungeon method to some success but you are for sure right about the set for substance! Great stuff!!!
Technically there was no plot hook for Vader originally. They figured the twist out when writing Empire. Before that, the story was that Vader was just the bad guy Sith lord and Anakin Skywalker was indeed killed by him. But I guess it's even more appropriate for DnD sinde a lot of plot elements are born out of player decisions and them asking questions about things and the DM thinking to themselves "Well, he wasn't the bad guy's son but now that you think he is, he totally is!".
Just watched a writing/plot video about how establishing the setup or "promise" is the key in managing expectations. There needs to be some throughline from start to climax, even if it's up to the players on how to resolve everything.
@@MagizardInternet not the original poster but look up any Three Act structure video. Save the Cat beats or other similar provide additional story beats.
I actually use the "5RD" as a concept for creating an adventure more than i do for creating literal dungeons, as it always felt kinda natural to do so. breaking it down and comparing it to the 3 acts now makes sense why it felt that way. I always assumed the setup part was on us DM's anyways so i never really thought of that As "missing" however this is still a great video for explaining why its good to have that for others who might not know or feel that way. Keep up the good work! always enjoy seeing a video from you =]
Thank you for this. I read "Dungeon Core" and "LitRPG" books and I have noticed MANY authors use the same pattern, the "5 room dungeon" design you described for their first story. Typically a "Birthing" of the core, digging out, and realizing they have to protect themselves against a dire threat. Then the POV typically switches to a select or "chosen" dungeon party and they face the obstacles within the "5-room" design. Typically it starts with a grand entrance, light defenders, a puzzle/trap, a setback or a "time out" for the party. Then the action reaches a peak in some grand boss fight that is typically a last stand, and the reward. The reward may be being spared by the party or them being bought off as a literal reward, or the reward goes to the core and they gain a huge boon. It was weird how so many new (to me) authors followed a similar formal as something I have already read. Sure, they could all be copying a few authors but this explains it to a more rational point to me.
I like the example you give, but am having trouble abstracting a formula I would use when setting up an adventure. What I love about 5RD is how well it works and is easy to apply. Can you distill a similar formula here? I guess it's something like... foreshadow your puzzle and setback prior to the actual dungeon...?
I never thought of this limitation of the method but now that I'm doing more research for a fanzine and doing more of those 5rd I get what you say. And your solution is a great one. Thanks a lot!
While I don't have any objections to any of your points, I do think they're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and ignoring the far greater challenges. The problem that doesn't exist is players who are willing participants being dissatisfied with the how and why of a mission. With the exception of the edgelord, who will be professionally dissatisfied with everything, 99% of all players are totally happy to thrash a couple goblins and a bugbear to save the princess. They don't really care about plot holes. The far greater challenge for any DM is to get the party to recognize the plot hook for what it is, and not go off chasing something random because they misunderstood the significance of something. The deeper and more subtle the plot structure, the more likely things go sideways. If you want the party to go to the cave and get the shiny thing, an NPC that literally runs up and directly asks for that exact thing is the most likely way to get them to do that. Everything you do to "improve the story" increases the chance that they never even see the cave. I really like your insights and all. I just think you're talking about upgrading the radio on an old truck that often doesn't even start.
i have a script that talks about the problem you discuss in this comment, about how to shuffle macguffins around to get players back on track when they go in wild, random, directions.
In addition to ’redirecting’ players back on track I think deeper stories become increasingly important for longer campaigns and experienced players. For quick sessions and groups that frequently change I think you’re right but as time goes by and a group stays stable, chopping up goblins starts to pale.
@@shaneintheuk2026 I understand that theory, and it looks good on paper. But in practice, I find the exact opposite to be true. Every time I find a table with a "deep and meaningful story, and a world to really explore," I also find a group with no direction, chasing cats willy-nilly, and a DM who's far more interested in the story he's creating in spite of the characters, than in what the characters are engaged with. D&D evolved out of war games. It's true that the story element has taken on a much greater importance over the years, but not always as an improvement. If you can't ask each player in private, what the current goal is, and get a short, direct answer from each member that matches each other, then you don't have a "group" and your depth of story is taking away from the game. The blunt approach isn't supposed to match the story depth. It's purpose is to get everyone facing the same direction, working towards the same goal, sharing in the same victory (hopefully).
I agree with this, especially in rpg events where time is short, the setup need to be made off scene, so the players don't wander around the town too long before getting in the dungeon. The 5RD is a guide to do dungeons, not adventures, you should add a setup, but it doesn't necessarily need to be entire scenes, in most cases you would end with material for another session just getting into the dungeon, and It can be made like a 5RD. - entrance (setup at town) - puzzle (how do we get into the dungeon?) - seatback (troubles while traveling to the dungeon) - battle (with an significative enemy from the plot, maybe the ones they are tracking to the dungeon) - reward (the party find the dungeon)
I recently discovered your channel and I'm so glad I did. You have a fresh perspective with great ideas, and your presentation is so concise, no fluffing around. Keep up the amazing work
Thanks for contributing to Game Mastering learning and development. We are definitely fans of Baron De Ropp. We do think there is a strong need to use a different approach to the 3-act perspective when it comes to TTRPGs. As basic tools, the 3-act and the 5-room do great. It would be awesome to have some more discussions on this.
The 5 room dungeon was never meant to be a mini-campaign, thusly it doesn't have what you say is missing because the 5 room dungeon is meant more like filler for quick dungeons or to be inserted into your already ongoing story. The 5 room dungeon assumes you already have this information, or you don't need it because you're simply doing a dungeon crawl for the sake of a dungeon crawl.
That's your best kind of videos. Efficient, intelligent, so useful. Thank you very much for the knowledge and tips. I need to rewatch that a couple times to study it.
When I first heard of the five room dungeon, I thought of it as a variation on the "five act structure" (Setup, rising action, complication, climax and denouement). And now I'm wondering what an RPG following the Asian "Ki-Sho-Ten-Ketsu" structure would be like.
Well done. Not only do you identify a problem, you offer a solution. This is something missed by many. It's easy to point out what's wrong, it takes thought to come up with an answer.
As the author of Mirimas Stormborn the Self-Proclaimed Sea Elf, The Musical Misadventures of the Minotaur Lords, The Berzerker's Curse, and Castlevania Ripoff, I can confidently assure you that 80+% of this elaborate storytelling will stay unexplored, and you should only bother with it if you personally enjoy it.
4:46 - Yeah, bad example I'm afraid, respectfully this is imposing "it was all planned" onto something that was actually improvised. If ANH+ESB together follow a three act structure, it's a Bob Ross happy accident. ANH didn't intentionally set up anything so far as Vader being Luke's father is concerned. Vader being Luke's father was only introduced by the writer of ESB, Lawrence Kasdan, who had nothing to do with ANH. Yes, Lucas agreed to it, but it wasn't planned from the start. Vader having killed Luke's father in ANH was originally flat-out truth, written to give Luke a personal reason to hate Darth Vader and thus add a personal enmity between them. Remember, ANH was written by George Lucas as a one-off, he had no idea whether he'd get a sequel to ANH when he first made it -- as testified to by pretty much anyone who worked on ANH other than Lucas, who regularly changes his story about what was "intended" or not with the Star Wars films. For example, around the time ROTJ was released Lucas would regularly and blithely say that Star Wars was always a story about "a brother and a sister", which makes certain scenes in ESB pretty damn awkward to watch, and makes it kind of hard to believe George on that one. And sadly, explaining ESB's plot twist was almost as awkward as Luke and Leia being brother and sister, since then Obi-Wan Kenobi had to (hilariously) resort to postmodernism from the netherworld to not look like an outright psychopath.
considering the plot twist was established while the story was mid flight is specifically why this is a FANTASTIC example for D&D, a game specifically designed around improv.
Question for the crowd... I'm playing in a campaign with a first time dungeon master. It's not going well. They're very excited about the world but haven't read the rules and don't think things through. Some examples; Players started with a profession and between 1000 and 10,000 gold starting money. (I'm not sure why they thought this was a good idea as it makes low level loot meaningless) Opening sessions were spent playing other characters in an on-rails manner (Also not sure why, even players that tried to suicide out just respawned. Also, not a great sign that some of our players tried suiciding out in the first session) Monster with crazy immunities, like a Will-o-wisp thing that was immune to slashing/piercing/bludgeoning from any source including magic. So fighters/rogues etc were only able to soak damage. The list could go on with random class debuffs, odd quest structure etc. Anyways, I want to help them build this into something playable, but get our group doing something fun in the meantime. How would I phrase that?
In other words, you think there should be a "Room 0" to do more set up: establish the importance of the dungeon and groundwork for later twists, right?
In my current game, nearly everything is random, meaning that the five room, or there about, dungeon is a great fit. What we have been doing at my table is placing the missing act at the end, allowing the players to figure out how the world fits with this new part. This doesn't go against your message, but backs it up.
I don’t see the dungeon as being “the story” with plots etc., i see it as more of a situation. Maybe there is something connecting the dungeon to a greater plot but whether the PCs understand that or not is irrelevant. The story from the players perspective is how their characters interact with the world and the choices they make. For example the party enters a dungeon overcome/evade the orcs lairing in it and walk off with a treasure. In the treasure is a valuable item belonging to a powerful npc so now the party is plagued by bandits and assassins trying to get it back because its needed for some evil purpose. The players will only find this out if they capture and question an adversary. If i have an overriding plot then i like to construct it as if the players weren’t there, then the players come along and throw spanners into the bad guys plans, and possibly never find out that they just prevented the return of the great old ones or something. The dungeons are the same, they are a situation that the players can explore and overcome in their own way. Instead of deciphering the ancient script, killing the guardians and unlocking the vault to get the key to the ancient crypt they teleport past it or use some other clever magic trick to take a short cut. Or maybe they were supposed to use a scroll to gain access to something but they’re too stingy/stupid and kill half the party blundering into traps and fighting hoards of monsters. Or maybe they admit defeat and go off to do something else. It doesn’t matter because they are not the centre of the universe, and if the old ones come into the world then there’ll be more options for them to blunder their way through.
Or, "How to tell other people I didn't really grok the 5 Room Dungeon concept." The "story" happens during play, based on what the PCs do ingame, not what GMs write beforehand. Pure RPG story is emergent. All the players (including the DM!) are experiencing the emergent story as it unfolds, and they drive it with their decisions and reactions and encounters.
The vaunted "three act structure" is BS that people overlay on things as a stab at "depth", or even legitimacy. The fact that it's so simple makes it work for practically anything by saying "see, it's got a beginning, a middle, and an end!" or "every story has a setup, reaction, and resolution!"
D&D assumes the dungeon setup and prelude happens *outside* the dungeon. As far as I'm aware, 5-Room Dungeons isn't meant to tackle the Act 1 scenes, but rather establish the Act 2 and 3 in a coherent narrative. It's a lot easier to tack on an Act 1, or set up a scaffold for Act 2 and 3 with 5RD onto your existing Act 1, than it is to make a structural method for an entire narrative. In short: I feel you're ignoring the actual point of 5-Room Dungeons and skipping out on the real point of 5RDs.
As a writer, your basis of the three act structure is a little antiquated, which could hinder the rest of your design. I prefer four acts, with a midpoint in the center to send the protagonist tumbling into the third act for the ultimate low point. Then they are forced to approach the problem in a new way to ultimately succeed or fail in act four. Maybe I'm splitting hairs but the midpoint and low point are extremely important in storytelling, and I feel they may add more interest to dungeon design. Check out Adam Skelter's channel, the art of story.
My only counter argument is that, in my experience, players only get through three or so encounters a session. For the purpose of planning out single session adventures or scenarios, the three act structure works great to help create a solid session.
@@alexp.4270 I hear you but still argue he's missing a crucial part of story structure. He's completely missing the low point or the "all is lost moment." It's evident in his graph which is all rising action, whereas there are more ups and downs in a story, which could lead to more twists and turns in dungeon design. Before I started studying story structure I always wondered why act 2 was this giant chunk, until people more inventive than me fixed it by dividing it into two chunks by the midpoint. You can still have three sessions. I don't think each act needs to be a session though, because the final act would be pretty boring if using his structure.
Three act structure, four act structure, six act structure...no matter how many acts you want to break act 2 into, the point of this video is that you shouldn't skip act 1.
@@jasonreid9267 sure, but I wanted to point out the flaw in the overall structure regarding storytelling, because I think breaking it down further to more digestible chunks opens up even more possibilities.
Jason, the low moment you're looking for is the setback. That's 20% of the 5RD. 20% of your dungeon is focused on 'loss.' Perhaps it wasn't explained as clearly? Cut it up however you'd like, but the 5RD and 3 Act Play as an analogy do what you're proposing.
But the "Guardian" is the setup! This "room" establishes why the players enter the dungeon, and why noone else (or hardly anyone, it depends) did before them.
Sorry - this is literally what the 5RD. You fixated on “must have plot” rather than letting the plot evolve and connect the next 5RD. The thing that is often missed is change the scale … you can be on a 5RD what is within a greater 5RD
I don't think there's enough content like this proposing storytelling structure in adventure design. I often use Save the Cat beat sheets in my adventure design. Each session, even. Of course, nothing goes to plan, but if you know where you are in the pacing of the session or adventure, you can adapt to where they are to keep the story and plot moving forward
I used to think this, but I think it's a matter of DMs not understanding the essentials of story structure, and how to use it as a framework for improv.
5 rooms? 3 acts? STOP WRITING STORIES!! That is not your job as an adventure designer (and no, branching your room layout does not make it any less a railroad). Create situations, conflicts, locations, characters, factions, items. Drop the PCs into the middle and see what happens. The story is what your players choose to do... (this applies to a one-shot as much as to a multi-year campaign)
Applying 3-Act structure to TTRPGs is itself problematic. It was developed for the stage, and later screen, assuming an audience experiencing a story in a single sitting. The 5 Room Dungeon was itself set up similarly, on the assumption that 5 encounters comprises an in-game work day, and a single long 4-6 hour session out of game which could be broken down into two smaller sessions as needed. Adding a whole 'act' to the 5RD throws off it's pacing. An introductory first act followed by five encounters is almost always going to be outside the practical limitations of a single session. The players simply won't have the time to address the whole three acts in one go, and that throws off the pacing and structure. Realistically, a 3 Act structure in TTRPG format would be similar to a half hour television show to fit within a day's gaming constraints. There would be a status quo first act, inciting incident leading into a second act, rising tension leading to a SINGLE combat encounter, followed by some falling action. You can squeeze in maybe two combat encounters, one as inciting incident and one as climax, into the time constraints of a single session. Stretching more over multiple sessions throws off the pacing that is the entire point of the three act structure in the first place. With the rise of serial dramas and commercial-less streaming television, formal act breaks have been increasingly de-emphasized even in the world of TV. Some argue that the concept of "acts" don't apply at all, while others think that 4 or 5 informal "acts" per 50 minute episode have become the norm. I tend to the former camp. But in the world of TTRPGs, I think the structure of old Saturday morning theatrical serials from Republic is the most appropriate, or more recent "webisode" 5-10 minute shorts on the internet. You just can't fit a 3 Act structure into the time constraints of a normal TTRPG session while also including dungeon exploration at all, unless you decide to make some encounters "off screen," which is itself highly problematic.
Very well as articulated. I've never been a fan of the 5 room setup. Almost everyone who GMs in 5e and its annoying. It almost always devolves into combat after combat.
5-Room-Design has always bugged me as a way of Dungeonifying a heroes journey. It's basically all of the parts of the adventure that work in the weird context of D&D rather than trying to make a D&D game have a robust and fulfilling story.
Or you could design your dungeon, use obvious hooks to lead the players to it, and then let them create their own story there. No need to engage in story writing techniques because it isn't your story to tell. No acts required.
3:34 What?! The 5-room dungeon lines up perfectly with the 3-act structure that you laid out. It's just that the first 2 rooms aren't necessarily in the dungeon.
Entry is the setup you get to see what the adventure will be about. The festival and burning effigy were the entry.
Incident is what tells the story and you really get a purpose to the dungeon. The incident was the goblin attack.
Plot twist is a setback. The king twist is the setback.
The climax is most often the final battle. Then you have the final battle with the king.
The resolution is the reward.
You say you disagree then proceed to make an argument for the 5 room dungeon.
The 5RD assumes that the the dungeon has been set up in advance...that the party is heading to the dungeon on purpose, and thus that any set-up elements have already been established. The goal of the 5RD is to create a minimalist flowchart for a session's worth of content in an easy-to-build way. I do think including a part for the adventure set-up would aid the 5RD, but as you say, the dungeon entrance marks a boundary. It only concerns itself with what's actually IN the dungeon, and not the bits that lead the party TO the dungeon. It's an adventure site, not a complete adventure.
It's especially useful as advice for new adventure designers - as in, those create adventure modules - because no matter how much context a designer might bake into their module, it's ultimately up to the DM to slot the adventure into their campaign in a way that makes sense _for them._
You can't know what brings the party to the dungeon, because that's up to the DM and the Players in the moment. You, as budding adventure designer, can't control for that. What you can control is the layout of the dungeon itself and what you populate it with. DMs reading your adventure are much more likely to take what you've put in, if it's part of the "meat" of the module. THAT is what the 5RD system focuses on: making a compelling enough dungeon itself, such that DMs will want to run it as is. Or to use that basic framework as a scaffold for their own ideas, while needing to do as little work of their own.
Another consideration is the 5 room D can be a literal dungeon, but it’s really just 5 scenes that link together. Where they happen is not as important provided they link.
Yeah, this video is really solving a problem that doesn't exist. ;)
@@DocEonChannel only been watching a few weeks, but this isn't the first time I've had this same thought.
dungeons themselves are not adventures and the 5RD doesn't have built-in purpose
Not sure why that ever was in question here
Baron Upside-down-Eyes is my favourite support character so far. What an effective character foil!
Baron must be a Miniac fan.
The flow charts went by fast, so here is my note on them.
Rooster: e-> s-> P,B, or R
After the initial entrance and setback, you have three rooms which present the puzzle, the big battle, and the reward. It makes sense as a "regular enemy" dungeon since an actual person would likely keep their valuables close to themselves, and have some lore-related tool next to them as well. The three choices makes it more interesting than a regular dungeon. The creator himself notes: "What if the setback mis-directs heroes toward the Puzzle, then the Boss circles around and attacks them from behind? And what if the passage to the Reward is a secret passage that the heroes miss?"
Cross: E at the center, SPBR available anywhere.
This is interesting since it's very unlikely a big boss would be easily encountered, therefore is more like a sandbox. This one allows you to take one step in any direction, thus being a versatile "choose your own adventure". I think one good example of this is Curse of Strahd where you select your decisions and random B(attles) may occur.
I'm not sure you've read the 5 room dungeon document you've shown by Johnn Four. He makes very similar points and explains how to foreshadow in his book. And while you're right about a narrative arc being often in three arcs, RPGs are not novels. They don't need to follow the same narrative function. Forcing that idea is tantamount to jamming the players down a single series of linear encounters to a conclusion. The 5RD is a simplistic design philosophy made to be adapted - not the be all and end all answer to making games. Do what works for your table.
He is saying the 5 room dungeon assumes the setup, but would be better if stated directly. The stuff that happens before the dungeon can be an important part of the dungeon.
@@AsciiKing Yeah - totally agree. But that's pretty much what the book says too. You can use the five-room dungeon fractally. Each section has 5 micro-challenges within it. Etc. I don't have a hard-on for five-room dungeons or anything, i just think that comparing a narrative arc for a story to how an rpg plays out is somewhat disingenous, and to imply that 5RD won't get you through a session if you need it too is unfair too. Idk. I've never seen someone ditch the 'mission giving npc' before, thats all.
They don't have to be novels. They're stories. You don't get exempt from the rules of storytelling just because you're in an RPG.
@@SeraphsWitness Actually, you do? You are? It's more by default, not choice.
Players don't make decisions based on narrative frameworks, they make decisions based on... well, all kinds of factors. (Some might make decisions based on narrative, but not necessarily in a "3-act structure" or broad, narrative format type of way.) The point is, they make decisions, irrespective of things like plot, narrative structure, and so on.
RPGs are stories like going out and doing something *adventurous* is a story. Things happen as a result of interesting situations/circumstances meeting interesting character decisions meeting chance, and a story to tell develops as a result.
RPGs aren't written beforehand, right? They get written in play. We play to find out what happens. This is true even in a "linear" campaign. Players can rock even the most sturdy and restrictive railroads off the tracks, easy. And that's a good thing, because RPGs excel at creating stories as a result of Player decisions, not following some predetermined structure like it's a play or movie.
TL;DR: RPGs don't make movie stories, they make campfire stories you tell to your buddies like, "remember that one time...." The GM isn't a storyteller. The Players aren't in a pre-determined plot. There are different types of stories, RPGs (typically) aren't following the same rules as those told in set-in-stone, written media. (Some RPGs specifically *do* do that, but that's a different deal. They also do that in a very freeform way, at the mercy of Player decisions, which is good because, again, we aren't acting out a play here.)
@@sapientmuffin way too long. Condense your thoughts if you want me to read.
You can ignore the structure if you want, but your game will have a subpar narrative, period. Some people dont care about story, that's fine.
But if you do, you can't write a crappy one and use "its an RPG" as an excuse.
This was a fantastic breakdown! Essentially making it a 3 Act 7 Room Dungeon:
Act 1
- Setup (setting/reinforcing the status quo)
- Quest Hook/Inciting Incident
Act 2
- Entrance/Guardian
- Puzzle/RP
- Trick/Setback
- Battle/Climax
Act 3
- Reward/Plot Twist/Revelation
I use a similar "Act 1, 2 and 3" formula for my short one shots, but very condensed. I try to make each act about 1 hour. They work out great and players love them. The setup, the challenge, and the finale. There are usually 3 parts to the "dungeon" or encounter. A puzzle, a fight and the final battle, not always necessarily in that order. Sometimes, I put the BBEG first, then the players have to escape with the "treasure".
Extremely coincidentally, I just came across the 5RD concept a few days ago, in my fledgling DM career. In truth, I think the 5RD and the three-act story structure work in conjunction, with each supporting a need that the other doesn't supply. The three act structure provides the basic lay-out of how any story is best designed, but it doesn't tell you anything about what that story should be. 5RD gives you a blueprint for how to link a cohesive story together, which helps tremendously with content creation, but it will fall flat, if you don't also incorporate the three-act structure.
This is an interesting analysis of how to make a story-based campaign satisfying according to (western) narrative structure. But not all dungeon crawls have to be based on a story. A lot of players enjoy rpgs more like a board game, where the story can be only vaguely implied and the experience is still satisfying.
I just posted my first video to trying to articulate that stories do not "emerge" as naturally during D&D as many are claiming in the comments here. So glad to see other content creators working toward better games and better stories at our tables. Thank you for this video!
Used car Salesmen got nothing on that smile on the thumbnail!!
These videoes are helpful for my video game too, learning dungeon design helps me make computer games better.
@3:09 I don’t think the subtitles are quite right unless I’ve misheard something - the subtitles say “the climax explodes” but it sounds more like “the climax resolves”
I write a script and then riff sometimes while recording
Great video! I love the layout. I've used the 5 Room Dungeon method to some success but you are for sure right about the set for substance! Great stuff!!!
Technically there was no plot hook for Vader originally. They figured the twist out when writing Empire. Before that, the story was that Vader was just the bad guy Sith lord and Anakin Skywalker was indeed killed by him. But I guess it's even more appropriate for DnD sinde a lot of plot elements are born out of player decisions and them asking questions about things and the DM thinking to themselves "Well, he wasn't the bad guy's son but now that you think he is, he totally is!".
I mean, "Vader" literally means "father" in Dutch, so
@@Dylan_Platt yeah, but that was probably more 'father of darkness' and as likely gave them the idea as anything.
My Mutant Fuure players accidentally made giant mutant tardigrades canon
Just learned about it, 2 weeks ago... Didn't know it was well known
Same! I learned about it 2 weeks ago and used it for the following session. It was awesome.
Just watched a writing/plot video about how establishing the setup or "promise" is the key in managing expectations. There needs to be some throughline from start to climax, even if it's up to the players on how to resolve everything.
Care to share the video?
@@MagizardInternet th-cam.com/video/jrIogch5DBU/w-d-xo.html
It's somewhat in the video for the specific topic, but it was a good listen all the way
@@MagizardInternet not the original poster but look up any Three Act structure video. Save the Cat beats or other similar provide additional story beats.
I actually use the "5RD" as a concept for creating an adventure more than i do for creating literal dungeons, as it always felt kinda natural to do so. breaking it down and comparing it to the 3 acts now makes sense why it felt that way. I always assumed the setup part was on us DM's anyways so i never really thought of that As "missing" however this is still a great video for explaining why its good to have that for others who might not know or feel that way. Keep up the good work! always enjoy seeing a video from you =]
I love your content. Please keep it coming! Incredibly concise and informative.
Thank you for this. I read "Dungeon Core" and "LitRPG" books and I have noticed MANY authors use the same pattern, the "5 room dungeon" design you described for their first story. Typically a "Birthing" of the core, digging out, and realizing they have to protect themselves against a dire threat. Then the POV typically switches to a select or "chosen" dungeon party and they face the obstacles within the "5-room" design. Typically it starts with a grand entrance, light defenders, a puzzle/trap, a setback or a "time out" for the party. Then the action reaches a peak in some grand boss fight that is typically a last stand, and the reward. The reward may be being spared by the party or them being bought off as a literal reward, or the reward goes to the core and they gain a huge boon.
It was weird how so many new (to me) authors followed a similar formal as something I have already read. Sure, they could all be copying a few authors but this explains it to a more rational point to me.
I like the example you give, but am having trouble abstracting a formula I would use when setting up an adventure.
What I love about 5RD is how well it works and is easy to apply. Can you distill a similar formula here?
I guess it's something like... foreshadow your puzzle and setback prior to the actual dungeon...?
I never thought of this limitation of the method but now that I'm doing more research for a fanzine and doing more of those 5rd I get what you say. And your solution is a great one. Thanks a lot!
While I don't have any objections to any of your points, I do think they're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and ignoring the far greater challenges.
The problem that doesn't exist is players who are willing participants being dissatisfied with the how and why of a mission. With the exception of the edgelord, who will be professionally dissatisfied with everything, 99% of all players are totally happy to thrash a couple goblins and a bugbear to save the princess. They don't really care about plot holes.
The far greater challenge for any DM is to get the party to recognize the plot hook for what it is, and not go off chasing something random because they misunderstood the significance of something. The deeper and more subtle the plot structure, the more likely things go sideways. If you want the party to go to the cave and get the shiny thing, an NPC that literally runs up and directly asks for that exact thing is the most likely way to get them to do that. Everything you do to "improve the story" increases the chance that they never even see the cave.
I really like your insights and all. I just think you're talking about upgrading the radio on an old truck that often doesn't even start.
i have a script that talks about the problem you discuss in this comment, about how to shuffle macguffins around to get players back on track when they go in wild, random, directions.
In addition to ’redirecting’ players back on track I think deeper stories become increasingly important for longer campaigns and experienced players. For quick sessions and groups that frequently change I think you’re right but as time goes by and a group stays stable, chopping up goblins starts to pale.
@@shaneintheuk2026 I understand that theory, and it looks good on paper. But in practice, I find the exact opposite to be true. Every time I find a table with a "deep and meaningful story, and a world to really explore," I also find a group with no direction, chasing cats willy-nilly, and a DM who's far more interested in the story he's creating in spite of the characters, than in what the characters are engaged with.
D&D evolved out of war games. It's true that the story element has taken on a much greater importance over the years, but not always as an improvement. If you can't ask each player in private, what the current goal is, and get a short, direct answer from each member that matches each other, then you don't have a "group" and your depth of story is taking away from the game. The blunt approach isn't supposed to match the story depth. It's purpose is to get everyone facing the same direction, working towards the same goal, sharing in the same victory (hopefully).
I agree with this, especially in rpg events where time is short, the setup need to be made off scene, so the players don't wander around the town too long before getting in the dungeon.
The 5RD is a guide to do dungeons, not adventures, you should add a setup, but it doesn't necessarily need to be entire scenes, in most cases you would end with material for another session just getting into the dungeon, and It can be made like a 5RD.
- entrance (setup at town)
- puzzle (how do we get into the dungeon?)
- seatback (troubles while traveling to the dungeon)
- battle (with an significative enemy from the plot, maybe the ones they are tracking to the dungeon)
- reward (the party find the dungeon)
@@DungeonMasterpieceso railroading
I always have a couple 5 room randoms for when my players go off the rails, into places I have uncharted.
Awesome advice as always, presented clearly and pragmatically. Thank you Baron!!!
I recently discovered your channel and I'm so glad I did. You have a fresh perspective with great ideas, and your presentation is so concise, no fluffing around. Keep up the amazing work
Yay, thank you!
I’ve never heard of this
I learned something new
I kinda do this in my sessions
Yeah there's never been any suggestion that 5RD dealt with Act 1.
Thanks for contributing to Game Mastering learning and development. We are definitely fans of Baron De Ropp. We do think there is a strong need to use a different approach to the 3-act perspective when it comes to TTRPGs. As basic tools, the 3-act and the 5-room do great. It would be awesome to have some more discussions on this.
The 5 room dungeon was never meant to be a mini-campaign, thusly it doesn't have what you say is missing because the 5 room dungeon is meant more like filler for quick dungeons or to be inserted into your already ongoing story. The 5 room dungeon assumes you already have this information, or you don't need it because you're simply doing a dungeon crawl for the sake of a dungeon crawl.
He doesn't understand that. He's just here to brag about how (to him) he's the greatest GM of all time, and everyone else is an idiot.
That's your best kind of videos. Efficient, intelligent, so useful. Thank you very much for the knowledge and tips. I need to rewatch that a couple times to study it.
Suit up, | Setup
Every | Entrance
Player | Puzzle
Should | Setback
Be | Battle
Ready | Reward
When I first heard of the five room dungeon, I thought of it as a variation on the "five act structure" (Setup, rising action, complication, climax and denouement). And now I'm wondering what an RPG following the Asian "Ki-Sho-Ten-Ketsu" structure would be like.
Well done. Not only do you identify a problem, you offer a solution. This is something missed by many. It's easy to point out what's wrong, it takes thought to come up with an answer.
There wasn't a problem. this is just a sales technique. they convince you you need their product and then sell it to you.
[06:17] Please tell me more of this King Sir Cophagus und why he is so much-hated.
Did you get the upside down glasses, funny voice bit from Miniac? He does that exact thing.
yep!
As the author of Mirimas Stormborn the Self-Proclaimed Sea Elf, The Musical Misadventures of the Minotaur Lords, The Berzerker's Curse, and Castlevania Ripoff, I can confidently assure you that 80+% of this elaborate storytelling will stay unexplored, and you should only bother with it if you personally enjoy it.
The trick is learning what to actually prepare. This is just five bullet points on a sticky note.
Meanwhile I'm using a 302 room dungeon focused on treasure hunting.
4:46 - Yeah, bad example I'm afraid, respectfully this is imposing "it was all planned" onto something that was actually improvised. If ANH+ESB together follow a three act structure, it's a Bob Ross happy accident. ANH didn't intentionally set up anything so far as Vader being Luke's father is concerned. Vader being Luke's father was only introduced by the writer of ESB, Lawrence Kasdan, who had nothing to do with ANH. Yes, Lucas agreed to it, but it wasn't planned from the start. Vader having killed Luke's father in ANH was originally flat-out truth, written to give Luke a personal reason to hate Darth Vader and thus add a personal enmity between them. Remember, ANH was written by George Lucas as a one-off, he had no idea whether he'd get a sequel to ANH when he first made it -- as testified to by pretty much anyone who worked on ANH other than Lucas, who regularly changes his story about what was "intended" or not with the Star Wars films.
For example, around the time ROTJ was released Lucas would regularly and blithely say that Star Wars was always a story about "a brother and a sister", which makes certain scenes in ESB pretty damn awkward to watch, and makes it kind of hard to believe George on that one. And sadly, explaining ESB's plot twist was almost as awkward as Luke and Leia being brother and sister, since then Obi-Wan Kenobi had to (hilariously) resort to postmodernism from the netherworld to not look like an outright psychopath.
considering the plot twist was established while the story was mid flight is specifically why this is a FANTASTIC example for D&D, a game specifically designed around improv.
@@DungeonMasterpiece Agreed!
I see what you did there. Well played sir.
Question for the crowd... I'm playing in a campaign with a first time dungeon master. It's not going well. They're very excited about the world but haven't read the rules and don't think things through. Some examples;
Players started with a profession and between 1000 and 10,000 gold starting money. (I'm not sure why they thought this was a good idea as it makes low level loot meaningless)
Opening sessions were spent playing other characters in an on-rails manner (Also not sure why, even players that tried to suicide out just respawned. Also, not a great sign that some of our players tried suiciding out in the first session)
Monster with crazy immunities, like a Will-o-wisp thing that was immune to slashing/piercing/bludgeoning from any source including magic. So fighters/rogues etc were only able to soak damage.
The list could go on with random class debuffs, odd quest structure etc. Anyways, I want to help them build this into something playable, but get our group doing something fun in the meantime. How would I phrase that?
Show your dungeon master this comment
incredibly helpful
Great video. Thanks.
In other words, you think there should be a "Room 0" to do more set up: establish the importance of the dungeon and groundwork for later twists, right?
Another well described and executed video.
In my current game, nearly everything is random, meaning that the five room, or there about, dungeon is a great fit. What we have been doing at my table is placing the missing act at the end, allowing the players to figure out how the world fits with this new part. This doesn't go against your message, but backs it up.
The 5-room is short because each hero sequence has 6 short term goals; are 18-21 hero goals in three acts.
What do you mean by hero sequence, Mac? That sounds interesting.
Great video, great content!
I don’t see the dungeon as being “the story” with plots etc., i see it as more of a situation. Maybe there is something connecting the dungeon to a greater plot but whether the PCs understand that or not is irrelevant. The story from the players perspective is how their characters interact with the world and the choices they make. For example the party enters a dungeon overcome/evade the orcs lairing in it and walk off with a treasure.
In the treasure is a valuable item belonging to a powerful npc so now the party is plagued by bandits and assassins trying to get it back because its needed for some evil purpose. The players will only find this out if they capture and question an adversary.
If i have an overriding plot then i like to construct it as if the players weren’t there, then the players come along and throw spanners into the bad guys plans, and possibly never find out that they just prevented the return of the great old ones or something. The dungeons are the same, they are a situation that the players can explore and overcome in their own way.
Instead of deciphering the ancient script, killing the guardians and unlocking the vault to get the key to the ancient crypt they teleport past it or use some other clever magic trick to take a short cut. Or maybe they were supposed to use a scroll to gain access to something but they’re too stingy/stupid and kill half the party blundering into traps and fighting hoards of monsters. Or maybe they admit defeat and go off to do something else.
It doesn’t matter because they are not the centre of the universe, and if the old ones come into the world then there’ll be more options for them to blunder their way through.
Awesome. Very useful.
Nice tips!
Hehe, this is actually exactly how I fixed Tomb of Annihilation
Or, "How to tell other people I didn't really grok the 5 Room Dungeon concept." The "story" happens during play, based on what the PCs do ingame, not what GMs write beforehand. Pure RPG story is emergent. All the players (including the DM!) are experiencing the emergent story as it unfolds, and they drive it with their decisions and reactions and encounters.
What if you got so good at improv, you could create a 3 act structure story on the fly and the players never knew?
>"storytelling disaster"
>flashes new star wars
kek
Thank you for understanding my extremely dry humor.
_Five_ room dungeon? Is that what they're teaching kids these days?
My first dungeon as a DM was 2nd ed. Undermountain.
The vaunted "three act structure" is BS that people overlay on things as a stab at "depth", or even legitimacy. The fact that it's so simple makes it work for practically anything by saying "see, it's got a beginning, a middle, and an end!" or "every story has a setup, reaction, and resolution!"
D&D assumes the dungeon setup and prelude happens *outside* the dungeon. As far as I'm aware, 5-Room Dungeons isn't meant to tackle the Act 1 scenes, but rather establish the Act 2 and 3 in a coherent narrative. It's a lot easier to tack on an Act 1, or set up a scaffold for Act 2 and 3 with 5RD onto your existing Act 1, than it is to make a structural method for an entire narrative.
In short: I feel you're ignoring the actual point of 5-Room Dungeons and skipping out on the real point of 5RDs.
As a writer, your basis of the three act structure is a little antiquated, which could hinder the rest of your design. I prefer four acts, with a midpoint in the center to send the protagonist tumbling into the third act for the ultimate low point. Then they are forced to approach the problem in a new way to ultimately succeed or fail in act four. Maybe I'm splitting hairs but the midpoint and low point are extremely important in storytelling, and I feel they may add more interest to dungeon design. Check out Adam Skelter's channel, the art of story.
My only counter argument is that, in my experience, players only get through three or so encounters a session. For the purpose of planning out single session adventures or scenarios, the three act structure works great to help create a solid session.
@@alexp.4270 I hear you but still argue he's missing a crucial part of story structure. He's completely missing the low point or the "all is lost moment." It's evident in his graph which is all rising action, whereas there are more ups and downs in a story, which could lead to more twists and turns in dungeon design. Before I started studying story structure I always wondered why act 2 was this giant chunk, until people more inventive than me fixed it by dividing it into two chunks by the midpoint. You can still have three sessions. I don't think each act needs to be a session though, because the final act would be pretty boring if using his structure.
Three act structure, four act structure, six act structure...no matter how many acts you want to break act 2 into, the point of this video is that you shouldn't skip act 1.
@@jasonreid9267 sure, but I wanted to point out the flaw in the overall structure regarding storytelling, because I think breaking it down further to more digestible chunks opens up even more possibilities.
Jason, the low moment you're looking for is the setback. That's 20% of the 5RD. 20% of your dungeon is focused on 'loss.' Perhaps it wasn't explained as clearly?
Cut it up however you'd like, but the 5RD and 3 Act Play as an analogy do what you're proposing.
What's the Flying V?
enter the dungeon. two doors. each door takes you to two rooms in order. the four rooms don't connect.
@@DungeonMasterpiece Thanks!
Awesome!
Do you count the Baltic German Sylvester Wilhelm Gotthard von der Ropp, Baron Daudzegir, as an ancestor?
He's my greatgrandpa
Also, he's not Prussian. He's Baltic German.
@@DungeonMasterpiece, my apologies for the error and thank you for the correction.
That’s also remarkable!
Fixed.
@@briangronberg6507 how do you know of him?
Stop mimicking me during your sponsorship segment.
Define the rules, subvert rules, then prove you haven't broken the rules.
Pledge, turn, prestige. It's a magic trick.
But the "Guardian" is the setup! This "room" establishes why the players enter the dungeon, and why noone else (or hardly anyone, it depends) did before them.
love this! but my goblins do not raid for human food, they eat peoples fresh alive, and drink their blood. It's good for them they never get sick. 😏
Brilliant
I see someone else also watches Miniac 😂
Sorry - this is literally what the 5RD. You fixated on “must have plot” rather than letting the plot evolve and connect the next 5RD.
The thing that is often missed is change the scale … you can be on a 5RD what is within a greater 5RD
Great video, always been suspicious of the five room lol
I don't think there's enough content like this proposing storytelling structure in adventure design. I often use Save the Cat beat sheets in my adventure design. Each session, even.
Of course, nothing goes to plan, but if you know where you are in the pacing of the session or adventure, you can adapt to where they are to keep the story and plot moving forward
I used to think this, but I think it's a matter of DMs not understanding the essentials of story structure, and how to use it as a framework for improv.
5 rooms? 3 acts? STOP WRITING STORIES!! That is not your job as an adventure designer (and no, branching your room layout does not make it any less a railroad).
Create situations, conflicts, locations, characters, factions, items. Drop the PCs into the middle and see what happens. The story is what your players choose to do...
(this applies to a one-shot as much as to a multi-year campaign)
The problem with a five room dungeon... is shit before the dungeon?
Oh man that's super lame....
SPOILERS 😨😨😨
Applying 3-Act structure to TTRPGs is itself problematic. It was developed for the stage, and later screen, assuming an audience experiencing a story in a single sitting.
The 5 Room Dungeon was itself set up similarly, on the assumption that 5 encounters comprises an in-game work day, and a single long 4-6 hour session out of game which could be broken down into two smaller sessions as needed.
Adding a whole 'act' to the 5RD throws off it's pacing. An introductory first act followed by five encounters is almost always going to be outside the practical limitations of a single session. The players simply won't have the time to address the whole three acts in one go, and that throws off the pacing and structure.
Realistically, a 3 Act structure in TTRPG format would be similar to a half hour television show to fit within a day's gaming constraints. There would be a status quo first act, inciting incident leading into a second act, rising tension leading to a SINGLE combat encounter, followed by some falling action. You can squeeze in maybe two combat encounters, one as inciting incident and one as climax, into the time constraints of a single session. Stretching more over multiple sessions throws off the pacing that is the entire point of the three act structure in the first place.
With the rise of serial dramas and commercial-less streaming television, formal act breaks have been increasingly de-emphasized even in the world of TV. Some argue that the concept of "acts" don't apply at all, while others think that 4 or 5 informal "acts" per 50 minute episode have become the norm. I tend to the former camp.
But in the world of TTRPGs, I think the structure of old Saturday morning theatrical serials from Republic is the most appropriate, or more recent "webisode" 5-10 minute shorts on the internet. You just can't fit a 3 Act structure into the time constraints of a normal TTRPG session while also including dungeon exploration at all, unless you decide to make some encounters "off screen," which is itself highly problematic.
Massive cope on the ad. Wow
Very well as articulated. I've never been a fan of the 5 room setup. Almost everyone who GMs in 5e and its annoying. It almost always devolves into combat after combat.
.
5-Room-Design has always bugged me as a way of Dungeonifying a heroes journey. It's basically all of the parts of the adventure that work in the weird context of D&D rather than trying to make a D&D game have a robust and fulfilling story.
Or you could design your dungeon, use obvious hooks to lead the players to it, and then let them create their own story there. No need to engage in story writing techniques because it isn't your story to tell. No acts required.
Of course, the DM doesn't get to tell any part of the story at all. No in fact they do not have any ownership over the game they run. Good point
@@feral_orc DM has ownership of the rules and the environment. The story that emerges is largely the result of player decisions and some die rolls.
Enjoy continuing to fail at life with that mind set.