Orc and Pie - The Side Isn't Optional

The term "orc and pie" comes from a parody adventure written by Monte Cook, which serves to highlight a particular style of D&D adventure - there's an orc in a room, guarding a pie; the adventure is to kill the orc and take the pie. Basically, it's a shorthand for "kill things and take their stuff", which is itself a shorthand for one particular way to playing D&D.

WotC have stated that they believe the core of D&D gaming is "orc and pie".

The problem with this mode of thinking can be seen quite easily by looking at several of the published modules. First, we can look at the 'classic' "B2: The Keep on the Borderlands" - the most-printed adventure in the history of D&D (mostly because it was included in one of the Basic sets), and the adventure that gave us the "Caves of Chaos" that now appear in the 5e playtest packets.

Now, as written, this adventure is nothing more than a series of interconnected rooms, many of them filled with monsters, and many filled with treasures. The adventure doesn't really provide anything more than that - there's no great quest, no particular motive given for venturing into the caves, no roleplaying notes...

Opinions of this module are very mixed. A lot of people play through it, see it just as a hack-and-slash fest, and hate it. Others argue that it is a great module - it provides scope for the PCs not fighting the monsters and instead sneaking around, or playing politics between the factions, or engaging in proxy wars.

So, we have two modes of play: those who treat it as nothing more than "orc and pie" hate it, while those who use it as "orc and pie {and something else}" consider it a classic. Now, I may be crazy, but that suggests to me that it's that {something else} that's the difference - that the side-dish is really important. It can be many things - storyline support, heavy roleplay, stealth, diplomacy, or whatever - but while there's a choice of sides with the "orc and pie", providing the side isn't really an option.

Now, there's no denying that "orc and pie" is a very popular game style. Pretty much all of us start out that way. But very few of us continue to play in that style for any length of time - we either add {something else}, or we get bored and do something else. (And, as I noted in my previous post, video games do a perfectly good, or even better, job of presenting "orc and pie" play. Indeed, the D&D boardgames also do a really good job in that style... and indeed, 4e is near-perfect for that style (which isn't to say that that's all 4e can do - it's just that it's better at it than any of the other editions, including the 5e playtest).)

To further highlight the danger of WotC's thinking, I'll point to two of their recent published adventures: "Sceptre Tower of Spellgarde" and "King of the Trollhaunt Warrens". In both cases, these adventures present long and detailed adventure locations, complete with interesting battlegrounds and several solid encounters. As examples of "orc and pie" they're first rate.

However, in both cases, the key adventure location consists of a series of rooms, each with (effectively) one entrance and one exit (leading to the next encounter). The monsters are either utterly disinclined to talk, or they're fanatical followers of their leader. In short, there's no side-dish. Both the adventures are soulless railroads, they're both terrible adventures... and I personally credit "Sceptre Tower" with killing what had been until then a particularly enjoyable 4e campaign.

In other words, by focussing on "orc and pie" as the core of the game, they've neglected everything else. (Which I guess ties in to Chris's "On Invisible Gorillas" post...)

Conversely, I'll also point to Paizo's recent adventure paths, which are widely regarded as being excellent. The best of the bunch is "Kingmaker", in which there are plenty of orcs, plenty of pies... but there's also a side game in which the PCs are responsible for building their own kingdom, in as much or as little detail as they wish. In "Jade Regent", the adventure follows the journeys of a caravan across the top of the world. Here, the campaign has a number of recurring NPCs, and a sub-game handling the means by which the PCs interact with these NPCs. And then, when the caravan gets to where it's going, the focus changes to a rebellion against an evil empire, where various PC actions can aid or hinder their efforts, quite aside from what monsters they kill. Finally, in "Skull and Shackles", the PCs are pirates with their own ship, and they must build a reputation, and amass Plunder, and do all manner of other pirate-y things.

Or, in all cases, they could just go all "orc and pie" on the adventure. That works too.

What I'm getting at here is that while D&D must support "orc and pie" play, that just isn't enough. Published adventures need to provide a side-dish as well (or, better still, a choice of sides). The DMG should provide solid advice for the DM on how to present his choice of sides (preferably with full-blown "campaign modules", giving rules subsystems for each). And while the Starter Set should probably stick with the basics of "orc and pie" play, any potential "Expert Set" should provide more - indeed, if they were to include a full-blown adventure in the Starter Set, even that should at least provide a nod to "orc and pie... and something else".

As for "Keep on the Borderlands" - yes, it's true that the {something else} isn't in the text, and isn't even implicit in the text. It's fair to argue that the only reason people have fond memories of that adventure is that good DMs spotted the possibilities and brought them out in play. But then, isn't that an argument for new published adventures making sure the {something else} is present in the text, and is presented front and centre, so that it's not just good DMs who spot it - but that average and mediocre DMs are aware of the possibilities too... and may one day become good DMs?