Playing "Adventurers" As Actual Adventurers

[Alas]

The biggest downside to this would be that a serious fail state, historically, meant that the people on the expedition died. Not something players like to experience.

That's definitely something the players should discuss going in. Can your characters die on this expedition? If they do, do you promote a porter to PC, or is the expedition over for them? Failing is certainly not the outcome the players are looking for, but I think a game should have some risks. I guess a good question would be, how do I arrange the game so that the players still get something out of the expedition failing? Adventurers who don't come back do pass into legend, sometimes...

 

[Umbran]

I think if you can do it successfully in other media, there is probably a way to do it successfully in TTRPGs.

Yes, but what is "IT"?

"A fun game centering on X?" is not really specific enough. Games need more focused design goals.

A fun logistics simulation game around survival preparedness, and a fun action game around getting from point A to Point B where the obstacles are not sapient beings, and a fun drama game centered on people who are at risk of starving are three very different kinds of games. And I am sure there are other types.

And in any particular game, there can be some mixing. What you can't reasonably expect is to be awesome as all kinds of game at once. You have to pick and choose a bit. Because, for example, logistics planning and action may have conflicting goals - logistics planning is apt to be more like... Catan, and action more like... Jungle Hunt.

And, note that the results of logistics sim is apt to be taking a whole lot of stuff on your expedition. Having a whole lot of stuff on your expedition is inimical to getting from A to B by swinging across a canyon on a vine, which you realize is a giant snake that's gonna try to eat you, while locals shoot arrows at you...

... and none of that goes well with graphic descriptions of dysentery.

Does that make sense?

 

[Umbran]

I disagree. You can make it interesting.

We treat “Supply” (being food, water, firewood, medicinals, and other consumables) as basically party hit points. And exploration challenges and time passing use up that Supply. It works remarkably well. Messed up on the broken bridge challenge? You lost 2d4 Supply. Rolled a critical on the rolling boulder challenge? It uncovered a cache of Supply.

It does work. And there’s no book keeping really (no more than tracking hit points is book keeping).

Oh, Morrus, I'm so sorry but...

Never, in the history of gaming, has anyone said, "Oh, yay! D&D! I get to track hit points!"

Hit points are not interesting. They are simple, and for something so central they also stay out of the way, which is awesome - it is the strength of the mechanic, and why we use them in D&D. But the more abstract a mechanic is, the less interesting it generally is, and hit points are extremely abstract.

 

[Morrus]

Oh, Morrus, I'm so sorry but...

Never, in the history of gaming, has anyone said, "Oh, yay! D&D! I get to track hit points!"

Hit points are not interesting. They are simple, and for something so central they also stay out of the way, which is awesome - it is the strength of the mechanic, and why we use them in D&D. But the more abstract a mechanic is, the less interesting it generally is, and hit points are extremely abstract.

And yet, it is still fun.

(I predicted your reply almost down to the word, BTW! You’re nothing if not reliable! )

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again, my point of inspiration is how actual real world adventurers experience their adventures. It is almost never about combat; it is about hardship and overcoming hardship. What I am after is not a simulation, but a way to capture that in play.

A little simulation could help with that. I know I feel more immersed when logistics matter in my games.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think it’s an interesting take but it would be a different game, fighting natural obstacles and getting lost rather than monsters. And I agree that D&D wouldn’t be a good fit.

I’d also pedantically point out that the word adventurer was rarely applied to explorers in previous centuries. It was more likely to mean “someone who acts outside the rules of civilised society” and so tended to refer to scoundrels, divorcees, con artists, and entertainers.

To be fair, plenty of adventurers as we understand them also fall into those categories.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The short version of this question—D&D lacks a full exploitation pillar; what games feature one?

I will of course (and predictably—but you did ask!) suggest our own Level Up: Advanced 5E which recognised this problem and built a fully-fledged exploration pillar into the game, baked in from class design all the way through to journey rules and exploration challenges.

Level Up is a wonderful system. I'm currently using it to run a during-and-post-apocalypse game (using some rules from Voidrunner's Codex) and the exploration rules are a major part of play.

 

[dbm]

The biggest downside to this would be that a serious fail state, historically, meant that the people on the expedition died. Not something players like to experience.

That’s no different from death due to combat, however.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The biggest downside to this would be that a serious fail state, historically, meant that the people on the expedition died. Not something players like to experience.

Depends on the players. There is a place for character death in RPGs, and it doesn't have to be "when the player feels they've told their story well enough". Sometimes bad stuff happens.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, but what is "IT"?

"A fun game centering on X?" is not really specific enough. Games need more focused design goals.

A fun logistics simulation game around survival preparedness, and a fun action game around getting from point A to Point B where the obstacles are not sapient beings, and a fun drama game centered on people who are at risk of starving are three very different kinds of games. And I am sure there are other types.

And in any particular game, there can be some mixing. What you can't reasonably expect is to be awesome as all kinds of game at once. You have to pick and choose a bit. Because, for example, logistics planning and action may have conflicting goals - logistics planning is apt to be more like... Catan, and action more like... Jungle Hunt.

And, note that the results of logistics sim is apt to be taking a whole lot of stuff on your expedition. Having a whole lot of stuff on your expedition is inimical to getting from A to B by swinging across a canyon on a vine, which you realize is a giant snake that's gonna try to eat you, while locals shoot arrows at you...

... and none of that goes well with graphic descriptions of dysentery.

Does that make sense?

I feel that Level Up and the Without Number games handle all those things well enough to have a fun campaign. They do it differently, but it all still works. I'm sure if you want a more narrative experience there are games that lean that way that do it too.