• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Deep Dive: D&D NEXT Exploration

mapAndCompass.jpg

My personal preferred style of D&D is pretty heavy on exploration. To me, D&D is about braving the unknown, confronting the wild, monster-filled world, and engaging with it. It is the different lands, different peoples, different ideas that make D&D interesting to me. I don’t play D&D for the encounters or the stories or the characters per se, I play D&D for the sense of discovery and surprise that comes with the new and the unexpected. I’ve got a unique cocktail of emotional goals I seek when I play, but those certainly rank near the top for me. I play and DM D&D like a mad scientist: a bit of ingredient X, a bit of ingredient Y, and smash them together. No, I don’t know how it’s going to turn out, and I love it that way.

When I am a player, this is demonstrated largely via characters who are either decidedly unusual (a rapping dwarf bard, a ditzy hamadryad swordmage, a mul bladesinger in Dark Sun), or highly archetypal (a gnomish artificer belonging to House Sivis in Eberron, an emotionless thri-kreen ranger in Dark Sun). When I am a DM, this is demonstrated by extensively using rules for exploration.

In fact, I’d say that when I DM, a lot of my “encounters” are mere set dressing for the location the characters happen to be blazing a trail through. Fight, talk, avoid, I don’t care – just engage it, somehow. My MacGuffins are destination-centered, and gameplay is largely about making it “there and back again.”

So you can imagine how eagerly I was anticipating D&D 5e’s exploration rules. Now that we’ve gotten a taste of them, I think it’s about time I really sink my teeth into these things. If you’d like to read along, you can find the playtest packet here. I’m judging this as a playtest, which means with an eye towards improving it. I’m going to be very specific as I go, as well.

THE EXPLORATION TURN
The big thing that the playtest rules bring to 5e is a codified “turn” that helps define what a party can do while exploring, making exploration into part of the gameplay. This is awesome for me: exploration rules are things I want to interact with.

The turn functions a lot like a combat round with two-sided initiative: each PC takes an action, and then the “enemies” take an action (represented here by a roll for a random encounter). The game goes into some detail about the things the PC’s can do on their turns, but everything opposing them is boiled down to a random encounter roll. I think there’s room for some more variety there, personally, but the turn itself helps give DMs a way to codify what the players do and what the environment does in a way that isn’t just “make it up,” but that also doesn’t need to be overly specific. A lot of different things could go into a player’s turn; a lot of different things could go into the “environment’s” turn.

One thing that instantly comes out at me is the possibility to swap around what the environment does and what the players do. What if you roll for an encounter before the party describes their actions? Then, you can have the actions specifically counter certain things for certain encounters.

But I’m getting a little ahead of myself here.

THE TURN DURATION
The current playtest divides exploration into three different levels of focus: 5 minute (dungeon), hourly (wilderness), and daily (long-distance).

They come right out and say the rules are a little too “abstract” for dungeon exploration, but they’re not very clear on why that is – what important bit of dungeon exploration are we giving up in exchange for this abstraction? To help modularity, I need to know the trade-offs: what happens if I decide to use these rules for all of my dungeon exploration needs? A quick look at the “tasks” reveals that they think that 5 minutes is too short for “navigating,” but what if navigation provided some guidance on the endless litany of “Which direction do I take at this two-way intersection?” questions? Might not work quite the same, but a dungeon navigator could easily provide some hint as to which direction leads to what down the road.

The timescale chosen modifies far you move in a turn. Doing a bit of calculation reveals that a moderate pace over a 5-minute turn covers 15 move actions for your typical human, or, to put it in terms a grid can understand, 90 squares. A cautious pace reduces that by (about) half, while a fast pace bumps it up to double and a rushed pace quadruples your basic rate. The numbers run a bit different for 1-hour and 1-day durations, but the baseline for that is a normal party moving at a rate of one mile an hour, or ten miles per day.

The down side to hurrying is expressed in a “Readiness DC” that goes up the faster you go. You’re supposed to use this DC for “several circumstances,” defined later as pretty much surprise, and getting lost. The readiness DC is an interesting concept, and seems to play well, but it’s not used very often.

One potentially interesting area that the rules don’t go into is the idea of a chase scene, or an extended overland chase – a readiness DC and a rate of movement give some elements that were lacking in most previous editions where overland movement was largely at one basic pace.

EXPLORATION TASKS
The meat of these rules is taken up with “tasks” that party members can perform during a turn – essentially, a bucket of actions not unlike your combat actions (“attack, move, cast a spell,” vs. “navigate, sneak, search”). Each task involves some die roll that the character can succeed or fail at, and some fairly obvious consequences for success and failure. The tasks are basically broken down into “avoiding bad things” and sneaking, but I imagine this could be well expanded.

A bit of an outlier here is the “mapmaking” task, which seems ill-defined mechanically. It’s apparently different from navigation, but it also involves no check, and offers no clear benefit other than “now you have a map.” It’d be nice to add something concrete to mapmaking, such as allowing the party to move through mapped areas with no risk of getting lost.

These exploration tasks seem like they’d be pretty easy to expand upon, such as including a “forage” check to gather food, or a “scouting” check to learn about the path ahead.

WANDERING MONSTERS
Essentially, 5e throws a random chance (from 10% to 50%) at the end of each turn that there’s an encounter, and this is what takes up the enemy’s turn in an exploration round.

There’s a bit of a conceptual problem, here, in that the wandering monster is not something that a party would want to avoid all the time. Monsters are worth XP in 5e, so defeating monsters is the goal of the game as it is written (though it certainly might not be each individual DM’s goal). Still, daily attrition means that at some point, these things will be not worth the risk. This is perhaps a mitigating factor: a hypothetical XP-maximizing party would go fast when they’ve already had a few fights in a day, but they’d go slow otherwise.

Of course, at the daily pace, you’re down to a chance of one encounter per day at most, meaning there’s no reason to -fear or avoid wandering monsters at that pace – slow and steady nets the best XP there.

The play example makes it clear that not all encounters with wandering monsters are meant to be explicitly aggressive (the blood hawk serves as a scout that sets up a future ambush, not an encounter in and of itself), but anything that ups the encounter rate is going to up the XP rate and so level up the characters faster.

It’s at times like this that alternate XP schemes (quest XP, XP for gold, etc.) become important. In fact, if you use these exploration rules, you’d be well advised to at least not award XP for random encounters. You could still use XP as a guideline to build the encounters, or gauge their difficulty, but monsters being “worth” that XP might inflate a party using this module well ahead of a pace a particular adventure has in mind for them.

GETTING LOST
The other element of exploration in 5e is that you could get lost. In fact, as written, if you go as fast as you can, and you’re not on a road, you’re guaranteed to get lost (your Navigation check is 0). Which is kind of an interesting rules interaction: as long as you’re rushing heedlessly through the underbrush, you can’t know where you’re going. Once you’re done rushing, you can maybe take stock of your location and find out where to go from here.

Personally, as soon as any rule starts talking about “degrees,” I kind of tune out, so there’s a little too much granularity in the rules for this as it sits for me (Roll 1d6 and travel to a random adjacent hex instead?).

WHAT’S MISSING
So, that’s the rules as they stand. A decent first effort, I think. The tasks are a solid contribution, the turn is a very good framing mechanic, the timescale difference is a clever parsing of the different needs of exploration, and the “readiness DC” something that shows promise (but isn’t much executed on here).

However, wandering monsters interact with the daily recharge rate and the XP rules pretty violently. There’s no pressure from encounters at a daily pace as long as a long rest recovers all your HP, and there’s a high score to be had there if you award XP for monsters defeated.

Crucially, there’s nothing about events during travel aside from wandering monsters. While wandering monsters are a pretty key component of the kind of exploration I like, just as important are NPC’s, interesting events, traps, treasure, special sites, etc. There should be some more diversity in what the “enemy’s turn” generates here. Cultists and blood hawks and gnolls, sure, but where’s the random magical lake in the woods, or the random peddler along the road? To a certain degree, information on how to create a random encounter table, and a Monster Manual that contains more than just fights, can go a long way to solving this.

Also of note is the fact that being encumbered or otherwise slowed (with heavy armor, or with halflings in the party) does nothing to affect your speed, even on a 5-minute level. This seems to erase one of the interesting choices that a PC must make, between taking everything that’s not nailed down, and traveling fast enough to survive. (As an aside, any encumbrance rule that relies on me counting poundage is doomed to failure at my table, WotC).

Finally, there’s not much info about starvation, thirst, exposure, or other weather hazards. I imagine these would be their own modules, but they’re also part and parcel of that “enemy’s turn” during exploration I was referring to, and would also likely be affected by the pace and timescale of the exploration. I’m not convinced they’re independent modules any more than “wandering monsters” is independent.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?
I’m curious about what you like or dislike about the exploration rules in 5e as shown so far. Agree with me? Think I’m insane? Want to see some chase rules and some weather rules? What about the rogue – the “exploration master” in this scenario? Let me know in the comments!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

These rules are interesting and could be expanded and executed well enough to be included in my games. The critical aspects are:
1) Daily recovery and XP for monsters; but that's easy, I won't use either of those, they are disruptive.
2) It doesn't seem like there are many options on what to do in a turn. The most interesting combat encounters are those where you have various options between the powers your character has and the terrain and opportunities your enemies offer. The most interesting exploration encounters will need powers your character can use AND actions you can take in response to the environment. A system to improvise or even categorize "special actions" related to the various environments would be cool. Stuff like randomly finding a druidic circle, then making a Religion check with appropriate DC to gain a buff for your next encounter; or finding a trap and luring a monster inside it with a proper check. Rules for adjudicating improvisation are good, and a list of categorized actions to act as examples and guidance are cool.
3) Random encounters as a punishment are something I personally regard as incredibly lame. They don't add anything to the story we're telling, they just waste a bunch of time (even if the combats are 5 minutes long, it's 5 minutes wasted). I think there's better ideas to be explored here... Perhaps the time you spend in the dungeon will make the last battle tougher? Just randomly throwing it out there.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

As for whether or not random encounters are lame, I think what it comes down to here is what kind of game you are running. If you want to run a game that's highly story driven then random encounters are a useless waste of time, but in that situation I would venture to guess that the exploration rules are largely going to be ignored anyway. On the other hand, sometimes its fun just to clean out the dungeon and loot everything you meet. There will be some edge cases on both sides, but in general I think that groups that tend more toward the second situation will get more mileage out of the exploration rules, whatever the final version of those rules looks like.
 

Honestly, though I like exploration, your approach feels much too controlled and board-game to me. I prefer free form; situation resolution rules are helpful (environmental hazards and such) but actual exploration rules are unnecessary.
 

3) Random encounters as a punishment are something I personally regard as incredibly lame. They don't add anything to the story we're telling, they just waste a bunch of time (even if the combats are 5 minutes long, it's 5 minutes wasted). I think there's better ideas to be explored here... Perhaps the time you spend in the dungeon will make the last battle tougher? Just randomly throwing it out there.

No, no...what? No. Random encounters DO make the last battle tougher. You sound like you started with 4e, maybe late/degenerate 3e. In most editions of the game, healing is limited. Your HP don't recharge completely after every battle. Random encounters deplete your resources, making the rest of the adventure more difficult.

Every adventure paradigm is going to have some "filler" content. You can't have 100% concentrated story-juice all the time. In 4e, it's the sheer length of the battles. Imagine running 4e where battles were resolved in 10 minutes instead of 1 hour+. Think about how much more prep you would have to do as a DM per 4 hours of play time. In standard 4e, you've only got to prep a couple of story beats per session. Much of the rest of the time you're playing the battle system.

It's the same way with random and "trash" encounters in other editions--they stretch out an adventure with low-prep content. In this sense, a bit of exploration with 4 or 5 trash encounters is analogous to the first round or two of a 4e encounter. They're not any more or less a waste of time. It's an alternative "game" to play between story beats. IMO it's a better one, done well.
 


Olgar Shiverstone said:
Honestly, though I like exploration, your approach feels much too controlled and board-game to me. I prefer free form; situation resolution rules are helpful (environmental hazards and such) but actual exploration rules are unnecessary.

Warren LaFrance said:
Seems like extra complexity and rules to deal with..

They made these rules for players like me.

They made them optional for players like you.

Modularity, dials, rules for things you need, no rules for things you don't, etc., etc., etc.

Mormegil said:
They don't add anything to the story we're telling, they just waste a bunch of time (even if the combats are 5 minutes long, it's 5 minutes wasted)

I think this deserves a slightly longer response on how you can use random events and encounters to build a more interesting story, but lets start out by pointing out that not everyone goes into a D&D game with a storytelling agenda. Some appreciate the story as an emergent property, but it isn't necessarily a goal of gameplay.
 

No, no...what? No. Random encounters DO make the last battle tougher. You sound like you started with 4e, maybe late/degenerate 3e. In most editions of the game, healing is limited. Your HP don't recharge completely after every battle. Random encounters deplete your resources, making the rest of the adventure more difficult.

Hmmm. You are right, in some groups and some situations with some systems it could, perhaps, sometimes, work like that. I see where you are coming from. I just never experienced what you are saying, and I seriously doubt I ever will. By the way, I started out with the core of 3.5, but I'm playing 4E.

Every adventure paradigm is going to have some "filler" content. You can't have 100% concentrated story-juice all the time. In 4e, it's the sheer length of the battles. Imagine running 4e where battles were resolved in 10 minutes instead of 1 hour+. Think about how much more prep you would have to do as a DM per 4 hours of play time. In standard 4e, you've only got to prep a couple of story beats per session. Much of the rest of the time you're playing the battle system.

It's the same way with random and "trash" encounters in other editions--they stretch out an adventure with low-prep content. In this sense, a bit of exploration with 4 or 5 trash encounters is analogous to the first round or two of a 4e encounter. They're not any more or less a waste of time. It's an alternative "game" to play between story beats. IMO it's a better one, done well.
That's not the experience I have with 4E. At all. In my group, most fights last around 30-40 minutes. And really, I don't think you can reduce the time a fight last that much without taking away what makes it interesting. But that's besides the point, which is... meaningful fights are interesting. Random trash fights are not. For me, of course.

I find iteresting your position on the "filler content". If I could, I woul offer you a link to an episode of Extra Credits discussing intrinsic vs extrinsic rewards; it's a very interesting video (and a very cool series to boot). Google "extra credits extrinsic vs intrinsic", it's the first result. I believe that there are lots of ways to reduce the amount of prep time for an adventure without inserting extrinsic activities (such as random encounters, filler content, even unfun combat rounds). For instance, the rules framework offerend by 4th edition makes sure I never have any problem with preparation even mid-session. That leaves me with lots of time to work on the story, which in turn means I never have to insert "filler content". I will make however a distinction between "filler content" and "downtime", the latter being important to pacing. However, you can make sure the downtime is interesting and fun (intrinsic) even if it's there just to maintain the pacing (usually, I make sure characters have time to devote to themselves and their personality, or occasions where the problems at hand are less serious and more of an occasion to have casual fun; however I can see this being random encounters if you are really into combat).

In general, I believe there is no excuse for having extrinsic content in your games except lazyness (which can be a good excuse, sometimes RL is not nice); there is no excuse especially to have extrinsic content built into your game system. Now I know D&D is proud of its fighting system (always has been, I believe) and tries to shove it everywhere, but there's lots of design space to work with even outside of it.

As for whether or not random encounters are lame, I think what it comes down to here is what kind of game you are running. If you want to run a game that's highly story driven then random encounters are a useless waste of time, but in that situation I would venture to guess that the exploration rules are largely going to be ignored anyway. On the other hand, sometimes its fun just to clean out the dungeon and loot everything you meet. There will be some edge cases on both sides, but in general I think that groups that tend more toward the second situation will get more mileage out of the exploration rules, whatever the final version of those rules looks like.


Yeah, I can see people having fun with random encounters. But I was expressing my opinion on these rules, not the opinion of everyone involved. And I should not I was expressing it with the point of view of someone who intends to rip off 5e of anything not bolted down and see what works in 4e too. This system could be a selling point if it's done well enough.

Also, I believe that a dungeon crawling group is less likely to use rules that are an abstraction of dungeon crawling. Exploration rules seem to be born out of the idea that you should have the possibility to run story-driven exploration too: that's the reason I believe they're going to be cool. Unless I'm mistaken and they're going to be not. (For me.)

I think this deserves a slightly longer response on how you can use random events and encounters to build a more interesting story, but lets start out by pointing out that not everyone goes into a D&D game with a storytelling agenda. Some appreciate the story as an emergent property, but it isn't necessarily a goal of gameplay.


More power to you. However I would be interested in the longer response: maybe I can learn something from it.
 

I'm having real difficulties seeing the point of these rules. See, I understand that exploration is something that many people enjoy, and I agree with WotC that it should be one of the three pillars for 5e.

But my problem is this: surely, for the people who like exploration, the point is not how the rules resolve exploration, but rather what the PCs are exploring. It's really something for the players to interact with. And of course these rules, or indeed any rules, will be necessarily silent on that topic - rules cannot serve as a substitute for the DM's creativity!

My other concern is that, as with 4e's Skill Challenges, it looks like they have a system for exploration, where what they need are lots of systems, providing a toolkit for the DM to pick up and use.

On the other hand, it's important to acknowledge that this is really just the first attempt at exploration, and a single piece of the puzzle. So I'm certainly not writing them off just now... I'm just hoping there's a whole lot of other stuff we're not yet being shown.
 

Nice review of the exploration rules Kamikaze...and pretty much how I saw them. Your opening lines are EXACTLY the way we like to play too. I totally agree on the encounters are more than just monsters, hence my 'Encounters' document that you may well be very interested in. (More general, easily adapted to the terrain, so you don't get those dumb situations someone mentioned).

Anyway, check them out. How would this go when you got an encounter? (Don't forget they are used in conjunction with a table/list of creatures, flora and fauna found in the area).

Cheers. C
 
Last edited by a moderator:

I'm having real difficulties seeing the point of these rules. See, I understand that exploration is something that many people enjoy, and I agree with WotC that it should be one of the three pillars for 5e.

But my problem is this: surely, for the people who like exploration, the point is not how the rules resolve exploration, but rather what the PCs are exploring. It's really something for the players to interact with. And of course these rules, or indeed any rules, will be necessarily silent on that topic - rules cannot serve as a substitute for the DM's creativity!

I'd say the how is pretty important. As important as the how in combat. The how helps you define the what.

The rules can tell you "Orcs are tough!" by giving them, say, a high HP total. The rules can tell you "The Darkwood is rife with monsters!" by having a high random encounter rate. The rules can tell you "The dragon in the mountain sees all!" by having a high Sneak DC.

The rules are how we blind people feel the shape of this face in front of us, the contours of the thing in our imaginations.

My other concern is that, as with 4e's Skill Challenges, it looks like they have a system for exploration, where what they need are lots of systems, providing a toolkit for the DM to pick up and use.

Possibly. I think the unified system isn't necessarily too bad, it just needs some extra details, a little shaping. I'm not sure I see a strong need for totally different systems at, say, different time scales.

On the other hand, it's important to acknowledge that this is really just the first attempt at exploration, and a single piece of the puzzle. So I'm certainly not writing them off just now... I'm just hoping there's a whole lot of other stuff we're not yet being shown.

I especially want character abilities that interface with the exploration rules. A rogue's Hide in Shadows should be, like, an auto-success on attempts to sneak; their Climb Walls and Open Locks should help them access areas in the dungeon that other character's can't; their Disable Device and Listen at the Door should help them avoid traps and encounters that the party would otherwise stumble into.
 

Into the Woods

Related Articles

Remove ads

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top