Exploration: My concerns for the new edition

[kitsune9]

I'm a big believer in exploration, random encounter tables, and survival checks for resource management. I want traveling to the Lost Dungeon of Death to be just as dangerous as getting there and exploring it. Also, getting back should be just as problematic. For me, one of the reasons why these locations are "lost" is that even if some scholars know where it's at, they won't even bother to go looking for it simply because of the danger involved.

 

[Tallifer]

I think this is the most core, most basic thing about D&D, at least for me, and one of the things that appears in 3e and 4e that I strongly dislike is a distancing from this concept. The way 4e handles treasure is a perfect example of this; 3e wasn't quite as bad, but it still annoyed me that the treasure value of a monster was based on the monster's CR (or rather, the encounter's EL) rather on the nature of the monster itself.

I am a huge proponent of the idea that pcs should be able to seek stronger monsters in order to gain bigger treasures. If you're a 1st level party and you attack a group of kobolds, you should get a pittance, mostly in copper (and perhaps a few kobold gadgets or alchemical items); if you're bold enough (and successful enough!) to take out the local thieves' guild, you should rake in thousands of gps, lots of stolen goods and a ton of miscellaneous gear.

As I understand the treasure parcel system, the dungeon master is advised to provide a certain amount of treasure overall for a level. How he distributes those parcels is up to his story and his judgment. The kobolds could yield nothing, the thieves' guild could yield three or four parcels. In a sandbox game, the players have to figure out or stumble across the loot and the action. However most games are run according to the loose script of an adventure, and then the treasure can be properly distributed, and the quest can lead the players eventually to the thieves' guild and their treasure hoard. Of course the players have the freedom to avoid that quest and waste time in whorehouses and hunting kobolds.

I do like the old AD&D descriptions of the appropriate treasure for each kind of monster. I think that sort of information/fluff belongs in an ecology article. Common sense can judge what precise nature of treasure to give: the treasure parcel rules ensure that the dungeon master does not over-reward players or leave them helpless later. (Of course, the scaling bonuses and necessary + items have to go away.)

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I can't forget that Goldfish example...

Swallowing table
Roll 1d8 for random treasure. Abilities take effect 1d6-1 rounds after swallowing the respective animal whole.

1: Goldfish: Water breathing as the spell for 6 hours.
2: Swallow: Fly as the spell for 6 hours.
3: Frog: Expeditious retreat as the spell for 6 hours.
4: Mouse: Reduce person as the spell for 6 hours.
5: Badger: Rage as the barbarian class feature for 1d8+2 rounds, plus an addition Angry Swimming Modifier of +2 on the swim skill (no fatige penalty after the duration ends, but -2 CON because of food poisoning (save ends)).
6: Raven: Truesight as the spell for 6 hours. Caw Caw.
7: Small but vicious dog: detect rats for 1d6+2 days (2% chance permanent as the permanency spell).
8: Boo: Roll on the Boo Ingestion Subtable (1d6).

Boo ingestion subtable
1: Eyeballs explode
2: All men are struck with blindness in a 1d6 mile radius around the swallower.
3: Nooooooo! Booo! *explodes*
4: Fur develops inside the swallowers lung.
5: Hail of Rangers (save ends).
6: Boo breaks free. Muscle contractions close the hole (not really).

 

[rogueattorney]

Entering places, discovering their layout, studying their artifacts and inhabitants, and trying to learn about their purpose and how they work. Either under pressure or at all times leasure.

Which to be fair, many old modules were seriously lacking. In particular Keep on the Borderland, which was the module used in the playtests. However in the perception of many people, D&D is dominated by "go inside, kill everything, take what's valuable, and get out". That locations are not just the stage where combat happens, but can also be a great part of interacting in the world is something I assume is meant to see some more attention.

I don't understand your post at all, particularly the bolded. Keep on the Borderlands was pretty much entirely about the what you're talking about in the first paragraph. Keep has no story to be experienced, no overarching goal or plot. It's pretty much entirely about going to the Keep, meeting the people there, learning about the surrounding area, picking someplace that sounds interesting, and traveling there to see what there is to find.

 

[bryce0lynch]

This discussion has helped clarify things in my mind. I don't want to focus on rations & torches too much.

Exploration means:
Being scared of new monsters and what they can do?
Discovering non-standard magic items/effects?
Playing with things in the dungeon: statues, pools, fruit from trees, etc.
Searching for secrets (magic items, doors, traps, treasure, etc)

There's an implicit, and sometimes explicit, mini-game of resource management. The most common elements of these are hp/healing/surges and spells. These have to be managed and when resources get low you [sleep, leave the dungeon, etc.] Presumably the dungeon reacts to you leaving. New traps get set, new vermin wander in, new guards get posted, reinforcements show up, wandering monster checks, etc. This is one of the consequences of you expending your resources and should keep you from using everything in every encounter.

If healing/dying is not controlled then there's less incentive for the characters to be cautious.

If the mage can detect magic at will, or cast comprehend languages at will, or cast find treasure at will then the Finding Secrets aspect of the game is minimized.

If the thief can find traps at will (automatically, with no time constraint) then traps become a non-issue in the game.

It is my assertion that keeping control of the at-will/automatic success abilities is important to keep the Finding Secrets portion of the game interesting. Without it traps, secret doors, magic items, etc, become less important to the game and impact the exploration aspect of the game.

Torches/food are just one aspect of this, and one that I hated tracking, but I am interesting in seeing the new edition protect and empower the exploration aspects of the game, and the implied resource management involved. (I choose to memorize comprehend languages instead of fireball.)

 

[KidSnide]

I think there are several types of exploration. Here is my current (imperfect) taxonomy:

1) Tourism-Style Exploration (or Incidental Exploration) - there is a style of game where the characters go different places and see different things, but there aren't serious decisions to be made about the exploration itself. For example, the PCs might be following a journey-based adventure path or they could be on a timed mission (e.g. rescue the villagers before they are sacrificed). In this case, the characters aren't necessarily trying to explore anything, but the players can still get considerable pleasure out of visiting new places and having adventures in awesome environments. More old school players may or may not think of this as "exploration" per se, but I think it can still be an important part of the game. In this style of game, the focus is on the "awesomeness" of the places you get to go.

2) Spelunking-Style Exploration (or Dungeon Delving) - there is another style of game where the PCs are exploring dungeons or other (generally ruined) locations filled with weird magic, unknown monsters, traps and the like. The S1-4 modules are good examples of this type of exploration. The fun is in finding out the weird and random stuff in the unknown dungeon. Depending on your style, this can involve careful resource management or not. In a tactically/strategically intense game, there can be careful choices about when to continue versus when to retreat (and getting trapped where you can't retreat is a major aspect of the genre). In other games, the PCs can pursue the whole dungeon at full strength if they are willing to take the time. (Tomb of Horrors is probably the most classic version.) In this type of game, the focus is on the unexpected (whether items, or traps or monsters) and the fun is figuring out what all the secrets are and what all the neat bits do.

3) Invasion/Infiltration-Style Exploration - here the PCs are out to clear the dungeon from an intelligent foe that will respond to their actions. (Against the Giants is probably the classic adventure here.) Depending on the foe, the PCs may suffer counter-attacks or see newly vigilant guards if they retreat and return. Stealth can often be important for parts of the scenario, as the element of surprise can be a major advantage for as long as the PCs can hold on to it. For this type of game to be fun, the opponents need to be interactive and have reasonable responses to the PC's action. In this type of game, the exploration is about finding your enemies tendencies and weaknesses, often in preparation for a more substantial assault. The focus is more on the opponent and his behaviors rather than the location or secret locations (except to the extent to which they are tactically useful).

This isn't a complete taxonomy, and some adventures will have multiple forms of exploration. (D1-D2 has all three types.)

-KS

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'm with Jester.

That said, I don't think mechanical design makes for good exploration-based games. Good DMs build good exploration-based games, independent of the mechanics, where players have (the illusion of) choices that matter. Left hallway or right hallway should have meaning and a different experience; there should be few strictly linear options.

 

[pemerton]

I'm very worried about this element. It had a very strong presence in the very early versions (OD&D/Holmes, maybe 1E) and seems to have been on the decline since then.

I XPed you on another thread for your similar post - so sorry, no XP for this one!

In support of this there must be a core decisions the players make that have consequences.

PC choices in a campaign should be meaningful, with consequences. If they spare surrendering foes, maybe those guys end up working for the pcs. If they never spare an enemy, maybe their rep gets out and nobody surrenders to them any more. If the pcs keep offending the baron between forays into the Keep on the Shadowfell, they are exiled, adventure interruptus, and now they are traveling the world while Kalarel's plans come to fruition back home. If the party's fighter is always whoring it up between adventures, maybe when he's 8th level a woman shows up with a baby, claiming it's his.

I doubt that many players of RPGs deny that choices should have consequences. (Maybe Cthulhu oneshots are an exception - whatever choices you make, your PC ends up driven insane! - but these are outliers.)

But one major difference across playstyles is the nature of the consequences - why do they matter? I agree that 4e doesn't provide operational/strategic consequences, and at least as I play it, I tend to agree with the OP - yes, healing surges are a resource, as are dailies and action points, but I don't find that the play the same role as (for example) spell management by a low or mid level caster in AD&D.

For me, this is a good feature of 4e, because I tend to find operational play tedious, and a game that gets rid of operational consequences opens up a nice space for focusing on other sorts of consquences - sparing or killing the prisoners, for example, starts to matter not so much in terms of whether they'll help you or betray you or never bother you again (because if you get an NPC follower, as a GM I'll just up the level of the encounters to keep them dramatic!) but rather because it reveals your PC to be a merciful or callous or manipulative or expedient person. Mutatis mutandis for irritating the baron.

I don't think I'm the only D&D player who cares about this sort of consequence. I think similar sorts of consequences are meant to be in play in Dragonlance, Planescape and (perhaps) Ravenloft, at least.

I think a unity edition, if it is to lift up to its name, therefore has to support players who want to focus on one or another of a range of dimensions of meaningful consequence. Which is a very tall order for RPG design, because the same featuers of action resolution, encounter design etc that support operational consequences tend to impede focus on thematic consequences, whereas getting rid of them to make room for thematic consequences tends to undermine operational consequences (as the OP rightly notes).

 

[Number48]

If we're going to keep along with the 3 pillars, which I personally don't care for, then exploration is the toughest to make actually fun. Finding a locked chest is in the exploration pillar, but by itself it represents only tedium. It is a given fact that the group will find some way to open the chest and making them go through check after check is just boring. If it is inevitable, then why waste time? Unfortunately, a lot of things which are inevitable fall under the exploration category so a lot more attention to how it is implemented in-game in needed. The group needs to climb the rope up and there is no pressure? Inevitable. The only way forward is through a locked door? Inevitable.

The best way to portray exploration is that, if it isn't making the players paranoid, it isn't worth doing. The pit trap alone is a waste of time. The pit trap that also sets off a screaming alarm is great. Traveling from point A to point B is boring, needing to make it under time limit X is more interesting, needing to make it under time limit X but orcs are attacking village Y on the way is great. So, exploration treated completely divorced from other elements is tedium even if you throw in mundane resource management.

 

[Hassassin]

If we're going to keep along with the 3 pillars, which I personally don't care for, then exploration is the toughest to make actually fun. Finding a locked chest is in the exploration pillar, but by itself it represents only tedium. It is a given fact that the group will find some way to open the chest and making them go through check after check is just boring. If it is inevitable, then why waste time? Unfortunately, a lot of things which are inevitable fall under the exploration category so a lot more attention to how it is implemented in-game in needed. The group needs to climb the rope up and there is no pressure? Inevitable. The only way forward is through a locked door? Inevitable.

I definitely agree. I avoid things that are locked "just because", and a take 10 by a rogue will always open these if they appear in the game. I use them is to give a bit of time to anticipate what the chest might contain and to suggest at the contents' value. Also useful to make the world seem more real, if you put a key somewhere.

For the other things, locked doors and climbing a rope, consequences for failure are important, like you mention below. Maybe there's a giant spider waiting to pounce on people who fall from the rope?

The best way to portray exploration is that, if it isn't making the players paranoid, it isn't worth doing. The pit trap alone is a waste of time. The pit trap that also sets off a screaming alarm is great. Traveling from point A to point B is boring, needing to make it under time limit X is more interesting, needing to make it under time limit X but orcs are attacking village Y on the way is great. So, exploration treated completely divorced from other elements is tedium even if you throw in mundane resource management.

Yes, but a bit of mundane resource management, at least when it's not tedious, can be a useful plot hook.

The wizard on night guard duty rolls a natural 1 on perception against the goblins? Stealing all the party's food is a lot more interesting as a consequence than just another random encounter surprise attack. (Not to mention less likely to get the wizard immediately killed.)

If the party frees gnome prisoners held by orcs, their next problem can be that they only have food for the party, not the 13 gnomes. Can they be distracted from their world saving quest for long enough to help the gnomes?

Used too often this sort of thing becomes boring, but that's true of any single type of encounter or challenge in the game.