D&D 5E Exploration Rules You'd Like To See

[Balesir]

[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] You mentioned creating incentive to keep exploring within one day. I remember a blog which posted a "monster lair" system for 4e which attempted to do this. If you backed out of the dungeon/area before reaching some critical condition (i think it was a combo of #/level of encounters and plot stuff), then the dungeon restocked and adapted...
Anyone recall the blog I'm thinking of?

I don't remember seeing it in any blog, but IIRC I mentioned something similar in a thread either here or on the WotC boards. Basically, have adventures built in "modules" - you only get the XP for the module if you complete it - and coming back to a part-completed module you will find it reinforced/modified/fortified such that the "level"/"xp value" is the same as it was originally.

I think this came about while discussing how rests should be designed, with a view to enabling game styles where there was no 15MAD but encounters need not be expected at a rate of X per day. The core idea was around separating the concept of "rests" from any specific game-world time aliquot.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I agree that Next should improve the exploration aspect of crunchyness, but that goes beyond 'fixing' the skill challenge concept {Which Stalker0's version does pretty well}

The things I would like, and likely to house rule if they are not there...

hex-crawl style setting maps: with guidelines regarding population density per hex and each hex having a few key sites. Modules set the dungeon into a hex, so that you have the exploring built into published adventures {assuming you get to explore the hex to find the dungeon.

Random generation to flesh out the hex with terrain, flora, and fauna.

Terrain and climate rules that impact on exploration and help to build the world.

'Camping' rules for extended rests. Instead of saying '8 hours and all better', make the extended rest into a skill challenge with degrees of success. Renting rooms at the inn get auto-success and when outside it gets more difficult to completely recover.

Encumbrance rules, like the ones in the playtest material

Rules for stealth combat that encourage ambushing and enable the lone thief to take out the guard

Better rules for managing social encounters, preferably much like the ones on Giant in the Playground where diplomacy is about bartering.

Definitely include in modules how the dungeon environment might react to the parties actions, or inaction.

YMMV

 

[Manbearcat]

One thing I wouldn't mind seeing as a module (specifically for non-combat challenges - exploration and social) would be a dice-pool mechanic. I think a Skill Challenge framework coupled with a dice-pool for each step in resolution is very intuitive. The module would have to retroactively map the dice-pool mechanic to each resource that interfaces with it (skills, spells, background traits, knacks, etc). That could be done easily enough. You could easily have intra-resolution of outcomes decided by the dice pool such as (bottlenecking most outcomes toward the central 3 so as to keep the challenge in the "interesting outcomes" for as long as possible):

- Success (add success but complication dice to next pool)
- Success but Complication (add success but complication/genre complication dice to next pool)
- Genre Complication (add success but complication/imminent threat dice to next pool)
- Imminent Threat (add failure/genre complication dice to next pool)
- Failure (add imminent threat dice to next pool)

Player narrates Success and Success but Complication. GM narrates Genre Complication, Imminent Threat and Failure. Further, it would be best if bennies/APs/fate points could be spent to narrate the bottom three and add dice to the dice pool. Certain external circumstances would, of course, add specific dice to the dice pool. And finally, to encourage heroic, risky, thematic play, non-optimized resource usage could add Success but Complication, etc to the dice pool.

This is by no means a finished system....but rather just an ad-hoc, spirit of intent sort of deal. I think a Skill Challenge framework with some manner of dice pool (in the ballpark of the above) could make the resolution of non-combat challenges quite fun and assist in facilitating narrative dynamism. However, there would be a decent bit of overhead in the module in retrofitting (and sensibly balancing) each resource with dice-pool functionality.

 

[Blackwarder]

I was a great believer in SC when 4e first came out but I I was never able to really run one, its a great idea on paper that just doesn't work in actual play for many groups.

When talking Bout exploration we need to have not one or too rules but an entire chapter dedicated to it both in the DMG and in the PHB.

We also need distinct guidelines and rules for dungeon crawls, wilderness exploration and city crawls.

When it comes to wilderness exploration I want to have hex maps, lots of random tables, encumbrance rules, weather rules, endurance rules, over land movement rules and things like that. And I very much would like to have those rules fit higher level play.

I don't want to have an all encompassing system that try to emulate this plus any other kind of non combat interaction the DM can think about, we have a saying in Hebrew roughly translated to Caught lots - got nothing. That is somthing I would like to avoid in 5e.

I would also like to have an exploration system where the Ranger and the Druid can shine.

Couple a robust exploration rules section with one of the slower natural healing rules and you can have those long and dangerous treks that been missing in our games since the dawn of 3e.

Warder

 

[Li Shenron]

IThe game needs to add some engaging exploration rules to keep the rogue awesome, just as it needed more detailed combat elements to help out the fighter.

Good point.

 

[Ferghis]

One thing I wouldn't mind seeing as a module (specifically for non-combat challenges - exploration and social) would be a dice-pool mechanic...

I really like what you wrote (can't xp), but am still quite unclear about what you are suggesting. Would you care to elaborate, perhaps adding an example or two?

 

[Zustiur]

Just a wild idea...
how would a game look that was focused on exploration? Combat is resolved either automatically, or with one or two dice rolls, but exploration takes up significant chunks of time?
If we built a game that handled that, we could take the lessons learned and apply them to DnD...

 

[howandwhy99]

Currently the design is still d20-like. It seeks to build areas where new work can be exploited for money like adding new powers to do what others cannot. It's like the reason splatbooks occurred, to print rules for cash. I do not think that the game should be designed in this way. Or, there should at least be an alternative for players who have opted out of the Feat and Power exception-based design philosophy and Skill narrative authority-based design philosophy.

Personally, I like the old way, but I'm open to others. I like how all the rules were suggestions, proverbial canvas and pallet construction for the players imagination. I'd prefer selling great ideas that benefit everyone like adventures and settings, which then may be reconstructed by each group according to the rules (pallets and canvases) they have chosen. This may bring artistic achievement back to the forefront of game design; a quality-oriented communal building project where everyone's works is a potential assets to others. I don't want something where others sell you the right to declare game actions that should already, by the default game play rules, be able to do. Their PCs should be able to do what they desire simply by merit of the players having conceiving and conveying their ideas. And when they cannot, it's only because those actions have already been accounted for.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

I think one major factor that needs to be considered is that there is a difference between a "Skill-Based Challenge" and a "Skill-Based Encounter." To give you an idea of what the difference is think of it this way: a monster is a "Combat-Based Challenge" and a group of monsters (whether one or many) to be fought in a location is a "Combat-Based Encounter."

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's a curious way to think of it, to get everyone involved.

So, like, in 4e, there's effectively one monster for each PC in a "balanced" encounter.

Maybe when confronting an exploration obstacle (such as a chasm or a raging river or something) there should be one "challenge" for each PC, too.

So a balanced raging river obstacle might require X successful skill checks per character rather than for the whole party. So in a simple 1 skill check-per-character raging river, with a 4-person party, you might have each character have to get across in their own way (rogue climbs a tree, wizard teleports, cleric grows angel wings, fighter swims through it like it's a gentle brook). Or maybe the wizard and the cleric don't have a way to get across, so the rogue and the fighter each make 2 checks (one for themselves, and one to help their friend) to get across...

And, of course, if they fail, they can roll on the Disaster Table to see if they sustain an injury, lose some supplies, enter a "save the failed guy" challenge, disturb a dire gar, whatever.

If we were to pace things similar to 4e combat, maybe say 4-8 successes per character yields success in the challenge...but that seems like a LOT (and 4e combat seems slow to me anyway ), so maybe we keep that number a little lower. Make it 2-4 checks per character, and you've got something similar to a 4e battle with 1/2 monster HP or x2 PC damage.

Hmm....