How Often do your Players Backtrack?

[Lanefan]

I have to admit, I'm a bit surprised by the results. Although, it's very early, only 40 votes in, I'd have thought it was a lot more rare that people go back to re-investigate stuff. I guess it's because I play a lot of modules that I don't see it that often. In most modules, you do the module and it's done. You generally don't go back (how often did your character's go back to the Slave Lords Stockade for example?) after you finish a module.

Interesting.

My crew did Stockade last year, as part of a modified Slavers series. Chances are they're going to have to go back next year and clean it out again, because:
a) the person they left in charge of it was probably not the person they should have left in charge of it;
b) despite its remote location it does lie between some warring states, and is a useful staging point for anyone looking to train or camp a large squadron, legion, or small army;
c) if things work out right, it'll lead to a follow-up adventure or two that are not A3 and A4.

Lanefan

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Fairly often - in my Steampunk/Spycraft game they went back to the same underwater ruins three times - the same location, but different goals each time.

The first time it was because they were hired to do so.

The second time because they began to distrust the organization that hired them the first time.

The third time to see if they could find something to use against their one time patron.

The fourth time to blow the ruins up, so that this would never happen again....

The Auld Grump

 

[kitsune9]

They go through a particular dungeon, clear it out to the point where they are satisfied, and then move on.

I can't really recall players ever backtracking very much. Maybe going back to talk to an ally or an NPC, but, even then, not very much.

Do your players come back to previously explored areas frequently?

My players are like this. They will clear an area and once they are satisfied with it, they move on. They will on occasion attempt to talk to certain NPCs in order to get aid, advice, or some other kind of assistance, but only if it paid off from the first interaction. Otherwise, they move on.

I think though as a DM, I probably don't provide them with enough incentive to backtrack. At least not without coming off as railroady.

If I was to create an adventure / campaign where I would encourage backtracking, I'd have several methods to state so such as:

1. In the campaign primer, I would advise the players that their characters may come to a dead end and that they will have to return to moment at a later time. The same with NPCs.

2. Create situations that become mysteries for the players to come back to. For example. The PC's explore Dungeon A and come across an area that they cannot get past. They move on because they accomplish the goal that was set out. Now, they go off to town B and come across an adventure which involves some study time in the library. While searching, they discover clues to get past the area in Dungeon A; however, they cannot decipher the clues just yet until they speak with Ye Olde Sage. They shelve the idea for now, because they also attend to the matter at hand. After their adventure, they go and visit Ye Olde Sage. Now we can either convulute this some more to where the PC's will have to backtrack to the sage or the sage helps out and sends them on their way. To avoid being railroady, the PC's will be able to accomplish whatever primary goal needs to be done.

3. Create a circular flowchart in the adventure. Location A leads to Location B which leads to Location C and that leads back to Location A. For example. Location A is the 1st level of a Dungeon which leads to Location B which is a ruined mine which leads to Location C which is a pirate's cove which leads back to the 1st level of the Dungeon which will now allow the PC's to get to level 2. Again, to avoid being railroady, create the locations which can be visited in any order.

 

[Dragon Sin-Camealot]

Are you going to compare answers year by year? I'm pretty sure it doesn't happen that often unless your DM has a bad memory.

In video games yes. In DnD hardly. It's better to improvise here imo.

 

[pemerton]

I answered "sometimes". Like OnlineDM upthread, I take "backtracking" here to include not only revisiting particular geographic regions or architectural features but also to include revisiting NPCs or other plot points.

Because I don't run an exploration-driven game it is not normally for exploration reasons that they return. It's more that the players discover or decide that something (normally information, but possibly other sorts of opportunities) can be gained by returning to the site/person/event in question. (This is similar to what Umbran described in his first post upthread.)

backtracking tends to be most interesting when a range of encounters can be interesting/challenging over a wide range of playtime.

<snip>

backtracking is far more likely to occur using a milieu that supports and encourages doing so. The following help:

(1) Clear indication that areas beyond those immediately explored exist.

(2) Conflicting interests, so that exploration of one area may be halted to pursue other goals.

(3) Pervasive world details, so that the area left behind, and villians left undefeated, continue to exist within the campaign milieu. Moreover, the PCs are reminded of these locations/individuals whenever it is relevant.

(4) Intentional backtracking gimmicks. A good example of this is in one of the Pathfinder series, where a dungeon first discovered in the first module is expanded upon and returned to in a later adventure.

The mechanical constraint mentioned here is easy to enough to implement in 4e via skill challenges, but harder in 4e combats. And so unsurprisingly, most of the backtracking in my game is not combat-related - as I said, it's information gathering.

I'm not really into (4). (1) and (2) aren't really relevant in a non-exploration game.

(3) strikes me as almost a necessary condition of backtracking, although I think I'd say "persistent" rather than "pervasive". It's also a necessary condition of the sort of play I'm interested in - non-sandbox player driven play - because if the world as described to the players doesn't persist, then there is nothing in respect of which they can make choices for their PCs. (The world that hasn't been described to the PCs, on the other hand, is the GM's to toy with!)