What is the point of exploration? I don't mean this rhetorically, I mean this as an actual question. Why are you exploring?
Isn't it to gain information so that you can make informed choices? Exploration isn't done for its own sake.
Ah, there's the disconnect.
In my case exploration
is done for its own sake, along the same lines as real-world me walking down a new trail in the woods just to see what's around the next corner. Except in an RPG setting, instead of just a new trail I've a whole new world (or more!) to explore.
It's done with a purpose. What is down this or that corridor, what opposition or opportunities are available in what direction. So on and so forth. IOW, it's the information that matters, not really how you get it.
So, why not abstract getting the information. Instead of forcing everyone in the group to play a stealth character just so that they don't have to sit around and watch everyone else play for extended periods of time, why not just make it a mini-game that everyone can participate in, get the information into the hands of the players and then move on from there?
If all you care about is the information then yes, I can see what you're getting at. But there's more to it than just information; mostly the whole "what's around the next corner" piece, even if around the corner is only some empty hallway. And that's what exploration is - finding out what's around the next corner, or behind the next door, or over the next range of hills.
No thanks. I absolutely hate this style of play. IME, it leads to completely passive players who contribute nothing that you couldn't get from a dice bot to the game. No family? No history? That's not a character to me. That's just a couple of numbers on a sheet.
To begin with, perhaps; but after a while IME the characters develop connections to each other, to the specific campaign, and to the setting as a whole...for those players who want such. Some don't care as much, and this is fine too.
And believe it or not, this can go too far. I've one active character of my own, for example, who has so much on her plate in the greater setting (spell research, political ambitions, a family and manor house to look after, a party-company base to help with, etc.) she really hasn't got time for adventuring any more, but still keeps getting hauled into the field regardless as she's our company's most experienced mage.
I want to take it even further and force the players to have connections to each other through a variety of mini-games, but, I know when I'm beat on that one. The players don't like it.
Why not just let those connections develop as they will, organically during play?
But, yeah, the most interesting, memorable characters are the ones that actually are tied to the campaign.
My experience begs to differ.
In my current campaign that's seen over 950 sessions, the most interesting and memorable character was around for a mighty 17 of them.
He had no connection to the campaign other than he'd randomly met one of the then-current party members at some point in their adventuring past. He had no connection to the setting other than he lived in it. He had no family history, no background other than what roll-up forces you to determine (languages, age, secondary skill). But the party needed a mage, so they took him in, and his player quickly made him utterly unforgettable.
Cycle out characters? No thanks. I am totally not interested in that style of play anymore. I've had my fill of the kinds of characters that you are talking about here and I just won't play that way anymore. Make the campaign about the characters at the table, or I'll go play somewhere else because I will not enjoy the game.
I'd rather make the campaign about the
party, with individual characters as sometimes-interchangeable parts of that greater whole. Just like a sports team is (or should be!) bigger and longer-lasting than any of its then-current players.