D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Don Durito]

I think the key is giving the players meaningful decisions to make. A lot of GMs confuse theoretical freedom which actual agency.

This is why having four rooms, but only of them filled, can be a waste of time. If it makes no difference which order you look, and if you're always going to get to the right one in the end because there's no cost, then it's meaningless. So long as your earlier decisions affect future ones then it's not meaningless. If every time you check a room there's a wandering monster check then it's not meaningless (still boring perhaps but the decisions have meaning).

This is the whole point of having resource management in an exploration game. There used to be in earlier editions explicit mechanisms for exploration turns that grounded this. It's not the most interesting way to do this, just the most basic.

This is also why so many GMs get things like travel wrong.

Players: we travel to the town of Haven.
GM: After several hours you crest a small hill and arrive at a fork in the road. A sign in one direction says "Haven", the other says "Osterlich". Which road do you take?
Players: The one to Haven.

Now if they have some reason to get to Haven in a hurry, but on the other hand they find an overturned carriage and it looks like bandits have hauled off some innocent people in the other direction, then they have a meaningful decision to make.

We can see from this why wilderness exploration is an issue, because a lot of the basic mechanisms for making decisions meaningful, such as the need for provisions, water, the likelihood of finding a safe place to rest etc are taken away. This doesn't make it impossible, but it does put a lot more pressure on the GM to constantly come up with creative ways to provide meaningful decision points.

 

[Retreater]

What if part of the challenge is mapping? (we map everything!)

What if the empty rooms are there, in purely meta-design terms, as potential safe places for the PCs to sack out- in other words, they're there with the specific reason of not providing a challenge?

And, most important, what if the empty rooms are there to, again at the meta-design level, instill a sense of complacency among the explorers such that when something does arise they're maybe a bit more off their guard?

Players don't tend to map as much since the widespread adoption of battlegrids, I've found. Couple that with playing on a VTT and the old school design philosophy starts to crumble.

 

[Lanefan]

Players don't tend to map as much since the widespread adoption of battlegrids, I've found. Couple that with playing on a VTT and the old school design philosophy starts to crumble.

True, virtual play does tend to ruin this, which might be one of the reasons I don't like it.

 

[Asisreo]

But how are they coming to these conclusions; and are these conclusions correct?

Sure they can use divination or scrying to see what's there, but the point remains that they're still seeing what's there.

They're coming to these conclusions based on prior knowledge and experience. If the last two doors of the dungeon were booby-trapped nothings, then they'll have the impression that "this lair's boss sure likes trapping doors, how about we just avoid doors?

You might not, but I do.

These things are not related IMO.

Just like in real life, decisions are often made in absence of complete and-or correct information. What matters is they still get to make the decisions and have the agency to do so; and if they eventually learn not to blindly trust everything and to double-check unfamiliar info sources then I'm doing it right.

Real-life isn't something I want emulated in my games. Uninformed decisions are just guesses that make players feel like everything is happening not due to their choices but due to how the DM wants to punish or reward a guess. They're basically rolling the dice in talking form, who knows what may happen?

It's generally not fun since lack of understanding to what your actions will do mean you lack the ability to feel like your actions have ever mattered.

I think the difference between us is that I don't at all mind backtracking, and resource management is a factor. If we explore into a dead-end trap and two of us get mangled by it, then's the breaks; and now we have to use the resources required to patch the injured up. Or if one of us gets killed by it, now we're down a person and have to adapt.

It's not going to stop us exploring as much as we can of the place. (truth be told, pretty much the only thing that ever prevents complete and detailed exploration of an adventure site is if the party's on a time-sensitive where their goal is to get in, get it done, and get out; and even then sometimes they'll go back and more fully explore the site later)

Personally, I don't mind the punishments for explorations but I surveyed my players and they unanimously agreed what the weaker parts of exploration is: being frequently punished for doing anything. Objectively, they got more rewards than punishments from me by miles but they remember negatives more than positives and a bitter moment can make a sweet session bittersweet at best.

So I began implementing continuous rewards for doing almost anything. These rewards range from physical rewards like magic items and treasure, to worldbuilding rewards like lore or history, to metagame rewards like inspiration or extra exp. Sometimes, I'll throw a punishment or two to throw them off from thinking I'd never punish them for exploring but I quickly give them a greater reward for dealing with the punishment, making it seem worth it.

If I want to challenge them intellectually, I'll give them a riddle written down so they can use their brains, but more often, my players aren't there to feel like they're taking logic exams every 5 minutes or they have to solve a new game of sudoku every time. Likewise, my players aren't here to continuously play chess against a grandmaster tactician that can predict everyone's moves, most combats are interesting but with a large margin of error so that everyone can shine equally.

Because all my players come to the table just to have fun, nothing much more to it than that. Some of my players like these dark-souls level of challenge but I don't want to have the casual players stop having a good time just to specifically cater to that specific player.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Because all my players come to the table just to have fun, nothing much more to it than that. Some of my players like these dark-souls level of challenge but I don't want to have the casual players stop having a good time just to specifically cater to that specific player.

Invite players you want to game with that fit your style. Exactly.

Like exploration: invite friends who like exploring things.
Like story-telling; invite friends who like telling stories.
etc.

 

[Lanefan]

They're coming to these conclusions based on prior knowledge and experience. If the last two doors of the dungeon were booby-trapped nothings, then they'll have the impression that "this lair's boss sure likes trapping doors, how about we just avoid doors?

Which means it worked as intended: they're not going to look behind the fourth door where all the loot is.

Real-life isn't something I want emulated in my games. Uninformed decisions are just guesses that make players feel like everything is happening not due to their choices but due to how the DM wants to punish or reward a guess. They're basically rolling the dice in talking form, who knows what may happen?

If it doesn't feel like real life in some ways when I try to think like my character and see the world through its eyes then my character's going to become nothing more than a game token.

And real life ain't perfect. I don't always have complete or correct information. Why should I have any expectation of the game world being any different?

Personally, I don't mind the punishments for explorations but I surveyed my players and they unanimously agreed what the weaker parts of exploration is: being frequently punished for doing anything.

Of course they did!

What player anywhere is not going to vote to decrease punishments on their character, when given the choice?

Objectively, they got more rewards than punishments from me by miles but they remember negatives more than positives and a bitter moment can make a sweet session bittersweet at best.

Might be too late to sort that with this group of players. Ideally you want the opposite: that the positives are what's remembered even when most of the session was negatives, and that can only come by setting an early tone of positives being less common and sticking to it.

If I want to challenge them intellectually, I'll give them a riddle written down so they can use their brains, but more often, my players aren't there to feel like they're taking logic exams every 5 minutes or they have to solve a new game of sudoku every time. Likewise, my players aren't here to continuously play chess against a grandmaster tactician that can predict everyone's moves, most combats are interesting but with a large margin of error so that everyone can shine equally.

I tend to play my monsters like idiots sometimes, even when I shouldn't. I blame beer.

Because all my players come to the table just to have fun, nothing much more to it than that. Some of my players like these dark-souls level of challenge but I don't want to have the casual players stop having a good time just to specifically cater to that specific player.

I make it very clear right up front that bad things are inevitably going to happen to the characters. They can either believe me then or believe me later when those bad things come around.

 

[Asisreo]

Which means it worked as intended: they're not going to look behind the fourth door where all the loot is.

If it doesn't feel like real life in some ways when I try to think like my character and see the world through its eyes then my character's going to become nothing more than a game token.

And real life ain't perfect. I don't always have complete or correct information. Why should I have any expectation of the game world being any different?

Of course they did!

What player anywhere is not going to vote to decrease punishments on their character, when given the choice?

Might be too late to sort that with this group of players. Ideally you want the opposite: that the positives are what's remembered even when most of the session was negatives, and that can only come by setting an early tone of positives being less common and sticking to it.

I tend to play my monsters like idiots sometimes, even when I shouldn't. I blame beer.

I make it very clear right up front that bad things are inevitably going to happen to the characters. They can either believe me then or believe me later when those bad things come around.

It's all well and good, but when things are said and done after a game, the players should walk away from the game board with an overall positive outlook, otherwise they won't want to rejoin.

If I want a challenge regardless of fun, I can take an exam for a certification I have no training in, or I could challenge my friend to a race knowing he's faster than me. I won't though, because that's not a fun use of my free time.

If verisimilitude, challenge, misdirections, or grit is making the game a slog, it's just best removed completely or almost completely. No need to force the players to experience something they don't like. I remember having finished dark souls and my friend tried playing it because I lauded how good it was. He quit before the first boss. I asked why he quit so early, he said he wasn't good, I told him to practice and get good and he responded "I don't want to waste my time getting pissed off all the time, what's the point if the game purposefully pisses you off?"

I realized that some people just aren't compatible with the grit type of gaming more hardcore fans subscribe to. They really do just want to button mash and see how far they go, not having to engage with more than they want unless the extra stuff makes them feel good.

 

[Lanefan]

It's all well and good, but when things are said and done after a game, the players should walk away from the game board with an overall positive outlook, otherwise they won't want to rejoin.

Some people react to being challenged - and-or to losing - differently than others.

Some walk away. No great loss, really.

Some, though, take the stance of "Dammit, I'm going to do better (or find better luck) next time", and come back for more. That's who I want.

If I want a challenge regardless of fun, I can take an exam for a certification I have no training in, or I could challenge my friend to a race knowing he's faster than me. I won't though, because that's not a fun use of my free time.

What about challenging a friend to play chess even though you know she's going to beat you 7 times out of 10? Aren't those three wins worth it; never mind what you'll learn from the seven losses?

I realized that some people just aren't compatible with the grit type of gaming more hardcore fans subscribe to. They really do just want to button mash and see how far they go, not having to engage with more than they want unless the extra stuff makes them feel good.

I also often play just to see how far I go, but in our games survival is always goal one. I approach it, particularly at low levels, rather as a "Rogue-like" game - which are something I also play regularly.

 

[Hussar]

My experience as a player in a few maritime adventures is that they tend to take away player agency. The captain makes you tend to mundane tasks, you get blown far off course and stranded, you watch fellow party members get keel hauled, you get trapped in tight quarters combats by raiding parties and can't escape short of diving into shark infested waters, you leave behind all the contacts you had on the mainland and connection to that campaign world, you're basically trapped in a floating hamlet where everyone knows you (bad for rogues), you're usually at sea for months with little happening, it typically involves several boring sessions of preparation just to launch the expedition, there aren't good rules for it in the core books (and thus it's out of the scope the core game can handle), heavily armored characters sink and drown easily. I could go on.
I have yet to play in a good nautical adventure, and I'd be wary about signing up for one after the horrible ones I've played in. I know they can be done well by a DM who has done the work to avoid situations like the ones I mentioned above, but I'd really have to trust that DM.

Which, really, can be applied to exploration in general. Getting lost (blown off course), fighting in areas outside your comfort zone, players who cannot be bothered to learn skills related to exploration like Athletics so they can swim (seriously, I had a group of 5 PC's, every single one of them dump statted strength in a campaign pitched as an exploration campaign), having social skills so you can meet new people, or investing in magic items other than swords and armor to stay in contact with old contacts, preparing for the journey meaning that you have to actually engage in thinking about what might happen and what you might need instead of simply relying on the DM to provide everything all the time, investing in rings of swimming or cloaks of the manta ray for armored characters again, instead of that shiny new bow, I could go on.

Pretty much everything you just listed as a negative is bread and butter in exploration. That's the POINT of the exploration pillar. But, it does nicely illustrate why so few adventures focus on exploration. Far too many players who just poo poo the idea.

 

[Asisreo]

What about challenging a friend to play chess even though you know she's going to beat you 7 times out of 10? Aren't those three wins worth it; never mind what you'll learn from the seven losses?

Maybe if I wanted to be a good chess player. But I don't, really. I wouldn't really want to keep going if I loss three times in a row, which I must do if there's a 7 out of 10 losses.

Likewise, some players just aren't there to learn or strive to be a great player, they're just glad to sit down with their friends and laugh and have a beer and make memories. Not everyone has a drive to be good, it's the difference between a casual and a competitive game. In my opinion, 5e falls apart once you have a competitive angle. When you stop thinking about being a party and start wondering how your character can be the most optimal or feel down because someone's good in the spotlight, 5e doesn't do much to remedy this PvP mentality.

It's when everyone works together to purposefully have a good time does 5e shine like the Daylight spell. The DM is happy to let you play your ability checks as your character, being the mythological hero you wish for without having to look up tables that might slow the game. The other characters are happy to share the spotlight and their resources to be an effective team.

I also often play just to see how far I go, but in our games survival is always goal one. I approach it, particularly at low levels, rather as a "Rogue-like" game - which are something I also play regularly.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with that playstyle. It's much more hardcore than most casual players would desire from a TTRPG. Especially when they come off of certain podcasts like TAZ.