D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Monayuris]

Can't say I've had particularly interesting experiences with it yeah. I think the best bit was probably when we went around the barn of a hoarder vampire that was just chock full of insane stuff, including a magical ice box with a portal to a tundra... But that exploration was soured when the DM decided to send a re-skinned Clay Golem at us, despite its CR being WAY too high and it having one of the most BS mechanic I can think of. Because he felt he couldn't challenge us otherwise (when he was the one who wanted us to roll for stats...). Maybe you could count meeting some quirky shop keepers in various cities as 'Exploration' but that feels more Social to me, even if you're 'exploring' the city.

Lol. that sounds like the DM wasn't prepared for you to jump into that portal.

That right there tells me quite a bit. When I DM, I try really hard not to think in terms of challenging the players and I try not to make it personal if my players win. I mean, one session, my group absolutely curb-stomped a behir in its lair. They used good tactics, what am I supposed to do other than say congratulations.

This may be a decent example of how to handle exploration, at least how I handled it. It was an abandoned underground temple complex (i.e. dungeon) that had become the home of a behir. The group decided to explore it. It had several rooms related to temple type stuff. The behir was the only real threat in the complex, and it lay in a deeper area.

The important part of the exploration was the descriptions of charred dead bodies, of charred streaks on the floors. If there is a behir lairing here, it would make sense that some other interlopers would have fallen prey to it, and evidence of this activity would be apparent. This creates a feeling of forewarning, the players knew something was up. They didn't guess behir, but thought dragon or similar. It informed their choices on how to explore and informed their decision making. The results of their choices were what enabled them to get the advantage against the creature.

This highlights several elements of exploration.
1. The location was a cave hole in a hillside. It contained a creature that was at least equal if not a greater challenge than the party would handle. This was a placed location on my map, and the players ran into it.
2. This behir lair existed here and would exist if the party were 5th level, 1st level, or 20th level. (Monsters and locations don't scale to party level).
3. The location was designed such that there would be evidence of the behir's existence. A smart group of players should have been able to make a guess as to what may be in store for them. A 1st level party would have enough information to nope out of the location and move on.
4. Exploration of the first few rooms provided clues to the challenges to be discovered in the later rooms. I described the streaks of burned stone neutrally. It was up to the players to decide if that information was relevant and what it meant.
5. There were a number of choices in how to proceed. The party elected to split and explore two different passages that connected together later. This was what allowed the group to minimize the behir's lightning blast while at the same time flanking it from two sides.

I think it also works best if you're not pushed for time and have enough to go where your interest is piqued and not just have to push on to the next plot point at all cost.

Drawing from my experience in something else, a good Exploration experience has to be the Hoenn games in Pokémon. For exemple, north of Mossdeep City is Shoal Cave. The place is completely optional, you don't need to go in there to complete the game, but doing so will you find Snorunt and Spheal, two rare Ice Types. Furthermore, if you visit at low tide AND high tide you can collect items to have a Shell Bell made for you, a held item that allows Pokémon to recover a little HP whenever they inflict damage. Shoal Cave is tucked away in a corner of the map, in the water heavy portion of the game. The game also has a completely option town that, on its own, doesn't actually give you much, but it's an unusual location with its own special sprites and lore associated with it.

Agree.

The point you make about time is really good...

Tomb of Annihilation has this problem. It gives you a blank hex map with several 'dozen'? locations all sprinkled across miles and miles of land to be explored and discovered. And then it tells you that you have like 7 days (or whatever) to find the Tomb or the world will end. Seriously?

It is a perfect example of what I mean by using exploration incorrectly.

I also think your example from the Pokemon game is an excellent example of using exploration correctly. A location that is completely optional. The players have no real compelling reason to go there other than curiosity. But if they do, they can discover an interesting element or boon or treasure. It is exploration as its own reward.

Several things need to happen in your game to make that possible...

As you mentioned, the players shouldn't have to optimize their actions against some outside pressure. If your campaign relentlessly pushes them to move against the plot, they will consider any such locations as a waste of time and energy. They will sacrifice curiosity for diligence.

You got to have some places to be just pure reward. I know it is a feeling that everything has to be a challenge and combat, but sometimes you just need to put a magic sword in a tree, no strings attached, to be claimed by whoever finds it. If you show this stuff is possible, then you will encourage more exploration.

 

[Undrave]

Lol. that sounds like the DM wasn't prepared for you to jump into that portal.

That right there tells me quite a bit. When I DM, I try really hard not to think in terms of challenging the players and I try not to make it personal if my players win. I mean, one session, my group absolutely curb-stomped a behir in its lair. They used good tactics, what am I supposed to do other than say congratulations.

Actually the golem was hidden in another portion of the storage warehouse. There WAS a yeti in the frozen section that I manage to escape for a while because it was too big to make it through the passage out of the frozen walls. The golem was in a super narrow corridor too and it just wailed on our front liners and bumped their max HP by quite a lot... And the affliction has only ONE way... ONE WAY to be countered... a specific FIFTH LEVEL spell... when my Druid only had third level ones! How is that fair or an interesting challenge?! How is that an interesting design?! All it ammounted to was wasting some money so we had to hire a Cleric to fix it at the next town...

You got to have some places to be just pure reward. I know it is a feeling that everything has to be a challenge and combat, but sometimes you just need to put a magic sword in a tree, no strings attached, to be claimed by whoever finds it. If you show this stuff is possible, then you will encourage more exploration.

Well said!

Also, I could gush about the exploration aspect of the Hoenn games for hours... so many nooks and crannies to explore once you get Surf, Waterfall and Dive... and you even have two types of bikes you can use that open up specific areas and you need to go back to the shop to switch.

 

[Monayuris]

So what's the alternative? What would you tell people to improve it? They give general advice in the DMG, what other option is there?

If you've played other games that did it better, what did they do that makes you think it was better? Because all I hear is "it sucks" with no concrete alternatives.

I think several things are needed to make Exploration fun. (Really long post, sorry... I hope it makes some sense and doesn't come off wrong).

1. It has to be the point of the adventure, or at least it should not be sub-optimal. This means either the adventure is "Explore these ruins" or the adventure is "You have some time before all hell breaks loose... and here are some places you can go during that time that you can explore and maybe find something of use to you".

2. The environment to be explored needs to be interesting. There should be something to be found in these places. A reason to make the effort. This is hard to do, and I have had issues with this. If I put a location on my map, what would entice players to go there? I've kind of reached the decision to just take my list of locations and literally tell the players: Name of location, What monsters lurk there, What treasure is held there. Players can then have all the information they need to decide if they should go explore it. If the ranger wants a magic bow and there is one to be found at a location... they have a reason to go.

3. When running an exploration, there should be a consequence for every choice a player makes. Every action taken should have some cost or some effect. In older editions, this was handled by tracking dungeon turns. A turn was 10 minutes and was considered the quantum of dungeon activity (outside of combat). If you search a room, it was X number of turns. If you listen at a door, a turn passes. And so on. As turns pass, several things happen... 1. Torches or light sources deplete, 2. Wandering monsters were checked. In older editions, wandering monsters were bad news... you get experience for treasure, and wanderers had none. They would just deplete resources (hit points, spells) for no reward. As a result, you had to carefully manage your activity. Every action you take provokes a potential encounter that is just going to cause attrition for no gain.

Whatever the method, consequences are important. For doors... I give the choice: you can bash it down quickly with a strength check. If you succeed you will get surprise over any monsters in the room. If you fail you alert them to your presence. OR you can hack the door apart, it takes time, but will auto succeed but is also noisy and will result in a wandering monster check. If you have a thief pick the lock, you can open the door quietly and failure will not alert the monsters. Of course, I run dungeons where one door isn't going to impede all progress. Sometimes the players will just move on to the next area.

4. When asking for rolls there needs to be a reason. Skill rolls are meant to handle uncertainty. But in order for them to work, you need to know what happens if you succeed and fail. If you can't clearly describe an interesting result with what happens when a skill roll succeeds and when a skill roll fails, then you shouldn't ask for a roll.

5. The environment should usually provide useful information. A comment made by Undrave was the meaninglessness of going one way or the other in a dungeon. Usually, there should be some clues provided. As a DM when I run a dungeon, I am constantly looking a few rooms down the hall and looking to things that I can provide as signs. If there are giant bees three rooms down to the East, I'll describe the sound of buzzing wings in the distance. Keep looking 2-4 rooms ahead.

Of course sometimes East or West have no discernable difference. It may feel like an arbitrary choice, but it isn't. As you explore further the choice will be more clear. If you go to a new neighborhood in a new city and at an intersection choose to go left instead of right, is that a meaningless choice? I say no, because choosing that direction informs you more of the neighborhood. Maybe it leads to Little Italy, or maybe it leads to where you can get wholesale fabrics. The next time you go back, you now have information that makes that choice meaningful.

6. Traps and such should have some kind of tell. It doesn't have to be obvious but there should be something in the description. I tend to telegraph traps and let players try to figure it out. I tend to give more information than I think I should. The one thing I have learned in running games is that it is easy to make assumptions about what you know against what you think your players know. As DM, I have perfect knowledge of the environment. Players are 100% dependent on me providing them information. Sometimes I fail at properly describing something and I don't even know I failed. Sometimes players do what seems like dumb things. Usually, it is because I communicated poorly. I try to clear these things up and double-check they understand the situation. When describing traps, weird stuff, and dungeon rooms, it is important to be on the same page.

 

[Undrave]

3. When running an exploration, there should be a consequence for every choice a player makes. Every action taken should have some cost or some effect. In older editions, this was handled by tracking dungeon turns. A turn was 10 minutes and was considered the quantum of dungeon activity (outside of combat). If you search a room, it was X number of turns. If you listen at a door, a turn passes. And so on. As turns pass, several things happen... 1. Torches or light sources deplete, 2. Wandering monsters were checked. In older editions, wandering monsters were bad news... you get experience for treasure, and wanderers had none. They would just deplete resources (hit points, spells) for no reward. As a result, you had to carefully manage your activity. Every action you take provokes a potential encounter that is just going to cause attrition for no gain.

Did you ever read the Angry GM's articles about his Tension Pool mechanic? I think you'd like it.

Why’d You Have to Go and Make Things So Complicated?

The Tension Pool was such a nice, simple mechanic. Why’d you GMs have to make it so complicated? Is it because I didn’t explain how to use it? Or where to build the complexity? Hint: yo…

theangrygm.com

 

[Monayuris]

Actually the golem was hidden in another portion of the storage warehouse. There WAS a yeti in the frozen section that I manage to escape for a while because it was too big to make it through the passage out of the frozen walls. The golem was in a super narrow corridor too and it just wailed on our front liners and bumped their max HP by quite a lot... And the affliction has only ONE way... ONE WAY to be countered... a specific FIFTH LEVEL spell... when my Druid only had third level ones! How is that fair or an interesting challenge?! How is that an interesting design?! All it ammounted to was wasting some money so we had to hire a Cleric to fix it at the next town...

That sounds like a tough situation.

Honestly, I am a DM that if I wanted there to be a golem in an area I would put it there and not worry about it. Then again, when I design environments, I try not to lock down progress. What I mean is that the golem may be guarding an area with some good treasure or another reward, but I make no demand that the players must fight that golem. In my environments, if you see a golem and don't want to fight it, you can usually avoid it and go somewhere else.

The flip side to this is that the golem presents a challenge that needs to be figured out. If you need a certain spell to counteract its affliction, then maybe you can adventure to get a scroll of that spell. Or maybe it opens up role-playing opportunities with a higher level druid that can add to the campaign. Or there can be a way for the players to circumvent the golem or trick it or maneuver it out of position.

The point of some monsters is to be so much of a challenge that you need to develop 'outside the box' strategies to overcome them. It breaks the normal encounter monster/fight monster routine.

Well said!

Also, I could gush about the exploration aspect of the Hoenn games for hours... so many nooks and crannies to explore once you get Surf, Waterfall and Dive... and you even have two types of bikes you can use that open up specific areas and you need to go back to the shop to switch.

It looks like I need to check this out and mine it for ideas. I like some of the concepts you describe.

I've done some things similar in my hex crawl. I have a calendar with moon phases. I have areas of my world that open only on full moons. I also have stone henges coded with sigils. If you collect the correct magic items with the correct sigils you can teleport to different henges (like Stargate).

I've always liked playing Metroid. It was a game where you had to kind of explore around and sometimes you can't open a door right by the start until you find a key later on. As an example and I haven't found a place for it yet, but I'd like to put a room in a dungeon with a glass floor that looks on a treasure vault. Except it shows no clear way to get to it. Let the players try to figure out a way to the vault.

 

[Hussar]

@Monayuris makes some excellent points.

I'd add a couple:

1. While exploration is very cool and all, guided exploration is far more interesting. Take a random dungeon map. Without information, turning left or right doesn't really matter - it's a flip of the coin. But, imagine that you have a hand out map of the dungeon, withe convenient tears/waterstains/scorches that blot out, say, 40% of the map. Now, we have a guided exploration. We know some of the information, but, now we're filling in the blanks. It allows the players to think ahead - If we go down this corridor, it should connect to this bit here. Maybe.

IOW, blind exploration is fun for about ten minutes then it's just tedious, and, frankly, random. Guided exploration is FAR more interesting. Note, guided could a map, or verbal clues from a NPC (prisoners are GREAT for this) or even something as simple as following the tracks of something.

2. Don't drag things out unnecessarily. If the players think of a way around your exploration bit, then, well, let them have it and move on. You wanted them to explore that location, but, they pulled out a scroll of Find the Path that they've been holding onto for a while and blitz through things? Ah well, c'est la vie. Recycle some of those encounters into another adventure and move on.

3. LET THE PLAYER'S SUCCEED. This is one that I see a lot. The players try to explore - they are scouting for more information so they can better plan their way forward. Yup, that character failed a stealth check. Did you really have to immediately alert the entire area and have every monster converge on the party so that the players spend the next three hours in a combat they were trying to avoid? Not every failure has to be a catastrophic one. If the players are trying to scout their way forward, don't force umpteen die rolls until someone fails and then make that failure a total failure. All you are doing is teaching your players that there's no point in exploration, it will almost assuredly fail and you will be in a worse position than you started from.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Li Shenron]

This highlights several elements of exploration.
1. The location was a cave hole in a hillside. It contained a creature that was at least equal if not a greater challenge than the party would handle. This was a placed location on my map, and the players ran into it.
2. This behir lair existed here and would exist if the party were 5th level, 1st level, or 20th level. (Monsters and locations don't scale to party level).
3. The location was designed such that there would be evidence of the behir's existence. A smart group of players should have been able to make a guess as to what may be in store for them. A 1st level party would have enough information to nope out of the location and move on.
4. Exploration of the first few rooms provided clues to the challenges to be discovered in the later rooms. I described the streaks of burned stone neutrally. It was up to the players to decide if that information was relevant and what it meant.
5. There were a number of choices in how to proceed. The party elected to split and explore two different passages that connected together later. This was what allowed the group to minimize the behir's lightning blast while at the same time flanking it from two sides.

I like it, sounds like your players did too. I am also a fan of sandbox-y games and having monsters exist independently of the PC's level, but I would definitely protect them from an unfair TPK.

As you mentioned, the players shouldn't have to optimize their actions against some outside pressure. If your campaign relentlessly pushes them to move against the plot, they will consider any such locations as a waste of time and energy. They will sacrifice curiosity for diligence.

You got to have some places to be just pure reward. I know it is a feeling that everything has to be a challenge and combat, but sometimes you just need to put a magic sword in a tree, no strings attached, to be claimed by whoever finds it. If you show this stuff is possible, then you will encourage more exploration.

The key for me is to deliver a sense of urgency and pressure to the characters rather than the players.

As a player I certainly do not like seeing a DM pulling out a stopwatch or hourglass and force me to act without thinking. It makes me feel like I am forced to play badly in order to play quickly.

OTOH the characters probably should at least sometimes have pressure. I haven't played the ToA but it doesn't sound bad per se that the PCs have one week, although I can imagine that if the adventure gives you little clue how to find the tomb and makes you wander around for miles then there is obviously a mismatch there.

 

[Lanefan]

The key for me is to deliver a sense of urgency and pressure to the characters rather than the players.

As a player I certainly do not like seeing a DM pulling out a stopwatch or hourglass and force me to act without thinking. It makes me feel like I am forced to play badly in order to play quickly.

OTOH the characters probably should at least sometimes have pressure. I haven't played the ToA but it doesn't sound bad per se that the PCs have one week, although I can imagine that if the adventure gives you little clue how to find the tomb and makes you wander around for miles then there is obviously a mismatch there.

In-setting time pressure is the worst enemy of the exploration pillar.

If the players, through their PCs, feel they don't have time to explore because they're on a clock to get the mission done then they're not going to explore any more than they absolutely have to, simple as that. Which means unless it's a very linear-design adventure or module they're almost-ironclad-guaranteed going to miss some of it, and what's the fun in that?

If you want to encourage exploration, make sure there's no obvious time crunch and let 'em know (or think) they have all the time they need.

 

[Li Shenron]

In-setting time pressure is the worst enemy of the exploration pillar.

If the players, through their PCs, feel they don't have time to explore because they're on a clock to get the mission done then they're not going to explore any more than they absolutely have to, simple as that. Which means unless it's a very linear-design adventure or module they're almost-ironclad-guaranteed going to miss some of it, and what's the fun in that?

If you want to encourage exploration, make sure there's no obvious time crunch and let 'em know (or think) they have all the time they need.

All right, I was saying just generally that time-pressuring is a good thing to use in adventures (not all of them), but clearly I said that in the wrong thread! Of course being pressured means the PCs will skip over anything that isn't towards their current goal and that means not just exploration but also social interaction, preparations, everything... Being pressured all the time would be horrible tho.

 

[Haffrung]

I see a lot of comments about challenge, decisions, and reward. Which is all well and good. But isn't one of the draws of RPGs their capacity for drawing us into fantastic settings? I know this isn't the case for a lot of gamers, but when I'm in a good RPG session, I'm making a vivid, tremendously immersive movie in my head. I'm conjuring scenes in my minds' eye as spectacular as any in a blockbuster movie.

So one of the draws of venturing into the Weepings Wastes or the Barradine Ruins is just to see what's there. To be immersed, through the description of the DM and my own choices, into a fantastic setting. The same way I enjoy climbing a to the top of a peak in Elder Scrolls - the take in the incredible view.

Is that not a thing anymore? Has the wealth of other options for viscerally immersing ourselves in other worlds led to people dismissing that element of tabletop RPGs?