Exploration in RPGs

[cailano]

The longer I play RPGs, the more I realize that exploration is the most important phase of the game.

Nothing is better than an adventure with many mysteries to uncover and solve. Not just plot mysteries but mysteries like "what is this place? How did it get here? What treasures can we find here? How does this weird thing we found work? How does this secret door open? What does this lever do, and do I dare pull it?"

The best adventures have secrets that lead to other secrets. Not to boring exposition-type secrets, but to awesome things that your characters can get their hands on and investigate. Hooks that lead to greater dangers and rewards.

But I find it challenging to both add that sort of exploration and balance it with the other game phases while preserving player agency.

So, let's talk about exploration. As a GM, how do you ensure you're including enough of it? What adventures have you written or read that do it really well? As a player, what games can you remember that best evoked that sense of exploration? What made them so great?

Where have you seen exploration go wrong? Can gamemasters do anything to better deliver on that phase of the game?

 

 

[Vladim]

I like exploration too. It's supposed to be one of the three pillars (along with combat and social stuff) but honestly, in D&D there's very little supporting mechanics for things outside combat.

Some of my favorite games (Ironsworn, The One Ring) have rules specific for travelling. They're not perfect, but a good GM can use them to introduce more world lore, adventure hooks and opportunities for PC characterization ala Tolkien. If not, they become just a boring dice roll fest or, even worse, filler.

Then there's games of campaigns that specialize in hex-crawling, like Kingmaker. These are well suited for sandbox/west marches style games. I think Forbidden Lands has gotten a lot of praise for how it handles this. I haven't read that system though.

Investigative mysteries... I'm not an expert, but the three clue rule and the fail forward concept are useful for those. I'd like to do more investigative stuff at some point, but there's tons of games that do this well, allegedly (e.g. Delta Green).

But this is a case where a framework of rules is not sufficient-the GM has to come up with some compelling plot to go with it, and get everyone excited about it. So it's a bit of a higher bar than exciting combat, imo.

[GreysonWulffe]

My real-life gaming buddy and I have been experimenting with Ironsworn, Ironsworn: Starforged, and Mythic Game Master Emulator lately, and those have great mechanics for journeys, waypoints, and the exploration of randomly-generated waypoints.

Essentially...

1. Determine the journey in terms of its overall objective (e.g. Get to Skyreach Castle atop Mount Icingdeath) and its overall difficulty/threat level (e.g. Rank 3 out of 5). The difficulty level determines either the total progress required (e.g. Rank 1 is 5 total progress, Rank 2 is 8 total progress, etc) or how much progress is made with each success (e.g. each journey requires 10 total progress and Rank 1 makes 3 progress with each success, Rank 2 makes 2 progress with each success, etc).
2. Roll to find out what happens on one leg of the journey. Failure means there is no progress. Partial success means there is progress but also a complication. Complete success means safe progress or double progress.
3. Whether you succeed/progress or not, you end up in a location. Roll on some location/oracle tables to determine the features of the location. If the players want to, they can explore the location; if they don't, then you move on to roll for the next leg of the journey.

Note that "randomly-generated" doesn't have to be overly random. These systems offer story/narrative cues, and it's up to the GM (or the group as a whole if there's no GM) to interpret those cues - as such, it's in their hands whether the interpretation stays close to the narrative they're currently spinning or not. 😉

[cailano]

I don’t know that you need a ton of mechanics for exploration. In fact, it’s one thing that old-school play gets right more often in part because there were NOT mechanics for it. The PCs had to interact with the game world and the GM had to use their best judgement to determine the results. 
 

How do you guys feel about burying secrets in adventures? Nothing plot critical, but additional dangers and rewards that encourage the PCs to push their resources just a little farther. Maybe that pool in the treasure room has a mechanism at the bottom that the thief spots while they’re scooping the gold coins out of it. And sure, the torches are running out and that ogre chieftain is going to find them soon… but what happens if they pull that lever? Does it reveal the best treasure of all? Is it a trap? Does it in uncage some kind of creature?

Maybe they check it, maybe they don’t. I’m thinking about adding more of that kind of stuff into my games though. I want the players to internalize that there is always more if they just dig a little deeper and pay attention to the backstory a little more. 
 

Or have I completely lost it?

[cailano]

I might have to check out Delta Green. What are you referencing for the three clue rule and fail forward? I think I know what you mean but do you have additional info?

[GreysonWulffe]

17 minutes ago, cailano said:

I don’t know that you need a ton of mechanics for exploration. In fact, it’s one thing that old-school play gets right more often in part because there were NOT mechanics for it. The PCs had to interact with the game world and the GM had to use their best judgement to determine the results. 
 

How do you guys feel about burying secrets in adventures? Nothing plot critical, but additional dangers and rewards that encourage the PCs to push their resources just a little farther. Maybe that pool in the treasure room has a mechanism at the bottom that the thief spots while they’re scooping the gold coins out of it. And sure, the torches are running out and that ogre chieftain is going to find them soon… but what happens if they pull that lever? Does it reveal the best treasure of all? Is it a trap? Does it in uncage some kind of creature?

Maybe they check it, maybe they don’t. I’m thinking about adding more of that kind of stuff into my games though. I want the players to internalize that there is always more if they just dig a little deeper and pay attention to the backstory a little more. 
 

Or have I completely lost it?

I wasn't at all concerned on the mechanics of exploration - if you'll check back on my post, it was just a quick note on my Step 3. That's because Ironsworn has a separate mechanic for the exploration itself, while Mythic GME often relies on the main RPG system to resolve the exploration on its own.

I was focused more on the setup for the journey and the exploration. Old-school adventures typically require the GM to prepare the journey and the exploration ahead of time - they usually have to map the route and plan what the players might find there. Ironsworn and Mythic GME skip all of that setup altogether, allowing the GM to come to the table with nothing but the mindset for improvization.

This approach even touches on your concern about "burying secrets in adventures". If the oracle table comes up with a cue that's interesting enough, you might come up with an entirely new plot line, not just an inconsequential secret. And you don't have to plan it ahead of time, too - the secret will generate itself when the dice say so.

Edited March 6, 2023 by GreysonWulffe (see edit history)

[cailano]

Gotcha. My mechanics thought was actually aimed at Vlad’s comment anyway, but it sounds like your generative method is working well for you. I don’t think it is as applicable for me since as a GM my joy in the game comes from creating and running adventures. I guess a tool might be good for those times when you just need to make something on the fly, though.

[Actana]

You don't need mechanics for anything, but well constructed mechanics can absolutely enhance a game through meaningful choices, player agency, and legitimizing actions so that the players know what they're doing actually has a point beyond "whatever the GM thinks is best at the time".

For exploration, I like it on a high concept level, but in practice it only really works for specific kinds of games and/or scenarios. In depth dungeon exploration gets difficult, as you often lack any sort of meaningful way to know what path to take where, making exploration just a seemingly random series of choices. I'm not sure how I'd fix it myself beyond giving the players a lot more clues and information on directions, or just leaning heavily into evoking a maze-like feeling where your uncertainty is part of the point. Preferably the former over the latter as the latter tends to invoke more paranoia and analysis paralysis among players.

 

I remember hearing a quote that I feel is relevant to exploration. It was in regards to Elden Ring's worldbuilding: "[The setting of Elden Ring] is like an ancient crime scene, and you're here to do forensics" (or something along those likes). It rather stuck with me as a way to deliver lore through exploration of ruins. Something happened, and it's the player's job to pick up the pieces and try to form an idea of what happened with incomplete information. Or just run to the end and kill things in their way, that's fine too.

[Butchern]

5 hours ago, Actana said:

You don't need mechanics for anything, but well constructed mechanics can absolutely enhance a game through meaningful choices, player agency, and legitimizing actions so that the players know what they're doing actually has a point beyond "whatever the GM thinks is best at the time".

Yeah, you really don't need rules for anything. Different players like to have rules for some things and to dispense with rules for other things. Most of my games either don't have or don't use rules for combat (unless we are playing supers). It is purely a matter of taste. The reason this discussion comes up over and over again is because 1) people on the internet often confuse "This is what I prefer" with "This is what is true and necessary and good," and 2) people feel the need to defend their preferred style of play, favorite game system, or nostalgia for the past. "My game system of choice doesn't have rules for ______, therefore rules for ______ are entirely unnecessary. Fight me!"

I am running a four-session "kids on bikes" style game in April, set during the "Operación Pedro Pan" era. The players will be exploring a rural and extremely haunted town on the border of the Everglades to the west of Miami. We are using a Fate hack but don't plan to have a Fight or Shoot skill, because that isn't really what this game is about. We don't need rules for fighting. I'll probably roll Intimidate and Fight into a single skill like "Scuffling" for when kids go head-to-head.

As for exploring, I have two maps: a map of the town with all the streets and buildings with names—the kind of thing you could ask anyone about and find out ("Where is the drug store?"), and a massive blank map of the swamp for them to explore and fill in. "Exploring" the town will be about migrant kids without families trying to gain access to adult spaces. Exploring the swamp will be like a hex crawl, where the core mechanic will be something like, "You'll always find what you go looking for (because not finding the interesting thing is boring) but at what cost." I have a few sketches of stories that will force them to explore both the town and the swamp, but this group will not need much input from me to decide what they want to get up to.

I don't think we'll use any random tables to answer questions about their explorations (though I have done that in the past and love it). I can usually get good answers by just asking these players terrible, obnoxious questions. 😄

[Actana]

I should also note that extra rules can also absolutely detract from an experience, especially if poorly constructed. It's all a matter of preference, but I think that exploration as a pillar is right next to combat and social pillars in the necessity (or lack thereof) of rules. They just need to fit the bill on how they operate, what their purpose is and what kind of mood they evoke. Rarely would I use similar kinds of mechanics for combat as I would for exploration, though there are exceptions.

Older D&D editions certainly had rules for exploration, torches, lighting, random encounters, etc. There's a lot of vestigial rules in more modern D&D editions, but there are also games which focus more heavily on the exploration too.

[cailano]

Actana has an interesting point about dungeons and the players not knowing where to look or which way to go. Isn’t there a way we can help with that as game masters though? Maybe players would pay more attention to backstory and scene details if they ended up needing them later. 

[cailano]

And yes, the exploration rules in the TSR editions were absolutely better than in the WotC editions. 

[Vladim]

13 hours ago, cailano said:

What are you referencing for the three clue rule and fail forward? I think I know what you mean but do you have additional info?

Here you go:

• 3 clue rule.
• Failing forward.

13 hours ago, cailano said:

How do you guys feel about burying secrets in adventures? Nothing plot critical, but additional dangers and rewards that encourage the PCs to push their resources just a little farther. Maybe that pool in the treasure room has a mechanism at the bottom that the thief spots while they’re scooping the gold coins out of it. And sure, the torches are running out and that ogre chieftain is going to find them soon… but what happens if they pull that lever? Does it reveal the best treasure of all? Is it a trap? Does it in uncage some kind of creature?

It really depends on your players. Some people enjoy playing with the risk/reward ratio, and optimizing it and problem-solving gets them their kicks. Personally? If it doesn't promote RP of some sort (character introspection, development of relationships, advancement of a plot) I don't care much about it. I like the hobby for the RP aspects; I don't care much for the problem-solving (I do enough of that in my day job). Plus in PbP, I'm very anti-filler, given the slowness of the medium. Conflict is (usually) necessary to drive the narrative, yes, but optimizing outcomes rarely is in my opinion/preference. Plus it tends to make things stagnate.

2 hours ago, cailano said:

Maybe players would pay more attention to backstory and scene details if they ended up needing them later. 

I think that's the wrong way to go about it. Punishment/reward conditioning can only take you so far. Better to just ask them directly if they are enjoying the story, and what you could do to improve their enjoyment of it.

[cailano]

See, I love a good dungeon crawl. It's part of what draws me to the OSR. At some point, you have to go on an adventure. At least in the kind of games I want to run.

I consider myself to be a competent gamemaster. I'll consider myself to be a really good one when I finally figure out how to have a big chunk of an adventure be wilderness exploration and have the players find it compelling and fun.

Punishment and reward can be very powerful, but that sounds like manipulation, which is not what I'm going for. I want to inspire wonder and curiosity, and a sense of danger. That's what these games are all about, at least in my opinion.

But what pillar of the game supports those feelings? Combat might bring a sense of danger. Role-playing? Maybe if you can pull off a scene like the exposition sequence in the first act of Raiders of the Lost Ark. But exploration? I think that's the one. That's why I think it's so important.

[cailano]

@Vladim, those links are great! There are some fantastic, usable ideas there.