Exploration in RPGs

[DarkisNotEvil]

8 hours ago, cailano said:

Those are interesting mechanics, but as a game master, I'm not terribly concerned if the characters feel fear. I want the players to feel it. I want them on the edge of their seats, curious to see what is around the next corner but also dreading it. I don't need them to be terrified, but I want a lot of tension in the game. The PCs should never go into a dungeon (or the equivalent) lightly. 

I'm kind of lazy, so I don't like to work too hard for that tension. I provide it by having legitimately deadly threats in the game, and lots of them. I will happily kill off characters in any given encounter. I'll kill them with traps. I'll have enemy spellcasters cast spells with save-or-die effects. I'll end the campaign with a TPK. I don't even care. What's that? A player has been running the same character for six years only to be killed by a trap? Too bad. The game is more important than the characters, and the threat of character death is vital to creating tension.

Now, you do want to be careful with that. Tomb of Horrors-style traps that trigger without warning are no good. It's important that players have an opportunity to discover the threats in front of them (or behind them, what have you.) I don't believe in hiding things behind perception checks (and in fact, I don't even use them), but if they don't look? Or if they don't figure out the clues and proceed anyway? Hope they brought their lucky D20.

It's not that I want to kill the PCs, but I think it's critical for a GM to look forward to... how shall we say it? Presenting opportunities for glory.

 

I have a bit of experience in putting people on a spinning dish, though I haven't got as much practice as I'd like. Proper horror games aren't much in demand.

The key from what I can tell of both exploration and horror is telling people just short of enough. Both scenarios rely on not having all of the pieces, and perhaps knowing that you never will. Mechanically, knowledge checks should be limited. If you're an explorer of a never before seen portion of the world, you are the subject matter expert. Exploration games often rely on ambushing players with information close but not exactly to what they expect. Maybe the sharks are fifty feet long. Maybe roses are hallucinogenic in the strange new world. Horror games often rely on the similar lack of information, but tend not to clarify, or leave facets ambiguous and undiscovered. Exploration is unusual, horror is uncanny. Here's a good example of the difference between exploration and horror, in my mind:

You're trying, for whatever reason, to climb down to the bottom of a pit, and because you're alone, you use a rope for support. You tie it to a strong tree and double-knot it. You use its secure position around your waist to help yourself move from foothold to foothold.

Exploration is when your foot slips and you nearly fall into the abyss, grabbing hold of the rope and bracing on it, staring down as you struggle to find a foothold in time. You strain and pull yourself higher up on the rope, unsure if you'll be able to find your footing before your weight becomes too much for you to drag up to a secure point. Heaving and straining, you barely make it to a foothold and continue your journey.

Horror is when you're standing on a current foothold, looking down, and then suddenly you feel a tug at your waist. You look down and realize that the anchored portion of the rope you were relying on to get out of the pit has been cut off and thrown down into the abyss. When you look up to see who left you to die, you see only the toothy grin of a furry, human-like visage staring back at you. You can't see the eyes, sunken into the skull as they are, but the teeth are long and dagger-like.

To get a bit further into it, exploration games are like hard magic systems: You learn and understand the new rules of this new world you're in. Horror games are like soft magic systems: The rules are whatever is most convenient for scaring the skin from your skull. Horror will cheat.

Edited March 24, 2023 by DarkisNotEvil (see edit history)

[yxanthymir]

Great discussion. I myself love some exploration. Discovering the secrets of the world and its mysteries are my main purpose and driving force. The problem is most games don't involve that sort of exploration. Normally it is just a simple mystery that is right on your face, and the story is just a series of challenges to get there. I wish they provided more meaningful stories with a great mystery to solve. I understand that it would be very difficult to achieve, and strange in a game not particularly designed with that sole aspect in mind.

I remember a particular great story at the Call of Cthulhu RPG. Don't remember the name unfortunately. But the system was not designed for combat at all. 

 

[DarkisNotEvil]

18 hours ago, GreysonWulffe said:

I don't quite agree with this bit, but that's just from my perspective.

So long as there's some meaning or sense behind it, I'm perfectly fine with the game or the GM imposing conditions on my character. The entire "hit-point system" of Masks: A New Generation is based on imposed/forced emotions, and it works.

I can even work with the game just imposing the emotion and then cuing me to justify it. Like, "As you step through the doorway, your throat suddenly feels dry and you have a sinking sensation in your belly as fear overtakes you. Why do you feel this way? Envision this for us."

You are correct. Obviously, I can't tell you what your opinion is, and it's really good to know that you're able to roll with imposed emotions so easily. I've found, especially with narrative-focused games, that if I impose an emotion or sensation on players, even through pure mechanics, they can react violently on account of 'that's not what my character would do!'. If you're invested in a character, having them follow a command to jump into a pit imposed by a dark sorcerer can be quite galling, especially if it's at odds with how you view them.

Despite that, I'm going to mince words here and indicate why design choices are so important. You specifically cite Masks as your example. By joining a game of Masks, you as a player buy into the game's use of forced emotions as a form of damage. That's a decision you made, so when it comes back later, you are presumably invested in playing it out. That is what DMs and designers need to do. They need to understand the game, not just mechanically, but narratively, better than anyone else, so that they know how to make players buy into specific scenarios and understand or accept when it's just not gonna happen.

Reward players who pay attention in an exploration game. Give them the ability to solve puzzles with a moment of brilliance. Maybe call them Brilliancy Points, where their investigation of the local landscape and culture gives them a Eureka moment they can weaponize to realize something about the scenario that wasn't explained or obvious.

For example, a classic pulp cliche is a dashing hero coming across a hidden world and coming across the local conveniently unmarried princess of this strange people. But perhaps when the hero is hailed as the suitor for this strange princess, enough listening to the chanting reveals that the role of the king is to die in ritual self-sacrifice in order to maintain the idyllic world in which these secretive people live.

Edited March 24, 2023 by DarkisNotEvil (see edit history)

[Actana]

When it comes to Masks and emotions, it's important to note to those unfamiliar with the game that Masks does not force players to act in any specific way, even when they mark those conditions that represent emotional states. Instead, it both gives a hefty (-2 on a 2d6 system) penalty on rolls related to that emotion (for example, Afraid makes it harder for you to straight up fight villains and Angry makes it harder for you to empathize with others), and, more importantly, they allow players to clear that condition by acting in a specific way regarding that emotion (for Afraid, you have to flee a dangerous scene, and for Angry you have to destroy or hurt something/someone). It doesn't force you to act things out, but instead mechanically encourages you to act that way, both in mechanical and non-mechanical action.

 

One excellent game related to exploration and conditions like this is Torchbearer. In that game, when you fail you gain conditions like thirsty, hungry, tired, sick, wounded, etc. And once all of them are marked, you risk death. Brilliantly designed game to emulate the grind of a dungeon crawl.

Edited March 24, 2023 by Actana (see edit history)

[fabulist]

On 3/24/2023 at 6:39 PM, yxanthymir said:

Great discussion. I myself love some exploration. Discovering the secrets of the world and its mysteries are my main purpose and driving force. The problem is most games don't involve that sort of exploration. Normally it is just a simple mystery that is right on your face, and the story is just a series of challenges to get there. I wish they provided more meaningful stories with a great mystery to solve. I understand that it would be very difficult to achieve, and strange in a game not particularly designed with that sole aspect in mind.

I remember a particular great story at the Call of Cthulhu RPG. Don't remember the name unfortunately. But the system was not designed for combat at all. 

 

You're living on one of the floating islands around the planet. Everyone's living on the floating islands around the planet, because three generations ago enormous dark swirling storms and cyclones appeared down there, and during the following months not a single airship returned that ventured down to find out what was happening.

And it has been so for almost 200 years now. As usual, you and your friends spend a lot of time staring down and talking about what could have happened. Mostly, you are just playing out your imagination, because none has any idea what happened. And that's highly alarming, given that the unobtainium stores are running low and that means the islands plunging down. During the last few years, the survivors up here have been getting more and more edgy, then nervous, then violent and desperate. Now you don't know if you're going to die by falling or in one of the frenzied, pointless riots that happen with increasing frequency.

And then you notice it! A light spot! A large light spot in the menacing, roiling clouds down there. You've seen it in pictures, that must be normal clouds! A hole in the Wyrdstorm! A possible way down without dying... And, one of you knows about an airship that works. Well, most of the time, since it's been cast away as useless junk. But Uncle Cavann knows a lot about airships, and he said it's not crippled, only a little lame. So, after you tell everyone, you can yourself slip on it and head down to discover what's happened all those years ago, explore that new (for you) world, dig out its secrets -- and hopefully find a location for a settlement to save all the people stuck up here.

Edited April 11, 2023 by fabulist (see edit history)

[yxanthymir]

16 hours ago, fabulist said:

You're living on one of the floating islands around the planet. Everyone's living on the floating islands around the planet, because three generations ago enormous dark swirling storms and cyclones appeared down there, and during the following months not a single airship returned that ventured down to find out what was happening.

And it has been so for almost 200 years now. As usual, you and your friends spend a lot of time staring down and talking about what could have happened. Mostly, you are just playing out your imagination, because none has any idea what happened. And that's highly alarming, given that the unobtainium stores are running low and that means the islands plunging down. During the last few years, the survivors up here have been getting more and more edgy, then nervous, then violent and desperate. Now you don't know if you're going to die by falling or in one of the frenzied, pointless riots that happen with increasing frequency.

And then you notice it! A light spot! A large light spot in the menacing, roiling clouds down there. You've seen it in pictures, that must be normal clouds! A hole in the Wyrdstorm! A possible way down without dying... And, one of you knows about an airship that works. Well, most of the time, since it's been cast away as useless junk. But Uncle Cavann knows a lot about airships, and he said it's not crippled, only a little lame. So, after you tell everyone, you can yourself slip on it and head down to discover what's happened all those years ago, explore that new (for you) world, dig out its secrets -- and hopefully find a location for a settlement to save all the people stuck up here.

Already been in a similar game, it looks super interesting at first glance, then it becomes just like is always. Just as I described previously. It is really hard to create and sustain a creative setting. It requires a lot of work, so I understand that it can be taxing for the GM.

[Jedaii]

Exploration in TTRPGs isn't for everyone. It's not the same experience as reading a book, either. More than a few players understand that if you explore too far too fast your character can end up dead real quick. So for a lot of adventures the setting gets explored ten to sixty feet at a time 😏

[cailano]

19 hours ago, yxanthymir said:

Already been in a similar game, it looks super interesting at first glance, then it becomes just like is always. Just as I described previously. It is really hard to create and sustain a creative setting. It requires a lot of work, so I understand that it can be taxing for the GM.

Settings are a lot of fun to create but I think they might be more for the GM than the players, who will probably ignore the setting for the most part.

I've seen exceptions. I've had players dig in hard on setting elements and base their characters on them, but I've also had plenty who forget even the core conceits of the game world.

I've also run games that don't have a setting at all beyond a town and a few dungeons and it doesn't seem to lessen anyone's fun.

I think it is better to keep the game world the same but different. For example, if you might have a basic D&D world and then say "but all the elves are dead." That gives you one element to go back to in the campaign and it's easy for the characters to remember.

 

[fabulist]

On 4/12/2023 at 12:45 PM, yxanthymir said:

Already been in a similar game, it looks super interesting at first glance, then it becomes just like is always. Just as I described previously. It is really hard to create and sustain a creative setting. It requires a lot of work, so I understand that it can be taxing for the GM.

Yep, that's true. Still I think if there's the central mystery and the GM doesn't give it out fast, and there are many layers to dig it out from, it can be done with a sane amount of work.

[Actana]

On 4/12/2023 at 12:45 PM, yxanthymir said:

Already been in a similar game, it looks super interesting at first glance, then it becomes just like is always. Just as I described previously. It is really hard to create and sustain a creative setting. It requires a lot of work, so I understand that it can be taxing for the GM.

Not to toot my own horn, but I think I touched upon the reason why: just exploring such a creative setting is not enough on its own, because there needs to be something to Discover. That keeps the interest going because then the exploration has a goal, not just blocks of text describing how wacky the setting is.

[Jedaii]

34 minutes ago, Actana said:

Not to toot my own horn, but I think I touched upon the reason why: just exploring such a creative setting is not enough on its own, because there needs to be something to Discover. That keeps the interest going because then the exploration has a goal, not just blocks of text describing how wacky the setting is.

Great point! That piece of advice should be in every system.

[cailano]

That is, indeed, a great point. Taking it back to a game design standpoint, I think the key to exploration in a game sense is interactivity. Exploration should be an actual action that the PCs can take. Go to a place. Pull a lever. Search a room. Recover a book.

And there should be a payoff for exploration. It might be an encounter or trap (yes, that's a payoff), like in Raiders of the Lost Ark when Indy recovers the Golden Idol. Or it could be a location that brings a sense of wonder. Or it can be a major reveal for the story if you're in a more story-based campaign. Those are tricky because big info dumps have to be handled well, or else they're boring AF.

I've been reading a lot of Harley Stroh's Dungeon Crawl Classics modules lately, and it's almost like taking a class in adventure design. That dude is on another level, and he absolutely nails the exploration aspect of adventures, whether it is investigating the nooks and crannies of a dungeon or solving mysteries inside a town. I highly recommend them to my fellow GMs unless you're also a player in my DCC games.

[Malkavian Grin]

Wow, lot of stuff to catch up on here...

Take all this with the knowledge I'm on the autism spectrum, so my opinions may come off as weird (and very likely the opposite of average). But I do enjoy discussions.

On 3/5/2023 at 11:29 PM, cailano said:

Maybe they check it, maybe they don’t. 

For me, depending on the mechanics at hand (I.E. how deadly they are) I tend to shy away from exploration. Sure, that lever seems interesting, and I'm sure it does something but do I really want to risk my efforts thus far on a simple-minded curiosity?

Feels like as I get older, I want my time respected more. From demanding employers, to grindy video games, to TTRPGs. I hate to lose my investment of time into a thing. Yes, you could say I have my memories of it, but I form attachments to my characters. For me, RPGs are about experiencing something I can't (or haven't).

So, yes, I could pull that thing, but if it kills me/us then I lose my investment in the game and have to start from scratch. Some people are okay with this. I, personally, struggle with it.

On 3/6/2023 at 2:06 PM, cailano said:

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.

Try not to think of a dungeon in a literal sense. A dungeon is merely a place to be explored. A wilderness area can be a dungeon.

Talking game design, a dungeon is a series of milestones a character passes through, to reach some end goal. Each area that has something worth discovering, otherwise why are we talking about it? Milestones are connected together by pieces of narrative. In a literal dungeon, that's the hallways, but the wilderness could mean an open field, a well-worn trail, or a cart-ride. The narrative leads to a milestone: a barbed thicket on the edge of the field, a fast-moving stream blocking the trail, highway robbers that attack the cart.

Worried about the lack of walls to pen in your players? Put the adventure well away from civilization, so that any direction traveled becomes the narrative to the milestone.

On 3/21/2023 at 9:25 PM, Vladim said:

That being said, the doing crazy stuff bit-I don't know. Sure, it can be fun, at least for some games, but in my (limited) experience it leads to some pretty unserious/slapstick/gonzo stories... which is fine if that's what you want. Personally not my cuppa, but YMMV.

This. Run the correct game for the correct player. And in turn, play the correct game for your own expectations and values.

GMs can't fix everything. And players should know when to back off/down.

On 3/21/2023 at 11:27 PM, cailano said:

Agreed that dungeon crawls are all about exploration. It takes a good GM to run a good crawl, but what in this hobby doesn't require a good GM?

I think you've had a bad experience with rules-lite systems, though. The GM shouldn't set themselves or their players up for that kind of game. Instead, the players should feel free to declare any action they can think of. There's no "mother-may-I run up the dragon's tail and climb on its back?" The player should just declare the action. The GM should then make a quick ruling about how that sort of activity works and then likely describe how the dragon eats said PC.

I've played a lot of systems, and I've never found that complex rule sets do anything but slow down play and create undesirable game states. Either a player doesn't have good system mastery, which hampers their character, or else they have incredible system mastery, and they find exploits and character optimizations.

Complex rules and optimizations make for games that are hard to learn for the players and easy to survive for the characters. I like my games the other way around.

First, many solo games offer a great experience without a GM. But, using an Oracle isn't for everyone (see my above point about playing the right game).

Second, I agree on letting a character do (attempt) a thing first. A good GM doesn't deny something, unless it's specifically agreed upon as not part of the game (modern-day detectives but then a character says they cast fireball). But, actions should have consequences (I.E. getting eaten by the dragon).

Third, couldn't agree more that the more rules you have, the more rules-lawyers will come out of the works to "break" it. With a ruling, you're left with your imagination and judgement of the table.

On 3/23/2023 at 11:32 PM, GreysonWulffe said:

I can even work with the game just imposing the emotion and then cuing me to justify it. Like, "As you step through the doorway, your throat suddenly feels dry and you have a sinking sensation in your belly as fear overtakes you. Why do you feel this way? Envision this for us."

This! I have been embracing this mentality lately. It gives the player back their agency!

Sure, you need to respond to a fear effect (a dragon, a ghost, an alien, a nightmare, etc.), but it should be on your own terms. By having agency, a player will continue wanting to play, to explore, and to discover, because they have a voice in the matter.

On 3/23/2023 at 11:38 PM, cailano said:

Those are interesting mechanics, but as a game master, I'm not terribly concerned if the characters feel fear. I want the players to feel it.

I'm kind of lazy, so I don't like to work too hard for that tension. I provide it by having legitimately deadly threats in the game, and lots of them.

I can say, as one of your players, I am legitimately feeling it during this final ziggurat encounter. I was squealing as I read the details and realized we could TPK. The fear is real (but see my previous point about time investment as to why it's real).

As to the other point, you have to be careful with this. Too much and you risk desensitizing players to it.

"Oh, it's a dragon. Bet we die here. Hey, what're you gonna play next?" The players have already moved on because they've seen too many PC deaths and know this is likely the end, but they haven't even faced the encounter yet! You've killed your own tension-generator. And if not tension, then definitely the fear. It might be exciting to see if you can live through the dragon encounter, but after some point it's about as fearful as landing on a slide in Chutes & Ladders.

It really comes down to, from a game design position, playing the right game for the right person. There is no one-size fits all solution. Some people really like the OSR style. Others just want to power trip. Others still are just in it for the cool storyline. And don't forget the people that just like when the dice go clicky-clack.

...

I feel like I got a bit sidetracked. Sorry 'bout that!

[cailano]

1 hour ago, Malkavian Grin said:

 

...I can say, as one of your players, I am legitimately feeling it during this final ziggurat encounter. I was squealing as I read the details and realized we could TPK. The fear is real (but see my previous point about time investment as to why it's real).

As to the other point, you have to be careful with this. Too much and you risk desensitizing players to it...

 

Sure, it makes sense that no one playing style would be for all players. I try to mix periods of lesser and greater tension in my games to avoid burnout. PbP actually makes that pretty easy since it can be days of real-time between encounters. I find the bigger challenge is being able to keep the tension from dropping too low for too long. How am I doing in that game?

[Malkavian Grin]

11 minutes ago, cailano said:

Sure, it makes sense that no one playing style would be for all players. I try to mix periods of lesser and greater tension in my games to avoid burnout. PbP actually makes that pretty easy since it can be days of real-time between encounters. I find the bigger challenge is being able to keep the tension from dropping too low for too long. How am I doing in that game?

That's fair. PbP is a different beast entirely than being at the table in real time. More random improvisation, and more of your own personality coming through (at least in my case) when you don't have time to pause and think.

Personally, I'm having a blast in your DCC game. Like I said, the build-up to this (probably) final scene/encounter had me squealing with fear (almost to the point of inaction; I had to let others take the lead). I worry that every move I make will be the end.

I attribute part of this fear to my own attachments to fake people (it's an autism issue, as I hardly care for real people, but cry at fake relationships in games or movies).