Exploration in RPGs

[Actana]

tl;dr: look at the bolded words.

[Excior]

On 3/5/2023 at 5:38 PM, Vladim said:

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.

are you speaking from a 5th edition point of view or have you been playing D&D since the old days, the reason I ask is because D&D was set up in my opinion to be an exploration rule set, the AD&D DMG had all sorts of tables and charts for hex crawls as wells as dungeon delving. I think at its heart its the DM/GM that makes or breaks this type of  game. 

[cailano]

31 minutes ago, Excior said:

...the DM/GM that makes or breaks this type of  game. 

No game is better than the GM and players. The players have to buy in, too!

[Vladim]

2 hours ago, Excior said:

are you speaking from a 5th edition point of view or have you been playing D&D since the old days, the reason I ask is because D&D was set up in my opinion to be an exploration rule set, the AD&D DMG had all sorts of tables and charts for hex crawls as wells as dungeon delving. I think at its heart its the DM/GM that makes or breaks this type of  game. 

The former (and to a lesser extent, Pathfinder 1e), where most of my (limited) experience comes from. I can't speak for AD&D, so I defer to more experienced folks with that system 🙂

[GaryD20]

4 hours ago, cailano said:

No game is better than the GM and players. The players have to buy in, too!

This!

[Jedaii]

On 3/22/2023 at 1:41 PM, Actana said:

Without getting into that latter part which deserves its very own thread (and is also painting many games with a single brush, in not very friendly terms either), I do still want to tackle that first half. "Exploration is the point of a dungeon crawl" is a bold statement. Exploration is a part of a dungeon crawl feels more realistic to me, as I don't really enjoy dealing in absolutes like that (something something Sith). But I'd also like to dive even deeper into the question: what is the point of exploration in turn? I do not think it is of inherent value, but instead a vehicle for something else: Discovery.

You explore to discover things. Those things can be anything, from loot to scenery to story to just small moments or exciting encounters with hostile denizens. Our characters also typically explore to discover things (often loot), and combining the wants of the players and their characters often leads to the best results in terms of motivation. I personally value the idea of discovering a story greatly, as it's something that builds a lot of context and immersion in a game: the idea that we aren't the first people here and we're discovering things that others left behind, thus learning both the story of the place and of those who came before. But loot is a lot more obvious and an easy choice.

 

Discovery itself consists of several factors, the three most apparent and important to me are anticipation, tension and payoff.

Anticipation is, as the name implies, the expectation of something. It's easy to get excited when you think of what might be beyond the horizon. To get anticipation, you also need to provide enough context for a decision to provoke anticipation. If there are two identical doors with corridors behind them, one going left and the other right, it's hard to build any anticipation as there is nothing to latch onto. There's no reason to pick one over the other, so it's an arbitrary choice. And to me, anticipation in discovery is built by choice: the players choose to do something, go somewhere because they think there's something worth looking for there. The players go after the dragon because they anticipate a large hoard of gold in its lair, even if they don't know it's there.

Tension is important in all narratives, the idea of uncertainty and danger. Is what they're going to find worth it? Can we risk going further or do we retreat? This is very often helped by the mechanics of a game, resource attrition and risks of danger and loss. Not sure there's too much to talk about here, this is where a lot of the gameplay happens and helps (or hinders!) build tension. Not every game is as good at building tension for these situations, though each game also does discovery a bit differently and with different values, and thus must approach the building of tension differently. Know your tools etc.

Finally, we get the Payoff. This is the moment where we reach our goal and reap our rewards. We stash the gold, we learn the secrets, we find that epic vista that the GM so proficiently narrates for us. The moment of catharsis, where our anticipation is rewarded and our tension releases, and everyone breathes out. Ideally. Not always. Payoff can very easily be subverted too. Maybe the villain got to the ancient treasure first. Maybe the dragon didn't have a lot of gold after all. Maybe there was no secret of Monkey Island™. Subverting the payoff can be powerful, but also risky, and like any plot twist needs to be set up well beforehand so that the natural reaction is less "well this sucks" and more "we should have seen that one coming".

This is the end of the journey to discover, but it can easily set up more anticipation. One instance of Discovery can contain several sub-Discoveries in it as well, smaller moments of anticipations, tensions and payoffs that all build towards the larger one. You can also have several of them happening at once, where people anticipate different things, though typically the tension mostly remains the same for everyone (though of course a character's internal challenges can affect the tension - not all PCs are aligned or going through the same troubles).

 

Edit: It's important, I feel, to note that Discovery doesn't require a dungeon. Discovery can be done anywhere. Dungeons are, however, a convenient and closed environment to deliver Tension. They're easy to plan for, have a limited amount of things to interact with and generally laid out in a way that allows the players to progress at a good pace in an environment that is rife with potential danger. But discovery happens in the wilderness as well, it happens in plots of intrigue and social conflicts. You just need to set the anticipation and payoff accordingly, and if there isn't an easy way to deliver any of the three main points of anticipation, tension and payoff, then maybe that particular scene shouldn't have discovery in it, and instead consist of something else. Travel montages can be made pretty fun, for example. You don't discover so much as collaborate on the narrative, delivering character moments that are built around Fellowship instead of Discovery. What's that? Fellowship? I don't know, maybe a topic for another thread.

/Edit

 

I would also like to contest the idea that having someone obsess over a sheet of graph paper to build the dungeon floor and hope they don't mishear what the DM said about the dimensions. To me this is far too prescriptive in how dungeons can be built: verticality, unusual shapes, etc all are hindered by the need to fit a dungeon onto a sheet of paper. Pointcrawls (perhaps supplemented by evocative drawings of certain areas), to me, are much more poignant, not to mention easier to handle. Maps can be cool, but I wouldn't want to put a player in charge of them. Certainly could put a character in charge, but not a player. YMMV.

Have you written a book on ttrpgs or have a blog? That piece you just wrote was so perfect. You're a great writer and possess a great degree of depth as well. Thanks for that. 

[Actana]

3 minutes ago, Jedaii said:

Have you written a book on ttrpgs or have a blog? That piece you just wrote was so perfect. You're a great writer and possess a great degree of depth as well. Thanks for that. 

Unfortunately I don't have the time nor discipline to keep up with writing books or reliable blog entries. I only occasionally pop into the world of forums to write something far too long, often losing sight of what I meant to talk about to begin with. But I'm flattered nonetheless.

[DarkisNotEvil]

I saw the RPG Ryuutama and the concept was just "Yes, all of this, but more" in terms of what I wanted in an RPG. My big issue with it is that I thought the mechanics were somewhat lackluster, but I think it's such a compelling idea: The idea of a set of genuine travelers setting out on an adventure, a real adventure, to find a new home for themselves. Travel, journeys, and a search for a home or a return to it are such a fundamental recurring theme in human literature and culture I'm shocked it hasn't gotten more coverage, at least as far as I'm aware (One Ring may do this too).

I think that's at least partially because exploration requires vulnerability.

I doubly emphasized that because a lot of RPGs are inherently about being or becoming powerful, and solving problems. Knowing what to do, or at least knowing that everything will work out for you, is part of what makes RPGs such a useful art. Being in an RPG means you can explore dangerous or deeply-rooted problems in a relatively safe environment. You can confront moral dilemmas without risking any real loss of life, because it's real to the characters. You can feel vicarious thrills of facing powerful beasts without actually risking getting your head torn off by a werewolf.

Exploration is deeply related to a strongly underappreciated part of the human psyche: Fear. Fear is associated with horror genres, but I think the basis of fear is more general and applicable. I say underappreciated when I talk about fear because fear is traditionally regarded as negative. It's 'bad', it's what you feel when you're weak, you're scared and uncertain- all things I would generalize are seen as 'bad', at least in the cultures I've been exposed to. However, fear compels us to be curious. We don't seek out the answer for no reason, we are curious to be more secure in our understanding of ourselves and the world. What we don't know can and will hurt us, if we allow it to. There are three basic kinds of fear I've seen with regards to narrative tension:

1. I don't know what the world is really like
2. I don't know who I really am
3. I don't know what I should believe

Wheeling back to vulnerability, this leads to a lot of character opportunities. Communication by the campfire. Exploration of ideas, of dreams, of hatred, revenge, contradictions and hypocrisy. Discovering who we are through conversation makes us vulnerable by showing other people who we think we are. Discovering who we are through self-reflection exposes us to our own worst nature. Discovering who we are through experience exposes us to danger, be it social or mental or physical.

Most RPGs lean on the first fear almost exclusively, and very rarely on the third with moral dilemmas. The second fear is kind of difficult to strike at in RPGs because they tend to be very mechanical and the person asking who their character should be is most often asking for build advice. It also tends to challenge player control over their own characters. The traditional adventurer says something like this: "I know who I really am, I know what I should believe, but I don't know what the world is really like, so I need to go out and explore it." When either of the two other fears are confronted, it's because the world challenges certain pre-conceived notions of who someone is or what they should believe.

In contrast, a lot of exploration concepts tend to focus on discovering oneself, and I think the way they do that is because the person soul-searching says, "I don't know who I really am, I don't know what I should believe, but if I know what the world is really like, I might learn the answers, so I need to go out and explore it." Traveling metaphors/concepts/et cetera emphasize this aspect both implicitly and explicitly. People implicitly change across their literal journey, eventually settling down or at least 'curing' their fundamental fear when they find the answers they desire. Travelers are explicitly challenged by people on their journey who ask them, "Who are you, where are you trying to go, and why?"

To steal from Actana's use, anticipation is the question, tension is the situation which is consulted for the answer, and payoff is the conclusion the character comes to. If they are not completely satisfied with their answer, the journey continues.

Edited March 23, 2023 by DarkisNotEvil
Overabundance of 'usually' (see edit history)

[Actana]

I was certainly more focused on exploration and discovery as an external process, but I suppose there is no reason it can't be applied to internal issues as well. Great post!

[DarkisNotEvil]

Appreciate it, I was inspired by what I saw and figured I needed to chip in after seeing a good breakdown of what makes situations click.

As an addendum, when it comes to plot twists, what I find works best is to twist two of the fears and keep the third fear untouched as a pivot. Challenging all fears at once makes it seem like the audience/players have been lied to, which can work but requires exquisite, perfect execution and usually involves performing several back-to-back twists which challenge each pair of fears separately. What follows are general spoilers for some decently aged media:

Pivot on 1, challenge 2,3 (Fight Club)

The Narrator is Tyler Durden. Tyler's beliefs are challenged and his understanding of himself is challenged, but the world remains intact, to provide proof that things are consistent.

Pivot on 2, challenge 1,3 (Metal Gear Solid III: Snake Eater)

The Boss was loyal to America all along. This crushes the newly forged Big Boss, who has spent the entire game fighting to become 'History's Greatest Soldier', and now that he's allegedly the greatest warrior alive, his beliefs and view of the Cold War are obliterated and need to be rebuilt from the ground up.

Pivot on 3, challenge 1,2 (The Sixth Sense)

Malcolm is Dead. You knew this was coming on a list of twists. Malcolm's guiding principles don't change, but his perspective on who he is (as in, alive) and the world (specifically about how he's affected his wife) are ruined.

Edited March 23, 2023 by DarkisNotEvil (see edit history)

[cailano]

There are some interesting ideas up there! Let's take it back to game design. How can we, as GMs, use these ideas in an actual game with real players? Can you think of any concrete examples of times when you've made them work?

[Jedaii]

@Actana wrote about tension: I like to use that as a tool pretty often to keep players and their characters on their toes. Communicating the threat a monster or NPC or location poses with the first encounter. I've seen experienced players humbled at the table when their "mighty Paladin/Superhero" actually felt fear that caused the character to pause. It's a very interesting thing to see a player react to how their character feels. That's real immersion and tension can definitely deliver that kind of situation in my experience. 

@DarkisNotEvil brought up Twists and it's a sore spot because nearly "every.single.time." I've used twists one or more players got angry because they were expecting the story to go a certain way I hinted. They really did feel like I lied to them, but rather I was just trying to shake things up, especially when I had some cool (I thought) sub-plot planned for later. I've learned a lot of players come to the table with strong expectations of who their character is, what the character is capable of and how the story will go for that character. Messing with those expectations can be dicey (pun intended) 😏

[DarkisNotEvil]

1 hour ago, Jedaii said:

@Actana wrote about tension: I like to use that as a tool pretty often to keep players and their characters on their toes. Communicating the threat a monster or NPC or location poses with the first encounter. I've seen experienced players humbled at the table when their "mighty Paladin/Superhero" actually felt fear that caused the character to pause. It's a very interesting thing to see a player react to how their character feels. That's real immersion and tension can definitely deliver that kind of situation in my experience. 

@DarkisNotEvil brought up Twists and it's a sore spot because nearly "every.single.time." I've used twists one or more players got angry because they were expecting the story to go a certain way I hinted. They really did feel like I lied to them, but rather I was just trying to shake things up, especially when I had some cool (I thought) sub-plot planned for later. I've learned a lot of players come to the table with strong expectations of who their character is, what the character is capable of and how the story will go for that character. Messing with those expectations can be dicey (pun intended) 😏

So let me focus on design with regards to tension/fear as Cailano suggests.

Players don't like it when their character is controlled. As in at all. Fear is really a sore problem as a result, hence your problem with paladins and superheroes feeling fear. You can't narrate what your player's characters feel without having it be a decision the player themselves made.

One way this is worked on in mechanics is Pendragon's Passions. Note that no Passion starts at the compelling value of 16+, at which point it becomes fundamental to the character's decision making instead of the players. Also notice that the player selects a Famous Trait, which has similar effects. Let player choose how they want their characters to feel. Instincts in Burning Wheel, Limits and Milestones in Marvel Heroic. When those become compelling, it's always as a result of the player's prior decisions, to encourage Passions or Traits or selecting particular qualities specifically.

When you build in character behavior in as a character design choice, it gives the players a buy-in to act as their character would, rather than optimally. Disadvantages are kind of infamous for munchkin exploitation, but you want carrots, not sticks. Don't punish your players for acting reasonably out of character, reward them for doing the hard thing- that's the spirit of adventure.

IIRC Delta Green has the player decide what their PC's instinctive reaction to trauma is, flight flight freeze. They decide, but once they decide, they stick with it, so they don't back down when it becomes an issue later.

Don't just ask your characters to explore, reward them for exploring. Reward them for making characters that explore. Give them drives, built-in compulsions and deep-seated desires, reasons to get on the ship and travel to a new world. Put them in debt, or give them a spirit of adventure that gets them into trouble, and encourage them to sail the high seas or trek into the jungle, despite the perilous waves or the creeping dark.

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

[GreysonWulffe]

2 hours ago, DarkisNotEvil said:

Players don't like it when their character is controlled. As in at all. Fear is really a sore problem as a result, hence your problem with paladins and superheroes feeling fear. You can't narrate what your player's characters feel without having it be a decision the player themselves made.

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."

[cailano]

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.