Exploration in RPGs

[fabulist]

I'd be really happy to have a training ground for these things. Where people who want to be better GMs can practice with willing and helpful players. Players who are completely honest about the game and the GM's actions, without being derisive. Fine line, I know, but it would help me immensely, for one.

[DarkisNotEvil]

3 hours ago, Malkavian Grin said:

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

That's XCOM, baby!

Still, the point is a very solid one and one I've seen addressed with regards to fear and romance. The point of tension is that it's a tension- it's something that's moving not quite quickly enough, like a muscle being used to move a dumbbell. In that exercise, your body knows the kind of motion that's supposed to be happening and works to create it. In the fear scenario, your mind knows what could go wrong and tries to anticipate and prevent it. Maintaining a balance between drawing the tension out (where will the next attack come from) and relieving it (the monster lunges, providing the subject a tangible target of fear) is part of what makes horror effective, and why I relate it to exploration.

As I don't think I properly addressed that, a quick addendum. The reason why TPK anticipation isn't tense isn't just BECAUSE you know your character is going to die- after all, in horror movies when someone who isn't the lead is on screen they're probably going to bite it- but because you know exactly what's going to happen. A quick and dirty hack for tension in a foregone conclusion is complexity, by exploring the details.

• How is it going to happen? Maybe one cause is provided but another actually takes place.
• What are the knock-on-effects (the people behind you you failed to save, for instance)? Can you prevent them even if you can't prevent your death?
• Provide just the slightest fake-out, like the possibility of relief that's going to be crushed.
   

18 minutes ago, fabulist said:

I'd be really happy to have a training ground for these things. Where people who want to be better GMs can practice with willing and helpful players. Players who are completely honest about the game and the GM's actions, without being derisive. Fine line, I know, but it would help me immensely, for one.

I think oneshots or other short-span games might help with this, like a pick up and play or round robin 'one oneshot per person' setup.

Edited April 21, 2023 by DarkisNotEvil (see edit history)

[cailano]

2 hours ago, fabulist said:

I'd be really happy to have a training ground for these things. Where people who want to be better GMs can practice with willing and helpful players. Players who are completely honest about the game and the GM's actions, without being derisive. Fine line, I know, but it would help me immensely, for one.

You're standing on it! PbP is a great place to practice your GMing skills, and you can always ask for feedback. I'd pick a system you're interested in and adventure with just ten encounters or so and then run it straight through. Ask for your player's thoughts at the end.

I may have mentioned this already (sic), but the Dungeon Crawl Classics modules are a perfect size for PbP games. The company that makes them also has a ton of material for 3.5 (or Pathfinder) and other systems. If you run 5E, I recommend checking out some of the modules from The Arcane Library. They are short and very playable.

[fabulist]

Quote

You're standing on it! PbP is a great place to practice your GMing skills, and you can always ask for feedback. I'd pick a system you're interested in and adventure with just ten encounters or so and then run it straight through. Ask for your player's thoughts at the end.

I meant a training ground specifically created for this purpose. Maybe a game folder where GMs go to practice with other GMs, for the sole reason of helping each other.

[Malkavian Grin]

8 hours ago, fabulist said:

I meant a training ground specifically created for this purpose. Maybe a game folder where GMs go to practice with other GMs, for the sole reason of helping each other.

I think what he was trying to get at was; let's go for it--same as you're saying. Someone (or heck multiple people) start up a new game and start the process.

I would help facilitate, but I've not the time for it.

[cailano]

10 hours ago, fabulist said:

I meant a training ground specifically created for this purpose. Maybe a game folder where GMs go to practice with other GMs, for the sole reason of helping each other.

It's not a bad idea but it's off topic for this thread. If you want to keep it going please start a thread for it in Gaming Discussion and I'm sure some people will jump in.

[cailano]

Here's a question for you guys: are Perception checks (or any equivalent) bad for exploration? The more I get into systems without skill lists the more I think they are detrimental to gaming. At best, they seem unnecessary.

What if, when a PC says they explore something in game, they just automatically find whatever is there? Surely, that has to be more interesting than the alternative, doesn't it?

 

[Actana]

It depends on what the purpose of the perception check, and in many ways the function of the skill system is. For systems where the checks determine "do you succeed at X", they aren't as useful for the style of game you're looking at. But what players are generally looking for with perception checks is not whether or not they succeed at spotting something, but to get more information about things. So lean into that instead of just "you spot X". When they succeed at a check, let them ask questions about their surrounding. "Tell me more about X", or "how could I use Y to my advantage", or "what here is useful or valuable to me?".

Same goes for "insight" checks and knowledge checks too, though obviously with a different angle on what kinds of questions are asked.

At the same time not everyone wishes to prod around each part of a room specifically, and instead abstract things to rolls. That's not wrong either, nor is it necessarily less interesting. Just a different focus of interest.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Actana (see edit history)

[Excior]

12 minutes ago, cailano said:

Here's a question for you guys: are Perception checks (or any equivalent) bad for exploration? The more I get into systems without skill lists the more I think they are detrimental to gaming. At best, they seem unnecessary.

What if, when a PC says they explore something in game, they just automatically find whatever is there? Surely, that has to be more interesting than the alternative, doesn't it?

 

for my AD&D  games i created the spot ability  its the average of the Characters Int and Wis score added together so a 13 and 13 would generate a 13 spot

[Malkavian Grin]

I prefer the idea of Passive Perception checks. This way, players aren't asking to roll perception and then metagame an answer from it. They either notice it, or they don't. A perception check should be what you use to identify the sound instinctually to benefit reaction time.

I agree it's more interesting when characters get the clues, so they can see the whole puzzle as it were. 

But like @Actana says, I think sometimes you just need to abstract something because maybe you're not knowledgeable in the thing you're looking at, and don't know what to look for in that specific way you might want to see.

You could argue, "if you don't know how to look, suffer the consequences and learn from it." To that, I don't know what to say. Yes? But it feels kind of harsh. Depends on the game I guess?

[cailano]

I think I'd just go with what the character might know. Is it a cleric looking at a religious artifact? Then he probably knows what to look for. Is it a thief? The. She probably knows someone who knows. You know?

[iantruesilver]

On 4/21/2023 at 3:52 PM, DarkisNotEvil said:

That's XCOM, baby!

X-Com? Did someone say X-Com?

 

Not to derail y'all but I did once try to run an X-Com flavoured d20 modern over on the OG side. Lasted for a little bit. It was fun. Would play that in a heartbeat.

[fabulist]

Quote

What if, when a PC says they explore something in game, they just automatically find whatever is there? Surely, that has to be more interesting than the alternative, doesn't it?

This sparked an idea in me:

You've got a rogue, an arcane caster and a fighter in the party. The clearing they've just arrived at has a decrepit altar besides a small pond and an old willow tree, the latter's shade littered with old stuff.

• masterwork sword: figther auto, rogue 10, rest 16 / find in town at barracks
• signet ring: rogue auto, history skill 10, rest 14 / find in town at ball 
• altar patron: divine auto, religion 8, rest 16 / find in village or monastery
• signs of ambush: ranger auto, fighter 10, rest 15
• component weeds: arcane auto, divine 12, rest 16 / find at witch or at town
• document: history/lore 12, rest 18 / find at monastery or in town at ball

If someone with auto notation makes a perception check, they find it, regardless of the result. If someone with a number assigned makes a perception check beating the number, they find it. If a location / event is indicated, later the party can find clues based on that. The ambush sign is exciting whether found or not.

Also, they can later return with an NPC (or more) they ask (roleplay) or hire (resources) who can find what they missed.

This way they have alternative ways of finding stuff, making perception checks count but not binary.

Edited May 2, 2023 by fabulist (see edit history)

[Malkavian Grin]

3 hours ago, iantruesilver said:

Not to derail y'all but I did once try to run an X-Com flavoured d20 modern over on the OG side. Lasted for a little bit. It was fun. Would play that in a heartbeat.

Not to continue to derail, but I was in that as a co-gm under a different username. It was fun! Wish it could have gone longer. I think with some tweaks it would have been excellent. (I recall it being kind of complex and heavy on mechanics). PM me if you like 😉

1 hour ago, fabulist said:

If someone with auto notation makes a perception check, they find it, regardless of the result.

Why not just make "auto" literally automatic, as cailano suggested then? No perception needed; they just need to say in character that they look at/for something. Cut the roll if they're just going to succeed anyways, and make the narrative lean on WHY they don't need to roll.

If said fighter ignores the sword (maybe they like axes instead?) then they don't get to know it's mastercrafted; someone else has to do it, or try to get the fighter to look at it anyways.

I think the point being made here is: cut out unnecessary checks, if there's narrative support.

• The ranger recognizes signs of an ambush as they scout the area
• The fighter knows the sword is of higher quality as they gaze at the loot
• The cleric has seen the holy symbol or sacraments left behind on the altar to know what god it's for (and what the ritual entailed)
• The rogue sees the trap mechanism as they slowly scan the doorway
• The wizard recognizes magic components they mess with daily
• etc.

You have to ask yourself: Is my game more fun if 1) players miss out on details (that might be vital to the narrative) or more fun if 2) they get the details?

No one says they must automatically know what to DO with said details--that may require a knowledge check--but at least the story doesn't get hung up on red herrings (unless that's the specific sort of game you're going for; maybe in a Call of Cthulhu or a detective style game).

[fabulist]

The point of my idea is that the game is just as much fun if they miss or succeed, because they can still find the things just with a different story.

Every roll they succeed with gives a sense of success, every roll they fail opens new opportunities to find the stuff in a different way. And the perception rolls do make a difference, but by succes/other opportunity instead of success/failure.

Edited May 2, 2023 by fabulist (see edit history)