D&D 5E [+]Exploration Falls Short For Many Groups, Let’s Talk About It

[Quickleaf]

Okay so if you love exploration in 5e and think the idea of adding more meat to it is silly, that’s valid, but it ain’t what we are here for.

I want to talk about exploration as a pillar of the game, what that means, how it falls short for each of us, how it can be expanded on while staying within 5e design aesthetics, and what we hope to see in revised core books.

1. Exploration isthe part of the game where you are being physically challenged, and challenged in terms of problem solving and related stuff, that isn’t combat. It includes travel and wilderness survival, but it is also a lot more than that.
   1. I think it’s important to separate action-by-action exploration challenges like finding and disabling traps or parkouring around some temple ruins to solve a 3d puzzle, from wilderness survival and travel, because I think they have different needs
   2. It’s also import IMO to note that all of point 1 is what the designers meant early on when talking about 3 pillars, and this is part of why these discussions often end with ppl talking past eachother.
   3. I propose Survival and Exploration for the purposes on this discussion.
2. Exploration fails (for me)to lead to interesting challenges IME because there just aren’t that many things for the PCs to leverage to create chaos, like there is with NPCs, and D&D style Travel and survival have always been very boring to me. A game that gets Survival in travel right, for me, is The One Ring. Rest structures don’t help, with it feeling like harsh adverserialism to make up new rules like having to make checks to be able to get good rest, and ending journeys with hit dice and other resources spent.
   1. Exploration (parkour and traps and investigation) fall short less for me, but I do find that in some campaigns I’d like to have more structure (although I usually prefer just action resolution and the DM and Player conversation as what drives the action)
3. Exploration could be very interesting and engaging in more cases. For survival, it could be done with better travel rules that cause you to use resources (more later) and end the journey with those resources spent, making resting in the wild/on the road less restorative than resting in comfort and safety, and handing narrative reins to the players at intervals amidst the journey or other survival challenge. For Parkour and Traps, I think that something like a skill challenge but with a success ladder does the trick.
4. Exploration in the revised core has me very curious to see what they do. I think Bastions give a sort of “vibe” they might be aiming for, but I think they are very aware of how lacking many groups find exploration in 5e. I think that the UA thing of giving skills a little more specificity might help (if they keep it lite), I think we will see travel rules that speak to what they’ve learned but that aren’t going to be ambitious, and I think we might see some optional rules out front and center and expanded on, along the lines of a normal short rest on the road gets you less than the default, along with benefits to sleeping in safe places, or the Ranger making a well hidden and cozy bivouac to rest in, or spending healing resources at the end of a rest (meaning they aren’t regained by that rest), stuff like that.

So, what do you think? Do you have wildly different answers from me?

I do have a different answer!

The One Ring's much-lauded Journey approach – very clear party roles, strong structure, and crunchy rules, determining in what state you arrive at your destination – is actually the opposite of the feel I want in exploration. It's clear, yes, but there's no creative juice there for me.

@Minigiant hit the nail on the head with mentioning Wonder and Discovery (along with other elements of exploration). I've noticed those forces - Wonder / Discovery - being what drives my players to explore.

Freebooters on the Frontier (PbtA/OSR D&D role-playing game by Jason Lutes that is being playtested) has an interesting example. Whenever you hunker down OR set out on a journey, you roll a d8 to determine what sort of incident the players encounter – this is built into the game's procedure. For example, in the Wilderness the table looks like:

1. Roll 2d4 twice
2. Hazard
3. Obstacle
4. Creature
5. Creature
6. Creature
7. Mishap
8. Discovery

One example result under his generic Discovery table is "arcane source/resource."

It's not perfect – for example, it doesn't factor in multiple things in one incident & it doesn't think about navigational choices – but I love that Discovery is explicitly included as an element of these procedures.

Honestly, I think Discovery should be all over the place in exploration rules. The resource management stuff, or arriving in a "disheartened and dreary state", those are all fine – but I think they aren't where the creative potency is, they're not what draws in players. So any exploration system shouldn't focus the bulk of its effort on mechanics for those things – a little is fine – rather the bulk of the mechanics/procedures should be about Discovery.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay so if you love exploration in 5e and think the idea of adding more meat to it is silly, that’s valid, but it ain’t what we are here for.

I want to talk about exploration as a pillar of the game, what that means, how it falls short for each of us, how it can be expanded on while staying within 5e design aesthetics, and what we hope to see in revised core books.

1. Exploration isthe part of the game where you are being physically challenged, and challenged in terms of problem solving and related stuff, that isn’t combat. It includes travel and wilderness survival, but it is also a lot more than that.
   1. I think it’s important to separate action-by-action exploration challenges like finding and disabling traps or parkouring around some temple ruins to solve a 3d puzzle, from wilderness survival and travel, because I think they have different needs
   2. It’s also import IMO to note that all of point 1 is what the designers meant early on when talking about 3 pillars, and this is part of why these discussions often end with ppl talking past eachother.
   3. I propose Survival and Exploration for the purposes on this discussion.
2. Exploration fails (for me)to lead to interesting challenges IME because there just aren’t that many things for the PCs to leverage to create chaos, like there is with NPCs, and D&D style Travel and survival have always been very boring to me. A game that gets Survival in travel right, for me, is The One Ring. Rest structures don’t help, with it feeling like harsh adverserialism to make up new rules like having to make checks to be able to get good rest, and ending journeys with hit dice and other resources spent.
   1. Exploration (parkour and traps and investigation) fall short less for me, but I do find that in some campaigns I’d like to have more structure (although I usually prefer just action resolution and the DM and Player conversation as what drives the action)
3. Exploration could be very interesting and engaging in more cases. For survival, it could be done with better travel rules that cause you to use resources (more later) and end the journey with those resources spent, making resting in the wild/on the road less restorative than resting in comfort and safety, and handing narrative reins to the players at intervals amidst the journey or other survival challenge. For Parkour and Traps, I think that something like a skill challenge but with a success ladder does the trick.
4. Exploration in the revised core has me very curious to see what they do. I think Bastions give a sort of “vibe” they might be aiming for, but I think they are very aware of how lacking many groups find exploration in 5e. I think that the UA thing of giving skills a little more specificity might help (if they keep it lite), I think we will see travel rules that speak to what they’ve learned but that aren’t going to be ambitious, and I think we might see some optional rules out front and center and expanded on, along the lines of a normal short rest on the road gets you less than the default, along with benefits to sleeping in safe places, or the Ranger making a well hidden and cozy bivouac to rest in, or spending healing resources at the end of a rest (meaning they aren’t regained by that rest), stuff like that.

So, what do you think? Do you have wildly different answers from me?

WotC 5e doesn't care about exploration mechanically, and never did. For them, skill checks, cool descriptions, and hand-waving are all that's needed. You need to go outside WotC to get anything worthwhile in that department for 5e. Adventures in Middle Earth (and Cubicle Seven's generic version of its Journey rules), and Level Up are my go to 5e places to draw from.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Unfortunately, this is unlikely. Obscurantism is a selling point: by not telling people what things are for, you don't piss off the (extremely) vocal minority who believe that being told what something is for is identical to being told that it can't do anything else. If your goal is to stay within 5e design aesthetics, then obscurantism is an unavoidable stumbling block.

Good thing WotC's design aesthetic doesn't matter to me then.

 

[Micah Sweet]

First of all, while 5e’s rules predominantly revolve around combat, the gameplay itself is not your party standing in an arena, fighting monster after monster. So the gameplay itself involves exploration and social interactions, they are just handwaved away from a rules perspective.

Second, this has not been the case for 50 years, the early editions did have more rules for exploration, up to entire supplements (Wilderness and Dungeoneering Survival Guides).


whoever does not care is free to ignore the rules…


The problem with 5e is twofold, it has next to no rules for exploration and it is actively hostile to the survival aspect with spells like goodberry and tiny hut.

Take such spells away, give a penalty to not resting in a safe and comfortable place and provide some rudimentary rules (two guidebooks is overkill), and this would go a long way to bringing some exploration back

All stuff Level Up does, for example.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I do have a different answer!

The One Ring's much-lauded Journey approach – very clear party roles, strong structure, and crunchy rules, determining in what state you arrive at your destination – is actually the opposite of the feel I want in exploration. It's clear, yes, but there's no creative juice there for me.

I am inclined to agree, despite wanting to like the journey system it is a little too much and is a journey system from a haven to another haven. The rules in D&D should cover mundane journeys, where one wants to get from A to B but there is a question of time and resources.
If one is travelling the Risen Road from Elturel to Baldur's Gate there should be little risk, it is a major trade route. The encounters could be delays or you meet and perhaps aid someone that provides a contact in Baldur's Gate.

A different kind of journey is where the travel is from the village to the temple of badness and you need to get there before the rising of the moon in the second night of the full moon or the children will be sacrificed. In this case, one want to know, can the party get there on time and fully rested.
One might spot a wonder on the way but that is not going to be of immediate interest.

@Minigiant hit the nail on the head with mentioning Wonder and Discovery (along with other elements of exploration). I've noticed those forces - Wonder / Discovery - being what drives my players to explore.

Freebooters on the Frontier (PbtA/OSR D&D role-playing game by Jason Lutes that is being playtested) has an interesting example. Whenever you hunker down OR set out on a journey, you roll a d8 to determine what sort of incident the players encounter – this is built into the game's procedure. For example, in the Wilderness the table looks like:

1. Roll 2d4 twice
2. Hazard
3. Obstacle
4. Creature
5. Creature
6. Creature
7. Mishap
8. Discovery

One example result under his generic Discovery table is "arcane source/resource."

It's not perfect – for example, it doesn't factor in multiple things in one incident & it doesn't think about navigational choices – but I love that Discovery is explicitly included as an element of these procedures.

Honestly, I think Discovery should be all over the place in exploration rules. The resource management stuff, or arriving in a "disheartened and dreary state", those are all fine – but I think they aren't where the creative potency is, they're not what draws in players. So any exploration system shouldn't focus the bulk of its effort on mechanics for those things – a little is fine – rather the bulk of the mechanics/procedures should be about Discovery.

There is actual exploration, either to see what is there or to find the location of a McGuffin and wonder and discovery are central to that.

The problem is neither the game rules or adventure design help in educating DM on this topic. I have spent years figuring this out. I was familiar with old school exploration but not interested in the bookkeeping involved.

In my opinion the DM advice needs to lay out a couple of things.
1) Journeying can be simply skipped, if that is not something the DM and/or party is interested in. One can simply narrate the journey.
2) Journeys between well known location or along well travelled routes do not really fail and there is no need to use the traditional random encounter model. Instead make checks to find accommodation (Cha), with failure meaning that accommodation costs more or (Con ) to cover the wilder section of the road in time to reach a village. Failure meaning having to camp out or take a level of exhaustion to make it to a settlement.
Instead of random encounters roll for complications, complications can be: bad weather causing delays. An actual encounter. An opportunity to aid a fellow traveller. A side quest at a settlement.
3) Into the unknown, Here preparation should matter. Complications get more complicated. That is, intelligent locals might take offence at the party on their territory. One might discover strange ruins or portals to elsewhere.

edit: A simple method for tracking time and using to roll for complication. I am thinking of trying out the Tension Pool as suggested by the Angry DM.

 

[Retros_x]

Travel is effectively exploration. It comes more to the foreground in a hexcrawl, particularly when time matters. There are rules there around speed, forced march, and travel tasks that are all firmly in the exploration pillar.

Thats true, these mechanics are definitely firmly in the exploration pillar, but they are not just for travel to point B, but exploration in general. Yes you still can use the mechanics, but I still would not play it out if its just a travel to point B without any decisions about what route to take. If there basically is nothing to actually explore and you are just travelling high road to the city. Its different if you try to find the lost city in a jungle hex crawl and actually have something to explore.

 

[Retros_x]

The One Ring's much-lauded Journey approach – very clear party roles, strong structure, and crunchy rules, determining in what state you arrive at your destination – is actually the opposite of the feel I want in exploration. It's clear, yes, but there's no creative juice there for me.

I agree with that.

I use a modified One Ring's approach if I just have travel from A to B with both points and the route known. Because that is no exploration, just a travel. For me the One Rings rules work quite well here to flesh out the journey and have some impact. But if my party is actually exploring to find something in the wilderness where they don't know where it is exactly I will use a pointcrawl/hexcrawl.

Or I combine both: If for example the quest is to retrieve a magic orb from a lost wizards tower in a giant ancient forest that is 2 weeks travels away I will do the "zoomed-out" One Ring's approach for the weeks of travel to the forest to determine in what state they party arrives at the forest and than "zoom in" to a point crawl in the forest where the party explores in multiple days the forest freely to find the wizards tower and when they find it again I "zoom in" another time for a dungeon crawl over multiple hours to find and retrieve the magic orb.

That is a lot of exploration the party will be having.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Exploration should be the same. However there is a contingent who doesn't what players to even know option because they might do things the DM didn't prompt or players looking at their sheeet.

What "contingent" has ever made that statement? That's a heck of a claim.

 

[Quickleaf]

@UngainlyTitan and @Retros_x I like how you've both honed in on there being multiple "modes" of journeying. You're illustrating how it's not a one size fits all situation.

If one is travelling the Risen Road from Elturel to Baldur's Gate there should be little risk, it is a major trade route. The encounters could be delays or you meet and perhaps aid someone that provides a contact in Baldur's Gate.

Right, in "safe road" travel, you CAN still have a risky encounter. However, what may be a better fit is a merchant encounter that foreshadows something in the settlement you're headed to. In other words, the "safe road" encounter (and I'm using 'encounter' in the holistic sense, not the exclusively combat-centric sense) would probably be less concerned with resource attrition than an encounter traversing expansive wilderness.

A different kind of journey is where the travel is from the village to the temple of badness and you need to get there before the rising of the moon in the second night of the full moon or the children will be sacrificed. In this case, one want to know, can the party get there on time and fully rested.
One might spot a wonder on the way but that is not going to be of immediate interest.

It's telling to note the language you've used – journey is a different thing from exploration. In the example here, it's actually different from the One Ring too – this is a "race against time" situation, so any travel mechanics? We want those to resolve quickly and decisively so we can keep up the tension and get to the heart of the adventure.

A "race against time" is a closer fit to the mechanics of the One Ring, but probably could use a touch from 4e skill challenges ...assuming "failing to arrive on time" is on the table as a legitimate consequence.

The problem is neither the game rules or adventure design help in educating DM on this topic. I have spent years figuring this out. I was familiar with old school exploration but not interested in the bookkeeping involved.

Wholeheartedly agree with you.

One of my tricks when figuring out "how is this travel situation unique?", is that I look at where the PCs have been and where they're going. With your example of travel along "safe roads" between well known locations, this is especially important. Because IF I'm giving game time to travel in that situation, it means there's something important to learn about the characters or the story... which hints at radically different approaches to travel than we see in D&D/adjacent games. For example, a "campfire tales" guided improv mini-game might make a lot of sense as a springboard for inter-PC roleplay.

I use a modified One Ring's approach if I just have travel from A to B with both points and the route known. Because that is no exploration, just a travel. For me the One Rings rules work quite well here to flesh out the journey and have some impact. But if my party is actually exploring to find something in the wilderness where they don't know where it is exactly I will use a pointcrawl/hexcrawl.

Or I combine both: If for example the quest is to retrieve a magic orb from a lost wizards tower in a giant ancient forest that is 2 weeks travels away I will do the "zoomed-out" One Ring's approach for the weeks of travel to the forest to determine in what state they party arrives at the forest and than "zoom in" to a point crawl in the forest where the party explores in multiple days the forest freely to find the wizards tower and when they find it again I "zoom in" another time for a dungeon crawl over multiple hours to find and retrieve the magic orb.

That is a lot of exploration the party will be having.

I love how you're combining both "magnification levels" to match the needs of your scenes – zoomed out One Ring-style rules to get through the duller part of travel, then point crawl at the adventure locale to find what they seek. That can work really well.

Once I ran a "search for the hag's lair" as a logic puzzle spanning a swamp with 16 hexes. As they explored, they gained clues that helped rule out certain hexes (i.e. "OK, the hag was avoiding the giant statue in the eastern swamp, so we can rule out those hexes"), eventually honing in on her location. It was a mental adjustment for players, but once they got that it was a puzzle, they had fun with it.

 

[grimmgoose]

I realize this is a hot take, but I think what makes a good "Exploration" mechanic isn't tracking resources, or watching a little icon move across a map, or random encounters. Obviously, some groups really like that, but I don't think it's the majority.

For me, a good exploration sequence is a dramatic situation that isn't combat.

It's surviving an avalanche.
It's climbing a mountain in a blizzard.
It's pushing through a region full of arcane tornados.
It's surviving a perilous swim in the Plane of Water through a sunken castle.

The problem is, 5E's "solution" to these are always to just "use the combat engine". Figure out the exact width, speed, initiative count, etc of the avalanche or tornados. Determine exactly how many feet each room in the sunken castle is. These encounters are so specific and kludgy that DMs don't like using them.

The systems where I have had engaging exploration sequences have been 4th Edition and Savage Worlds, because the skill challenge/Dramatic Task subsystems gave me a way to easily come up with an exciting sequence off the top of my head. 4E's skill challenges had problems, sure - but nothing gets my table more excited than a Savage Worlds' dramatic task.

So, I guess my hope (which I can't see a chance in hell happening) is for an engaging, easy-to-learn and easy-to-setup subsystem that:

• is easy to prep
• can be improv'd with no preparation
• eats into player resources (spells and HP)