I have this setting developed that I am really excited about, it is composed of a central hub and 4 unique areas, and I want my players to explore them one at a time but I don't want it to feel like a video game (congratulations! you have completed area one, area two is not unlocked). I am also still unsure on a plot to motivate my players to explore. any ideas or examples that might be able to help me?
Realize that players A) do not follow your plans and B) do not understand obvious clues as they don't have your knowledge of the world. Time and time again, the players always show a knack for doing the opposite of what you want.
Be flexible, as the party may want to split ups, the way to get them not to is to use a big and powerful enough monster as a guard to a door that the split party realizes they either die or they retreat to the other players. When the party as a whole goes to that room, the big monster is gone and an unusable portion of the weapon is left to indicate he went for a replacement.
If it matters which room is reviewed 1st/2nd/etc. then which ever room they enter is the correct "1st" room, the 2nd entered is the next correct room. If that means your personal map is out of order, be flexible.
The only way it's going to feel like a video game is if you have created the area as a "plot" where there is a clear "path" for them to walk, the way you would write a story with only one way through it, step by step.
If you want exploration to feel natural, you have to give the players a lot of freedom. Create the place, create problems/challenges in the place (preferably by making them logical, aka, make sure you understand how things got there, why they are the way they are etc..) without thinking of solutions on how to solve these problems/encounters, and let the players loose. Let them go anywhere and do anything, don't help them solve anything.. let them struggle through, just be a referee, not a storyteller. Describe what they see and let them do their thing.
Why don't you want it to feel like a video game? Videogames are fun, interactive media with tons of research behind them. If you want an exploration-focused D&D game, take inspiration from exploration-focused videogames. Successful exploration focused videogames have several features you should borrow:
A main plot that forces the players to go to different locations, but that doesn't have a time-limit enabling the players to spend as much time exploring as they want.
Lots of longer side plots that players are forced to run into by the main plot - e.g. the main plot forces the players to encounter various NPCs and those NPCs ask the players to go on various side quests.
Lots of short side plots that players just randomly bump into while exploring
Environmental story telling - i.e. locations where the situation itself tells a story : e.g. in Skyrim there's a shack by a river with a live bear, and the corpse of someone killed by the bear, and a bunch of salmon hanging out to dry which the bear is eating, and a bunch of fishing gear in the shack. In the Witcher you can find. a shack with blood all over it and the characteristic monocle of a well known NPC as well as writing materials, and ripped up cloth.
Either areas scale in difficulty to the players so they can be done in any order, or areas are telegraphed to the players as different levels of dangerous to encourage them to not go to areas too difficult for them.
Whenever the players arrive in a new major location there is immediately something going on that involves them in the conflicts of that area
Why don't you want it to feel like a video game? Videogames are fun, interactive media with tons of research behind them. If you want an exploration-focused D&D game, take inspiration from exploration-focused videogames. Successful exploration focused videogames have several features you should borrow:
A main plot that forces the players to go to different locations, but that doesn't have a time-limit enabling the players to spend as much time exploring as they want.
Lots of longer side plots that players are forced to run into by the main plot - e.g. the main plot forces the players to encounter various NPCs and those NPCs ask the players to go on various side quests.
Lots of short side plots that players just randomly bump into while exploring
Environmental story telling - i.e. locations where the situation itself tells a story : e.g. in Skyrim there's a shack by a river with a live bear, and the corpse of someone killed by the bear, and a bunch of salmon hanging out to dry which the bear is eating, and a bunch of fishing gear in the shack. In the Witcher you can find. a shack with blood all over it and the characteristic monocle of a well known NPC as well as writing materials, and ripped up cloth.
Either areas scale in difficulty to the players so they can be done in any order, or areas are telegraphed to the players as different levels of dangerous to encourage them to not go to areas too difficult for them.
Whenever the players arrive in a new major location there is immediately something going on that involves them in the conflicts of that area
This is actually very good advice and a great take, so don't take this as me disagreeing with you, but I found it amusing that you answered a question about how not to do something by explaining how to do it.
I thnk your right though, D&D as a game is in a lot of ways very much like a video and a lot of the design thinking, story writing and style of the game itself are very video gamish. Its kind of a weird thing about the history of D&D but it inspired video games in the 80's and 90's and those video games turned around and inspired D&D design in the 00's and 10's. Then in the 20's D&D inspired video games and now those video games are starting to inspire D&D again. Its like a wierd tennis match.
To all the people saying that it should feel like a video game.
I guess to rephrase it I don't want it to feel like it is a challenge made specifically for the players. I want it to feel natural and independent that the players are just exploring if that makes sense.
To all the people saying that it should feel like a video game.
I guess to rephrase it I don't want it to feel like it is a challenge made specifically for the players. I want it to feel natural and independent that the players are just exploring if that makes sense.
You need to have the right kind of players for that. If you do then great, just plop them down somewhere and let them create their own story. But IME those kinds of players are 1:20 if not rarer. Most players need some stimulus for their characters to react to and some kind of direction to go in. You can still have them be just ordinary dudes in the world rather than the "chosen ones". But if there is no overarching narrative, there still needs to be a reason for them to explore. [Also as a slight aside if there's no mega overarching narrative the campaign can't get to too high a level, because just randomly stumbling upon an archdevil to fight is just as world-breaking / contrived as any chosen one narrative]
Again, I'd suggest taking inspiration from videogames (or other media) that do this well. The Witcher is a great example of a world that isn't specifically designed for the player, but still has an overarching narrative that pushes the player to travel to different locations & explore various plots / subplots. Another would be the Expanse TV show/books, the main characters are just regular people thrust into a larger narrative that pushes them to different places that they then explore.
For a D&D example, I did an exploration focused game where the players start in a major city with various NPCs that regardless of which one they chose to interact with would all point them to the same place : the guards would ask them to investigate a missing tax-collector, the thieves guild would ask them to rob a warehouse (owned by said tax collector), the fortune teller would tell them to look for a particular symbol that is the family crest of the tax-collector, a merchant would ask them to go to the warehouse to collect some goods they were owed etc... in the warehouse basement they find an insane ice elemental writing "Auril is coming" on the walls, this sets out the major plot which is Auril is slowly turning the whole world to permanent winter. The authorities won't believe them at first so it is up to them to investigate, and eventually investigating informs them they need to get the help of Auril's 3 siblings who are scattered around the world each with their own subplot required to be completed to get their assistance. The rest of the campaign was the party dealing with various conflicts and side quests they stumbled across while travelling to ally with the 3 siblings, recruit allies, and find a McGuffin necessary to defeat Auril.
Another one I've thought about running but haven't yet, is based on the Tomb Raider videogame where the party get shipwrecked on an island and have to find a way to get off it. This leads to them discovering a coven of hag that create the storm around the island that shipwrecked them, undead pirates who were cursed by the hags, desecrated shrines that give the hags their power, and various factions they can befriend or not (or whom might try to capture/kill them if they sit around doing nothing).
You need to have the right kind of players for that. If you do then great, just plop them down somewhere and let them create their own story. But IME those kinds of players are 1:20 if not rarer. Most players need some stimulus for their characters to react to and some kind of direction to go in. You can still have them be just ordinary dudes in the world rather than the "chosen ones". But if there is no overarching narrative, there still needs to be a reason for them to explore. [Also as a slight aside if there's no mega overarching narrative the campaign can't get to too high a level, because just randomly stumbling upon an archdevil to fight is just as world-breaking / contrived as any chosen one narrative]
Really good point, again...
Part of the problem, I think, is that the DMG doesn't teach you how to run exploration; in fact, it's been quite a few editions since there was any real guidance on the topic beyond "describe stuff to make it sound interesting". Most adventures and campaigns for D&D are "walk-throughs", meaning there is a path intended for the players to take and usually "stuff they have to find/explore" in order for the story to progress. Not really exploration, more like a rollercoaster. Given that this generation grew up on such adventures, its not surprising these sorts of questions are being asked.
There are however, several different approaches to a game that focuses on exploration, which by the way, was once the main focus of the game so quite a few different methods have been developed. There are great examples you can use to inspire your own creations.
First is the full freedom method, more commonly known as Western Marshes. In this method, you effectively create a world full of places to explore, like dungeons, forests, ruins etc.. all over a map. Hand it to the players, offer no story and let them create their own motivations and reasons to "see what's out there". These kinds of games typically double as "survival games". A great example of this style of game is Forbidden Lands, where there is a lot of effort put into creating logical reasons for the players to get motivated, mostly stuff like "you need money, you need food, you need shelter". Think of it like playing Fallout. If you do nothing, you die.
Another method is what I like to call "The World Doesn't Care About You" method. This is a tough one to do from scratch (usually, you want a published campaign, but I'm not aware of any made specifically by Wizards of the Coast), but basically, you run the world where there are lots of plots and stuff happening (aka there is a story), and the players are dropped into it. There is no mission/quest or pre-ordained plan assumed for them in the adventure, like Western Marshes, they are free to do whatever they want, go where they want etc and approach problems however they like. but the world is not created or running to entertain them; it's just an event-driven campaign that moves forward with time. A good example of such a campaign is Dolmenwood and Kingmaker.
Another approach is what I like to call "The Diablo Style" adventure. This is where the players are introduced to a single large plot hook that requires them to explore one huge place (typically a dungeon) and through exploration, they discover the history behind all the terrible things in the world. Again, as the others, there is no plan or solution, the players are self-motivated to explore and planning their expeditions is a big part of the adventure. A good example is The Temple of Elemental Evil.
There are lots more and while I realize this isn't a "solution" for you, what I'm suggesting here is do a bit of reading, check out some of these adventures and campaigns and I think you will discover a lot of practical and usable things you can inject into your own campaign. There are lots of approaches but generally the main thing is, don't focus on story, give the players lots of freedom and let them create their own motivations (where to go, what to do etc..) and build the game reactively and give them as little information as possible up front. That way their motivated to get information on their own through preparation, exploration etc... Don't even give them a map, make them map things themselves. Push for self-reliance and self-motivated adventuring, that will draw out the sensation of exploration.
I guess to rephrase it I don't want it to feel like it is a challenge made specifically for the players. I want it to feel natural and independent that the players are just exploring if that makes sense.
Have enough things going on that the players can't follow up on everything, and then have at least some of those things progress in the background. (Not necessarily in the "things get worse" sense, either. If they heard about some menace, have them start hearing about the great heroes who defeated that menace. And maybe they hear about those heroes again. And they never meet them.)
I guess to rephrase it I don't want it to feel like it is a challenge made specifically for the players. I want it to feel natural and independent that the players are just exploring if that makes sense.
Have enough things going on that the players can't follow up on everything, and then have at least some of those things progress in the background. (Not necessarily in the "things get worse" sense, either. If they heard about some menace, have them start hearing about the great heroes who defeated that menace. And maybe they hear about those heroes again. And they never meet them.)
This is the way. Don’t have NPCs just stand there with exclamation points over their heads, waiting for the PCs to interact with them. Make it clear the world moves on without them. If they don’t stop the bandits from overrunning the town, either the town gets overrun, or someone else steps in. But the bandits aren’t going to just wait around until the PCs decide to engage with the plot hook.
Initially you may have to railroad them a little bit -- just to introduce your world and its surrounds. A discover campaign. A hunt.
After that intro have them fetch, escort, deliver, protect, and destroy. If they don't formulate a plan to engage then you put them into your default survival campaign as monsters attack them and their environ unceasingly. Kill, pillage, and burn until they ralley or run.
Initially you may have to railroad them a little bit -- just to introduce your world and its surrounds. A discover campaign. A hunt.
To generalize this, not all groups are self-starting. Some of them need more direction. You may need to adjust your approach based on your group. You may need an employer or other quest giver, or sometimes have to resort to Raymond Chandler's advice: "When in doubt, have a man come through the door with a gun in his hand."
I'd say that adding detail to your narration of the setting is a good way to avoid a "video game" feeling. Vague descriptions leave the players thinking, "what am I supposed to do next," while a more detailed description usually gives them at least a couple of things to look at more closely - things that are completely irrelevant to the current story or quest, but help to add depth to the game world. (And "what am I supposed to do next" is the kind of video-game approach that you're trying to avoid.)
One other thing that might help you is rumors and local gossip shared by NPCs. That can start to feel like "side-quests" if they're always something strange or mysterious, but it can be as simple as "are you staying for the harvest festival next week?" just to convey the idea that there's a lot more going on in the world that the players could be doing, if they feel like it.
Initially you may have to railroad them a little bit -- just to introduce your world and its surrounds. A discover campaign. A hunt.
To generalize this, not all groups are self-starting. Some of them need more direction. You may need to adjust your approach based on your group. You may need an employer or other quest giver, or sometimes have to resort to Raymond Chandler's advice: "When in doubt, have a man come through the door with a gun in his hand."
One of the games I play in has this exact experience. Our D&D tried creating a home brew world for the first time last year and it’s the first time in several years of playing that a campaign stalled. The concept of the world was great but when he stick us on a map and said “what do you want to do?” none of us had a clue. He was waiting to write content based on what we did and we were waiting for him to write content to tell us what to do
Initially you may have to railroad them a little bit -- just to introduce your world and its surrounds. A discover campaign. A hunt.
To generalize this, not all groups are self-starting. Some of them need more direction. You may need to adjust your approach based on your group. You may need an employer or other quest giver, or sometimes have to resort to Raymond Chandler's advice: "When in doubt, have a man come through the door with a gun in his hand."
One of the games I play in has this exact experience. Our D&D tried creating a home brew world for the first time last year and it’s the first time in several years of playing that a campaign stalled. The concept of the world was great but when he stick us on a map and said “what do you want to do?” none of us had a clue. He was waiting to write content based on what we did and we were waiting for him to write content to tell us what to do
A DM can often jump-start this by working from the characters' backstories, but yeah, it's a tricky balance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have this setting developed that I am really excited about, it is composed of a central hub and 4 unique areas, and I want my players to explore them one at a time but I don't want it to feel like a video game (congratulations! you have completed area one, area two is not unlocked). I am also still unsure on a plot to motivate my players to explore. any ideas or examples that might be able to help me?
Realize that players A) do not follow your plans and B) do not understand obvious clues as they don't have your knowledge of the world. Time and time again, the players always show a knack for doing the opposite of what you want.
Be flexible, as the party may want to split ups, the way to get them not to is to use a big and powerful enough monster as a guard to a door that the split party realizes they either die or they retreat to the other players. When the party as a whole goes to that room, the big monster is gone and an unusable portion of the weapon is left to indicate he went for a replacement.
If it matters which room is reviewed 1st/2nd/etc. then which ever room they enter is the correct "1st" room, the 2nd entered is the next correct room. If that means your personal map is out of order, be flexible.
The only way it's going to feel like a video game is if you have created the area as a "plot" where there is a clear "path" for them to walk, the way you would write a story with only one way through it, step by step.
If you want exploration to feel natural, you have to give the players a lot of freedom. Create the place, create problems/challenges in the place (preferably by making them logical, aka, make sure you understand how things got there, why they are the way they are etc..) without thinking of solutions on how to solve these problems/encounters, and let the players loose. Let them go anywhere and do anything, don't help them solve anything.. let them struggle through, just be a referee, not a storyteller. Describe what they see and let them do their thing.
That is how you do exploration organically.
Why don't you want it to feel like a video game? Videogames are fun, interactive media with tons of research behind them. If you want an exploration-focused D&D game, take inspiration from exploration-focused videogames. Successful exploration focused videogames have several features you should borrow:
This is actually very good advice and a great take, so don't take this as me disagreeing with you, but I found it amusing that you answered a question about how not to do something by explaining how to do it.
I thnk your right though, D&D as a game is in a lot of ways very much like a video and a lot of the design thinking, story writing and style of the game itself are very video gamish. Its kind of a weird thing about the history of D&D but it inspired video games in the 80's and 90's and those video games turned around and inspired D&D design in the 00's and 10's. Then in the 20's D&D inspired video games and now those video games are starting to inspire D&D again. Its like a wierd tennis match.
To all the people saying that it should feel like a video game.
I guess to rephrase it I don't want it to feel like it is a challenge made specifically for the players. I want it to feel natural and independent that the players are just exploring if that makes sense.
You need to have the right kind of players for that. If you do then great, just plop them down somewhere and let them create their own story. But IME those kinds of players are 1:20 if not rarer. Most players need some stimulus for their characters to react to and some kind of direction to go in. You can still have them be just ordinary dudes in the world rather than the "chosen ones". But if there is no overarching narrative, there still needs to be a reason for them to explore. [Also as a slight aside if there's no mega overarching narrative the campaign can't get to too high a level, because just randomly stumbling upon an archdevil to fight is just as world-breaking / contrived as any chosen one narrative]
Again, I'd suggest taking inspiration from videogames (or other media) that do this well. The Witcher is a great example of a world that isn't specifically designed for the player, but still has an overarching narrative that pushes the player to travel to different locations & explore various plots / subplots. Another would be the Expanse TV show/books, the main characters are just regular people thrust into a larger narrative that pushes them to different places that they then explore.
For a D&D example, I did an exploration focused game where the players start in a major city with various NPCs that regardless of which one they chose to interact with would all point them to the same place : the guards would ask them to investigate a missing tax-collector, the thieves guild would ask them to rob a warehouse (owned by said tax collector), the fortune teller would tell them to look for a particular symbol that is the family crest of the tax-collector, a merchant would ask them to go to the warehouse to collect some goods they were owed etc... in the warehouse basement they find an insane ice elemental writing "Auril is coming" on the walls, this sets out the major plot which is Auril is slowly turning the whole world to permanent winter. The authorities won't believe them at first so it is up to them to investigate, and eventually investigating informs them they need to get the help of Auril's 3 siblings who are scattered around the world each with their own subplot required to be completed to get their assistance. The rest of the campaign was the party dealing with various conflicts and side quests they stumbled across while travelling to ally with the 3 siblings, recruit allies, and find a McGuffin necessary to defeat Auril.
Another one I've thought about running but haven't yet, is based on the Tomb Raider videogame where the party get shipwrecked on an island and have to find a way to get off it. This leads to them discovering a coven of hag that create the storm around the island that shipwrecked them, undead pirates who were cursed by the hags, desecrated shrines that give the hags their power, and various factions they can befriend or not (or whom might try to capture/kill them if they sit around doing nothing).
Really good point, again...
Part of the problem, I think, is that the DMG doesn't teach you how to run exploration; in fact, it's been quite a few editions since there was any real guidance on the topic beyond "describe stuff to make it sound interesting". Most adventures and campaigns for D&D are "walk-throughs", meaning there is a path intended for the players to take and usually "stuff they have to find/explore" in order for the story to progress. Not really exploration, more like a rollercoaster. Given that this generation grew up on such adventures, its not surprising these sorts of questions are being asked.
There are however, several different approaches to a game that focuses on exploration, which by the way, was once the main focus of the game so quite a few different methods have been developed. There are great examples you can use to inspire your own creations.
First is the full freedom method, more commonly known as Western Marshes. In this method, you effectively create a world full of places to explore, like dungeons, forests, ruins etc.. all over a map. Hand it to the players, offer no story and let them create their own motivations and reasons to "see what's out there". These kinds of games typically double as "survival games". A great example of this style of game is Forbidden Lands, where there is a lot of effort put into creating logical reasons for the players to get motivated, mostly stuff like "you need money, you need food, you need shelter". Think of it like playing Fallout. If you do nothing, you die.
Another method is what I like to call "The World Doesn't Care About You" method. This is a tough one to do from scratch (usually, you want a published campaign, but I'm not aware of any made specifically by Wizards of the Coast), but basically, you run the world where there are lots of plots and stuff happening (aka there is a story), and the players are dropped into it. There is no mission/quest or pre-ordained plan assumed for them in the adventure, like Western Marshes, they are free to do whatever they want, go where they want etc and approach problems however they like. but the world is not created or running to entertain them; it's just an event-driven campaign that moves forward with time. A good example of such a campaign is Dolmenwood and Kingmaker.
Another approach is what I like to call "The Diablo Style" adventure. This is where the players are introduced to a single large plot hook that requires them to explore one huge place (typically a dungeon) and through exploration, they discover the history behind all the terrible things in the world. Again, as the others, there is no plan or solution, the players are self-motivated to explore and planning their expeditions is a big part of the adventure. A good example is The Temple of Elemental Evil.
There are lots more and while I realize this isn't a "solution" for you, what I'm suggesting here is do a bit of reading, check out some of these adventures and campaigns and I think you will discover a lot of practical and usable things you can inject into your own campaign. There are lots of approaches but generally the main thing is, don't focus on story, give the players lots of freedom and let them create their own motivations (where to go, what to do etc..) and build the game reactively and give them as little information as possible up front. That way their motivated to get information on their own through preparation, exploration etc... Don't even give them a map, make them map things themselves. Push for self-reliance and self-motivated adventuring, that will draw out the sensation of exploration.
Have enough things going on that the players can't follow up on everything, and then have at least some of those things progress in the background. (Not necessarily in the "things get worse" sense, either. If they heard about some menace, have them start hearing about the great heroes who defeated that menace. And maybe they hear about those heroes again. And they never meet them.)
To be blunt, you might want to have a less video-gamey map if you don't want it to feel like a video game.
This is the way.
Don’t have NPCs just stand there with exclamation points over their heads, waiting for the PCs to interact with them. Make it clear the world moves on without them. If they don’t stop the bandits from overrunning the town, either the town gets overrun, or someone else steps in. But the bandits aren’t going to just wait around until the PCs decide to engage with the plot hook.
Initially you may have to railroad them a little bit -- just to introduce your world and its surrounds. A discover campaign. A hunt.
After that intro have them fetch, escort, deliver, protect, and destroy. If they don't formulate a plan to engage then you put them into your default survival campaign as monsters attack them and their environ unceasingly. Kill, pillage, and burn until they ralley or run.
To generalize this, not all groups are self-starting. Some of them need more direction. You may need to adjust your approach based on your group. You may need an employer or other quest giver, or sometimes have to resort to Raymond Chandler's advice: "When in doubt, have a man come through the door with a gun in his hand."
I'd say that adding detail to your narration of the setting is a good way to avoid a "video game" feeling. Vague descriptions leave the players thinking, "what am I supposed to do next," while a more detailed description usually gives them at least a couple of things to look at more closely - things that are completely irrelevant to the current story or quest, but help to add depth to the game world. (And "what am I supposed to do next" is the kind of video-game approach that you're trying to avoid.)
One other thing that might help you is rumors and local gossip shared by NPCs. That can start to feel like "side-quests" if they're always something strange or mysterious, but it can be as simple as "are you staying for the harvest festival next week?" just to convey the idea that there's a lot more going on in the world that the players could be doing, if they feel like it.
One of the games I play in has this exact experience. Our D&D tried creating a home brew world for the first time last year and it’s the first time in several years of playing that a campaign stalled. The concept of the world was great but when he stick us on a map and said “what do you want to do?” none of us had a clue. He was waiting to write content based on what we did and we were waiting for him to write content to tell us what to do
A DM can often jump-start this by working from the characters' backstories, but yeah, it's a tricky balance.