As I’m writing this, I am realizing I can probably write a proper full paper on what exploration is in 5e. But it boils down to:

Exploration Deep Dive

Travel and exploration often get conflated with one another, but I would argue that travel is but one aspect of exploration

What even is exploration? (in this context)

Exploration comes in all shapes and sizes, and it’s impossible for me to fit all of it into this. For this, I will be talking about “exploration” as the process of characters moving through the world and discovering locations, secrets, and challenges specifically by travelling through the environment in a more player-led way. In this sense, travel between locations might also be considered exploration.

Why do we care about exploration?

Other systems don’t care about exploration the same way 5e claims to.

As one of the main 3 pillars of 5e, exploration is clearly important to the fantasy of 5e. There are tons of ways to do exploration, and it happens at every scale – Combat, dungeon, city, region, continent, world, multiplanar, and even beyond. However, it’s more useful to talk about exploration as a game structure and its role and prevalence in your game. It will have a different role in different games, and there isn’t any one best practice. The exploration aspect of a megadungeon and a continent

Some of the main draws of exploration in any kind of game are:

• Show how a main campaign premise has affected the world
• Remind the players that other things are happening in the world
• Let the players shine
• Learn more about the setting
• Give players the lead in defining next steps and goals
• Introduce quests, ideas, locations, and other aspects of the game to players.
• It is a kind of generative storytelling
  Not all of these are relevant for every kind of campaign style.

Campaign Exploration Styles

Along a spectrum from exploration-lite to exploration-focused, I identified 4 primary “campaign exploration styles”:

• Completely Linear. This style tends to have exploration more as an exception than the usual. These games assume exploration will be limited in scope, such as a town or smaller dungeon. For this kind of game, for exploration or travel encounters to be worthwhile, they might need to be related to the campaign premise more closely, especially by showing how the events of the campaign has affected or reminding players that unrelated things are still happening in the world.
• Pear-Shaped. This game has a clear start and end goal, and those moments are much more guided. However, there are many moments, especially in the middle of a game where the game is much more open and player-guided. In this style, exploration encounters benefit from being tied to the wider campaign, but there is definitely space for more in depth and unrelated encounters.
• Directed Open World. There is usually a goal the characters are tasked with achieving, and have an external motivation to achieve it, but without clear ways to achieve this without exploring the world. This kind of game tends to have exploration rules and random encounters as a prevalent and integral feature, which are part of the campaign premise itself, rather than a side aspect.
• Self-Directed. Players make their own goals, without any kind of external overarching goal or tasks to achieve. In this style, exploration encounters are what the PCs make of them – they might well spark a wider goal for the party.
  This is a sliding scale, so I don’t think anyone’s game will fall neatly into any of these at any point. Moreover, none of these are inherently better or worse than another. Most games will fall into the middle two tbh.

Some kinds of exploration:

Limited-scope locations. This is where a single explorable location might have a relatively small actually navigable area. For example, “exploring the plane of fire” might actually only be visiting a district or two within the city of brass. This is useful for games where great distances and wildly different aspects are intended to be explored, and many smaller locations can be explored, and where the middle distance might be less relevant to the game premise. Additionally, these are great for places further away from where the bulk of the campaign is taking place. More linear games might make best use of these.
Regional exploration. This is a wider scope of exploration, usually focusing on a region of the world. While there may be multiple explorable regions, each one is its own thing. It has more to explore than a limited-scope location, but each one can be more focused on an aspect of the world or campaign. Pear-Shaped games might find the most value in this kind of exploration.
Localized exploration. This is your classic hexcrawl. There is a limited area, but it is very fleshed out, and intended to be played in for a long time. It rewards mastery of the area, relationships with NPCs, and usually has lots of ties to all the PCs. Oftentimes it is very dense with things to do. A megadungeon might also fall into this category. Directed and Self-Directed game premises might make best use of this.
Continental/worldwide exploration. This is like a hexcrawl, mixed with regional exploration. It is less dense with things to do, so travel and random encounters make up for a more significant portion of the game. Both Directed and Self-Directed game premises might make best use of this, though it is also a worthwhile way to tie many regional or limited-scope exploration styles together.

None of these are better or worse than any other, and all have a place within our games, even in campaign premises that use one or another. For example, a Continental Exploration game style might make use of limited-scope locations for cities or places off the usual area.

Exploration Systems and their strengths:

Uncharted Journeys.

• Remind the players that other things are happening in the world
• Let the players shine
• It is a kind of generative storytelling

Uncharted Journeys is specially suited to the idea of showing the players that there is more to the world as they go from location to location. Its more abstract nature is a boon for more linear games and journeys from smaller area to smaller area.

Weird Wastelands.

• Remind the players that other things are happening in the world
• Let the players shine
• Learn more about the setting
• Give players the lead in defining next steps and goals
• Introduce quests, ideas, locations, and other aspects of the game to players.
• It is a kind of generative storytelling

Weird Wastelands is especially good for Regional, Localized, and Continental exploration styles, as well as being lightweight enough for relevant limited-scope areas, but it probably isn’t suited to all limited-scope areas. However, the flexibility of wilderness actions makes it easy to modify. This system is best suited to Directed and Self-Directed campaign exploration styles, but its ease of learning and flexibility can make it useful in Pear-shaped games as well.

Base 5e.

• Show how a main campaign premise has affected the world beyond the campaign
• Remind the players that other things are happening in the world
• Let the players shine
• Learn more about the setting
• Give players the lead in defining next steps and goals
• Introduce quests, ideas, locations, and other aspects of the game to players.
• It is a kind of generative storytelling

It’s good at everything, but I don’t think it excels at anything the way the others do. It is especially useful for regional exploration, and in pear-shaped games. Additionally, it already works with 5e, and Rangers especially shine in this system, while other systems might need ranger-specific tweaks to make their terrain features mesh well. However, most checks are one-note, and makes Survival basically the only relevant skill

a5e.

• Show how a main campaign premise has affected the world
• Remind the players that other things are happening in the world
• Let the players shine
• Learn more about the setting
• Give players the lead in defining next steps and goals
• Introduce quests, ideas, locations, and other aspects of the game to players.
• It is a kind of generative storytelling

a5e blends a lot of the ideas in the other systems to make a very robust exploration system. This is best suited for localized exploration and regional exploration, as well as pear-shaped games if travel is a significant part of that.

So, how do we make exploration interesting?

There are a hundred books that go into this, all of whom have a different way of approaching the subject, and I could write 16 articles about each pairing of campaign style and exploration style. But we can overly summarize!
Exploration and travel can easily become tiresome, boring, or otherwise a slog. And a slog is rarely what we want. So how do we keep exploration fun and interesting? (This ended up being more random encounter-based than necessarily exploration based. Whoops)

• Density of encounters. Whether it’s random encounters or specific locations, it’s important to keep things happening. Some systems like Uncharted Journeys focus on these encounters, while for others, it’s only a part of the system. It’s important to keep things happening throughout the journeys. Hexcrawls have a general advice of 50%+ of every hex should have something going on. Same with travel and exploration – random encounters can and should be common.
• Encounter/Vignette variety. Elizabeth has the best guide for this. Most of the potential encounters/vignettes shouldn’t be violent in nature. Roleplay, social encounters, and skill encounters are all important and add to verisimilitude, while keeping the nature of the travel and exploration challenges varied and fresh. Oops all combat becomes a slog.
• Relevant Encounters. While not every encounter has to tie into a main plotline, it’s worthwhile to understand what you want from random encounters and locations you’re exploring. Unrelated and unimpactful encounters in a story-focused game can feel shallow and like a time waster, but constantly-relevant encounters in a more open game might feel a little stale. Know what you want out of your exploration and encounters and build accordingly.
• Keep it quick/Combat is a rarity. Random encounters are super useful, but they rarely need to take up more than 10-20 minutes at the table. That’s why I like to call them vignettes. The shorter encounters tend to be non-combative, but equally if not more memorable. Besides, the wilderness being constantly deadly and hostile breaks verisimilitude (unless that’s a campaign premise). Also, having a threat of violence is different from actually fighting. Scaring bears away is a perfect encounter.
• Make it worthwhile to explore. We talk a lot about making those challenges, but we need to make sure it’s actually worth exploring. Motivators can be anything from treasure, secrets, titles, powers, or almost anything you can think of – even just that it’s fun! Whatever you do, make it worth doing.
• Make sure things are interactive/has choices. Nothing is worse than an encounter with nothing to do. Keep encounters and exploration challenges open and freeform enough for players to really engage with them. As always, create situations, not solutions.
• Telegraphing. Many things can be found out before encountering them, from seeing bear tracks to the laughter of an enemy camp ahead, to the floating pieces of a broken bridge float past you. Keep that in mind, and it will help make encounters more interactive and meaningful when they aren’t as isolated.
• Relevant Consequences. Consequences ought to be relevant and impactful, whether it’s slipping into a fey pitcher plant, to fighting a local, to helping a lost individual. Not all consequences should be bad – in fact many should be at least somewhat positive! Small bits of gold, inspiration, and new contacts are all excellent positive consequences.
• Turning the Dials. Different places can and should have a focus on different kinds of exploration. A war-torn land might have more combat encounters, while an isolated wilderness might have lots of hazards and very few social encounters. Varying these up will enhance your exploration

I wonder if my recent hikes can be used as an example of a short journey. Lets say 7 segments.

Segment 1: We had to cross a stream to get to the other side and continue the trail. We could have hopped across rocks, swam, or looked for an easier crossing. If I fell, I would have ruined my camera, notebook, and gotten all wet and uncomfortable/miserable for a while.

Segment 2: No encounter, but we saw the trail crossed the river again. We could start looking for more convenient crossing early this time. (Telegraphing)

Segment 3: We crossed the river again, this time more easily since we knew it was coming and prepared for it.

Segment 4: We stopped and sketched the location because we were inspired by it. We found shade and avoided sunburn.

Segment 4.5: We took an alternate route down so we wouldn’t have to cross the river again. (And so we could go a new way)

Segment 5: Ah! Rattlesnake! I almost stepped on a rattlesnake, and was only warned because it saw me and rattled! We carefully got it to go away. (Potentially deadly encounter since we were far from an ambulance, vehicle, or cell service)

Segment 6: Lost hikers! We saw some hikers who took a wrong turn somehow, and were quite lost in the desert. We helped them back to the trail and pet their dog.

Segment 7: No encounter. Safely back at the trailhead!