In the layest L&L column Mike Mearls gives a hint about the exploration rules they are developing: http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130204

It is a bit tough to know how what this will look like in its final form, but to me it seems a bit stiff (and the bit about the GM mapping for the players feels like WOTC is once again telling you how to run the game----as a suggestion, I don't mind it, but it looks like they hardcoding playstyle into the mechanics here). This is just a limpse though so I could be leaping to concusions, and it is frankly something that's relatively easy to eliminate from the game. It also just might be how he is describing it. Having a solid procedure for exploration can be great, but if it is something like you have three actions you can choose from on an exploration turn (or something like the 4E class powers for exploration turns) that wouldn't suit my style of play very well. It really does come down to how they do it and what the specifics are I suppose. If it is more a case of just offering up a bunch of examples of what can be accomplished in an exploration turn, then I would be fine with it.

Why do you need rules for exploration?

Quote from: One Horse Town;624725Why do you need rules for exploration?

Well, it can be handy to have procedures for it, epecially when people are first starting (just basic things though like how to handle movement, encounters, passing of time, etc). But you do have to take a light hand and there needs to that flexibility. This though is reminding me of skill challenges when they first started talking about them (granted I am basing it on a few lines of text).

I will say, the section in the column on adventures looks promising. There it seems they do understand people approach the games in different ways and the narrow view of adventure design taken by 4E drove many of us away.

I do like that hexcrawls as wilderness-dungeons are a feature. I am interested how strict these exploration rules will be. It may mean a lot of different things; from movement rates by terrain type to some kind of formalised, combat-like procedure. For example, the 1e DMG had pretty involved rules for things like encounter distance, becoming lost, movement speed with various levels of encumbrance encounter frequency, wind direction and force (in sailing) and so forth. If all that is taken strictly, outdoor adventures become very complicated. On the other side of the coin, we have completely subjective wilderness travel where everything is down to GM decision.

Quote from: One Horse Town;624725Why do you need rules for exploration?

It can provide structure to help people grasp confusing concepts, for one. I had no real idea how to run a hexcrawl until I started reading various blogs, for instance. Granted those are more like guidelines than actual rules, but I still wouldn't have figured it out without the assistance.

Quote from: One Horse Town;624725Why do you need rules for exploration?

Because exploration is a big part of D&D wilderness campaigns.

I wouldn't necessarily use them every game. If a group particularly likes the idea of exploration being a player skill-based thing where it comes down to them to draw the maps and so on, I won't use the exploration rules because the rules are there to cover stuff you don't want to delegate to player skill. At the same time, exploration rules of the sort they're talking about here strike me as the sort of thing which is nice to have if you want to make it more a matter of character skill.

Quote from: One Horse Town;624725Why do you need rules for exploration?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;624727Well, it can be handy to have procedures for it, epecially when people are first starting (just basic things though like how to handle movement, encounters, passing of time, etc). But you do have to take a light hand and there needs to that flexibility. This though is reminding me of skill challenges when they first started talking about them (granted I am basing it on a few lines of text).

This is an issue that illustrates why WOTC just doesn't get it. It has to do with the nature and intent of "rules" for a particular aspect of play.

Why do we need rules?

As a guideline of how exploration is handled in the game, having some rules make sense. Even B/X had exploration rules. Times required for movement/searching, the need for rest one game turn in 6 to avoid penalties, the light radius of different light sources, the chances for becoming lost,etc. are all rules for exploration.

The problem arises when "rules for X" becomes a demand for regimented procedures and pointless dice fests instead of guidelines. The WOTC mentality for rules seems to be that if you are not taking turns and making die rolls then no actual play is happening.

This has come from a rules-first culture that marginalizes player input in favor of endless checks and turn sequences. If the ruleset for Next ends up being yet another in a series of rulesets that largely ignores the input of players it will get chucked into the crap bin by most old schoolers.

I've been saying for a long time that D&D needs turn by turn procedures for dungeon exploration ala BD&D and AD&D 1e. It was a mistake to burry them in 2e and 3e and remove them in 4e.

A new DM should be able to run a passible dungeon crawl with a map, some monsters and a checklist to follow.

EDIT: Mass combat rules? neat.

Quote from: One Horse Town;624725Why do you need rules for exploration?

Yeah.  I thought the rules for D&D were rules for exploration (and combat, and spending the rewards from).

Quote from: thedungeondelver;624785Yeah.  I thought the rules for D&D were rules for exploration (and combat, and spending the rewards from).

In later versions of the game there are no, or minimal, or hidden, turn by turn procedures for running the game.

This was a mistake.

Will this be a repeat of the skill challenge debacle?

Quote from: Orpheo;624793Will this be a repeat of the skill challenge debacle?

Hope to god not.

Quote from: Orpheo;624793Will this be a repeat of the skill challenge debacle?

I don't expect so...

RPGPundit