As suggested by Nobleshield, we can have a discussion on hex crawls. Please bring your experiences here from whatever time frame you started gaming. We can discuss the pros and cons of hex crawls as well.

To start: from what I've read over the years, hex crawls as far as popularity varies by location. Meaning: where are you from and what was the most common way to run D&D. Was it hex crawl or was is more plot driven?

For me as I think about it, it was a mix. At first when playing with my friends ('81-'83), it was playing modules, because we didn't know of any other way to create adventures. It was the easiest and quickest way to play. You bought it, you were the DM, and the rest of us would play.

The sometime around '83 or '84, I started to spend more time at the game store and got in with the gaming group there. I noticed that when it came to D&D, nobody ran modules. They were mostly campaign worlds created by the DM, or somebody just having an idea about an adventure and wanting to try it out with other players. I guess you would call it home brew.

For example, there was one DM in the local game club whose nickname was Gonzo, and his game world was called (wait for it)...Gonzo's World. He was a very popular DM, because he ran a great game of a world of his own design. He was an older guy (in his 20s IIRC), and had some experience. A lot of players would try to get into his game.

Now was it a hex crawl? I don't recall. It may have been. I do recall playing and the adventure had some sort of plot to it. Was it a railroad? Absolutely not. If your PC wanted to go and do something on his own, you could, and Gonzo would play it out.

I think when it comes to hex crawls, it's not just one thing. The hex crawl can be used as a template for either home brew or pre-published adventures is one example. My Hyborian Age game is running is a hex crawl in a sense that I do have published modules located in the game world in various locations, but it up to the PCs to come across any rumors/leads about them. I also don't scale the module to the level of the PC levels. If they come across the Tomb of Horrors and they're only about 5th-6th level, well they better be ready or run. Anything else that happens in the game world is dependent on the players' actions within the game world...and with my group, they do excel in getting into things and creating all sorts of trouble.

I also think you could just go with zero plot and see what happens in each hex, which would be a bare bones hex crawl for sure. For something like this, it really depends on how much the PC interact and how well the DM can do things on the fly.

So, some food for thought. Let's have a good discussion.

So, as I stated in the other thread, as far as I can tell, the "hex crawl" as a complete play style is an OSR fabrication. I certainly can't find any references to this approach in any of the rules, not the 3LBB, B/X, BECMI, AD&D, or otherwise. Most of the books seem to talk about having outdoor encounters that use hexes to determine travel times, but none seem to indicate this should be anything other than a side thing to "fill in the gaps" during travel, definitely not an entire mode of play where all you're doing is going from hex to hex and discovering things. From what I can tell the only module to do this was X1 Isle of Dread, and that's part of the module since you're specifically going to an uncharted island.

Now I completely understand the idea of traveling from Point A to Point B and having something like, "Oh look, a ruined tower; maybe we should investigate" as a side trek to the main adventure or an interim. But I don't "get" how a whole campaign can be done like this because it seems like a random bunch of stuff with no rhyme or reason. You need to include other elements, not just "Move to hex, roll for encounter, resolve, move to next hex," which seems to be how most of the "actual plays" showing hex crawls appear.

What gets me more is the "zero prep sandbox" concept, which seems even stranger, as it seems to be just random "mission boards" like a videogame, where nothing is related at all. Now, I get the idea of having the PCs decide things or drive things if they express interest in following up on some rumor, but I feel letting them choose everything also runs counter to the fact you're playing a cooperative game. That is, if the players are constantly ignoring or finding ways to ignore the adventure hook, they're just being assholes.

I think its a different interpretation of what the terms Sandbox and Hexcrawl mean.

Quote from: Nobleshield on December 19, 2024, 08:38:35 AMAs far as I know in the 70s the idea was literally "Here's the dungeon, go explore" (not everyone did this but this was basically the default),

Yes, explore that dungeon in any way you want. No mission, not even a quest board, maybe a rumor but that wasn't really a quest in any way. Players did what they wanted and if they wanted to go down to level 5 before they were 5th level they probably died. If they wanted to burn down the Keep on the Borderlands there is nothing in the module preventing them. Old stories of D&D are filled with players going nuts that way. Like the sandbox videogame Grand Theft Auto (which I think is where the term Sandbox really got steam) you could ignore the missions and steal a car and start shooting civilians if you really wanted to (as long as the DM allowed).

Compared to the modern Adventure Path in which you have minimal choices lest you derail the adventure. The DM has to keep prodding you back if you get off the beaten track so player choices mean less and less.

The thing is the sandbox was great for the DM if it got going because they didn't have to guess 'what do the players want to do' the players would tell them and the DM built on that and the adventure felt like it was really theres and not a movie they were semi-participating in.

Quote from: Ruprecht on December 19, 2024, 09:59:57 AMThe thing is the sandbox was great for the DM if it got going because they didn't have to guess 'what do the players want to do' the players would tell them and the DM built on that and the adventure felt like it was really theres and not a movie they were semi-participating in.

Exactly. That's when I switched my DMing style. I went from strictly from a module's plot to having my players determine the plot.

It wasn't that my players felt railroaded. Quite the contrary. My gaming group has this habit of derailing any sort of plot that may be presented in front of them. It's like herding cats.

What was the straw that broke the DM's back was the ToEE. They were able to determine how to destroy the temple with the golden orb..all while on the second level.

Long story short: the entire ToEE collapse upon itself. Campaign over. Needless to say, I had to take a break an reevaluate how I conduct a campaign.

Quote from: Nobleshield on December 19, 2024, 09:36:40 AMSo, as I stated in the other thread, as far as I can tell, the "hex crawl" as a complete play style is an OSR fabrication.

Or we played with what we had handy and could afford. We began in 79-80 in grade school with a Holmes and OD&D from a friend's older brother and a Wee Warriors module, I don't recall which one. They are complete hexcrawl mode, check out the sample on the reprint page: Wee Warriors. Maybe not everyone could afford the official modules like those of us in grade school and we got what we got. Saying it is an 'OSR fabrication' when clearly the option existed (in a third party series) is a bit odd. I am sure I am not alone as back then we cobbled together what we could.

Quote from: Ruprecht on December 19, 2024, 09:59:57 AMYes, explore that dungeon in any way you want. No mission, not even a quest board, maybe a rumor but that wasn't really a quest in any way. Players did what they wanted and if they wanted to go down to level 5 before they were 5th level they probably died. If they wanted to burn down the Keep on the Borderlands there is nothing in the module preventing them. Old stories of D&D are filled with players going nuts that way. Like the sandbox videogame Grand Theft Auto (which I think is where the term Sandbox really got steam) you could ignore the missions and steal a car and start shooting civilians if you really wanted to (as long as the DM allowed).

Basically Knights of the Dinner Table lol although it's more or less shown that they are selfish jerks for always wanting to derail the DM's adventure.

I don't hate the sandbox idea; it's just that an entire "Ask the players always, let them ignore any rumor and go do their own thing" campaign has me confused. I like the idea of an adventure site (i.e., the dungeon) or "main" hook, and then a lot of side rumors, tasks, etc., along with letting the PCs mention (at the end of a session, I think it would have to be) what they might be looking for next time so the DM can prepare that. That's fine. It's just the "wing it and prep nothing" approach that seems suspect.

Part of the problem also seems to be that so many actual plays or topics don't discuss how to get started. It's more or less "Create a few rumors, present them at the start of the campaign, and see what the players want," but A) HOW do you present those unless you prod the players (e.g. "You should ask at the inn about any rumors"), and B) that would mean the DM has to develop those few rumors since the PCs can select any of them, as well as being able to wing something on the fly if they randomly decide to ignore all the rumors (which it should be obvious to them are meant to be adventure hooks, so they SHOULD take the bait) and leave town.

What angle are we discussing on hexcrawls? From an OSR standpoint, I can understand how it is a term generated with that movement. However, with science fiction games like Traveller it is a default setting for campaigns. This goes all the way back to Classic Traveller where being the crew of a Free Trader moving from world to world trying to buy low and sell high as a vehicle (pardon the pun) to move the characters from adventure to adventure was the staple of campaigns.

Quote from: Nobleshield on December 19, 2024, 09:36:40 AMSo, as I stated in the other thread, as far as I can tell, the "hex crawl" as a complete play style is an OSR fabrication. I certainly can't find any references to this approach in any of the rules, not the 3LBB, B/X, BECMI, AD&D, or otherwise. Most of the books seem to talk about having outdoor encounters that use hexes to determine travel times, but none seem to indicate this should be anything other than a side thing to "fill in the gaps" during travel, definitely not an entire mode of play where all you're doing is going from hex to hex and discovering things. From what I can tell the only module to do this was X1 Isle of Dread, and that's part of the module since you're specifically going to an uncharted island.

Now I completely understand the idea of traveling from Point A to Point B and having something like, "Oh look, a ruined tower; maybe we should investigate" as a side trek to the main adventure or an interim. But I don't "get" how a whole campaign can be done like this because it seems like a random bunch of stuff with no rhyme or reason. You need to include other elements, not just "Move to hex, roll for encounter, resolve, move to next hex," which seems to be how most of the "actual plays" showing hex crawls appear.

What gets me more is the "zero prep sandbox" concept, which seems even stranger, as it seems to be just random "mission boards" like a videogame, where nothing is related at all. Now, I get the idea of having the PCs decide things or drive things if they express interest in following up on some rumor, but I feel letting them choose everything also runs counter to the fact you're playing a cooperative game. That is, if the players are constantly ignoring or finding ways to ignore the adventure hook, they're just being assholes.

I think you just have a novel definition of a hex crawl if you think its just goong from hex to hex. When most people think of a sandbox campaign they usually just mean there isnt a set plots and especially no story beats that have to be completed in order.

Quote from: blackstone on December 19, 2024, 09:28:41 AMI also think you could just go with zero plot and see what happens in each hex, which would be a bare bones hex crawl for sure. For something like this, it really depends on how much the PC interact and how well the DM can do things on the fly.

My brother ran a campaign like this. We got into a nostalgia phase in our gaming, revisiting old modules and what not. His campaign was a short one while we were visiting friends in AK. Roll for terrain, roll for encounter, make up details about the random stuff he rolled up. It's fun because no one knows exactly what's going to happen. But as you say, the GM has to have strong improv skills to pull it off so it doesn't devolve into a bunch of uninteresting random nonsense.

Quote from: Slambo on December 19, 2024, 10:21:36 AMI think you just have a novel definition of a hex crawl if you think its just goong from hex to hex. When most people think of a sandbox campaign they usually just mean there isnt a set plots and especially no story beats that have to be completed in order.

That's part of the disconnect. I've seen (and watched some actual plays) of hexcrawls that seem like it's just "travel and explore the map," as if you're basically moving in a game like the OG Ultima or something. Sandbox—I get the concept, but I don't understand how you run an entire campaign around it since, again, a lot of the discussion makes it sound like it's literally turning up to the table as DM and saying, "So, what do you guys want to do?".

Even Keep on the Borderlands makes it very clear in the text that the main goal is to get the PCs to visit the Caves of Chaos, with everything else just filler and side quests in between forays to the cave, and then the Caves of the Unknown being for the DM to flesh out themselves (or, I guess, drop B1 there). That I understand perfectly, it's the "the players don't have a 'main' objective at all" that is confusing or, rather, the notion the players might say, "Nah, we don't care, we're going to leave and go westward" out of the blue since that sounds kinda douchy on the part of the players.

At least, from how I played in the 90s and even when I played 3e and beyond, it was general etiquette to pick up on the adventure hook if one was provided and follow through, since the DM put in effort. Now, obviously, if the players talked about doing some side thing at the end of the previous session, that was fine too (and gave the DM something to prep), but in general, the idea was that if the DM is planting rumors about the Caves of Chaos, that's a pretty good sign you're meant to be going there, and it's rude to just say "nope."

That's the part that has me baffled. I never played with people who would go out of their way to ignore the DM's adventure or, worse, try to sabotage it (well I did once, the players ruined an Eberron adventure in 3.5 because they didn't like I was using a published module and sunk the whole campaign; the last time I DMed ). I actually LIKE the idea of at the end of the session the players might suggest what they want their characters to do next time.

My understanding is that the 3LBB basically assumed you had other games (and referree'ing experience) to help you run the game. i.e. Wilderness Survival for the outdoor part and chainmail for the combat.

I like to look at Champions of ZED for things like this. It tries to recontruct an idealized version of the first rules -- harmonizing the two-designers and giving them good editorial process. D.H. Boggs spends a lot of time talking with the original players and unearthing original documents.

Point is: The very first section (after the intro and example) is on making a world via hex map.

The game master/ref is the world. The players can do what they want.

As far as finding references to it at the time, keep in mind that people were doing what we now call sand boxes and hex crawls, before the term became widely accepted.  I'm fairly certain that the idea of the "sand box" was called that well before anyone wrote it that way, because that was sometimes the term we used when discussing the game.  If you think about it, it is a natural thing to evolve for those with limited money and resources but plenty of time. 

Also, unlike later, the sand box was a natural metaphor, because most of us had played in real sand boxes as small children, with various toys, where you made up stories, constructed things, had car chases like 70's TV shows, had demolitions, etc. Heck, I remember using leftover firecrackers from 4th of July to play a game we made up where we tried to tunnel and blow up toy soldiers on the other side of hill.  Last player with a guy still standing won.  It's a pretty short conceptual jump from that to an RPG.

Finally, relatively light rules (or light in certain areas in the case of AD&D) encourages player agency (also before the term to describe it).  In fact, we didn't need a term to describe it, because it was like the water around the fish.  It's just assumed.  When you don't have buttons to push on your character sheet to get what you want, and the GM adjudicates based on your actions, and getting into a bunch of fights will probably get your character killed, and the game is billed as portraying a character in a setting--then a natural outgrowth is that players are going to push the boundaries to find out where they are. 

Sure, sometimes the GM squashes a player going crazy because that isn't what they have prepared.  Sometimes another player squashes it because they (rightly) have guessed that the group will have more fun doing the prepared stuff.  But then sometimes it goes gloriously nuts running with the crazy.  It wasn't as if we were ignorant of this dynamic, because it came up regularly in preparation and play.  Everyone had their own mix of what was acceptable or not.

Lastly, it was not at all uncommon to run mini-sandboxes, where it was explicit that the walls on the box were pretty strict, but you had wide open opportunity within it.  In that sense, a mega dungeon is a form of sandbox play.  It's assumed for the sake of the game that the box is the mega dungeon, but no restraints are placed on where the players go within the dungeon, when, or what they do.

A hex crawl was less common, though Isle of Dread was heavily influential in this vein. Again, limited materials.  I know that I didn't just use Isle of Dread fro the adventures suggested by it, but in fact used the map for something very close to a hex crawl, and then built my next campaign around a similar idea.

Quote from: Nobleshield on December 19, 2024, 09:36:40 AMSo, as I stated in the other thread, as far as I can tell, the "hex crawl" as a complete play style is an OSR fabrication. I certainly can't find any references to this approach in any of the rules, not the 3LBB, B/X, BECMI, AD&D, or otherwise. Most of the books seem to talk about having outdoor encounters that use hexes to determine travel times, but none seem to indicate this should be anything other than a side thing to "fill in the gaps" during travel, definitely not an entire mode of play where all you're doing is going from hex to hex and discovering things. From what I can tell the only module to do this was X1 Isle of Dread, and that's part of the module since you're specifically going to an uncharted island.

The whole use of the "hexcrawling" (I do not remember us even calling it that when X1 dropped - maybe in some circles? Perhaps wargamer-lingo from back east?) was simply used as a general guide on "how to" fill a map. Back then 99% of us weren't thinking of creating whole worlds *per se*, we might have imagined we were doing that, but outside of just making some homebrewed map, we largely convinced ourselves we knew what was where... until the PC's decided to go a different direction.

I'm saying that yes, "Hexcrawling" was a thing, we may not have called it as such, but it was a thing. The *real* question is how much did those early GM's use it? I know I did, for a while, but only when I was homebrewing. I did know people that did it on-the-fly, and got pretty good at it. I found it clunky at the table. It was easier to just "wing it" and note it down for future reference. I'll speak more on this emergent behavior below...

Quote from: Nobleshield on December 19, 2024, 09:36:40 AMNow I completely understand the idea of traveling from Point A to Point B and having something like, "Oh look, a ruined tower; maybe we should investigate" as a side trek to the main adventure or an interim. But I don't "get" how a whole campaign can be done like this because it seems like a random bunch of stuff with no rhyme or reason. You need to include other elements, not just "Move to hex, roll for encounter, resolve, move to next hex," which seems to be how most of the "actual plays" showing hex crawls appear.

I've seen it. I've experienced it. I found it intensely haphazard and inconsistent. Having said that, I'm extremely confident this has more to do with the GM than the method itself. No different to me than a GM that *only* uses random table to generate treasure, or any other content without conducting the "vibe" of the game. I am *not* saying that Hexcrawling can't be used to conduct an entire campaign - it absolutely can. But it's going to depend on the GM's skill using it to make it "feel good". What all GM's should strive for, and I believe this is the true value of setting material - whether it's your own homebrew or a published setting - it's the *consistency* of the world. The secret sauce of making a big open-world campaign is use all the systems available to you to make the world "come alive" to the players.

Hexcrawling is one method of establishing that consistency. How well it works is dependent on the GM and that is based entirely on the scope of the game. Some GM's can do this with fidelity using Hexcrawling mechanics without you as a player ever noticing. Others have less stellar results. But I also say, anyone that adheres *only* to the mechanics-as-the-game will always come up short of the goal.

Soo... even today, I don't "Hexcrawl" per se. What I do is I work it all out before the game. And even then sometimes the PC's go further offroading (this is especially true when you have teleporting etc. in the game) which forced me to learn how to improvise and eventually realize that my own understanding of how the setting works didn't really require me to randomly generate content by each hex. BUT I use hex-maps for when I my PC's are travelling, merely as a means to make travel to new locales interesting. I'm mindful for pacing - sometimes I don't need random events to keep things moving along. I can always drop hooks in elsewhere, depending on what I think is happening in that location.

Quote from: Nobleshield on December 19, 2024, 09:36:40 AMWhat gets me more is the "zero prep sandbox" concept, which seems even stranger, as it seems to be just random "mission boards" like a videogame, where nothing is related at all. Now, I get the idea of having the PCs decide things or drive things if they express interest in following up on some rumor, but I feel letting them choose everything also runs counter to the fact you're playing a cooperative game. That is, if the players are constantly ignoring or finding ways to ignore the adventure hook, they're just being assholes.

I think you have it reversed for good reasons (modernity). Random mission-boards are a videogame creation (at least I believe they are). But I suppose that's no different than the "old man in the inn comes up to your party and gives you the Quest you can't refuse."

There is no "zero-prep" campaign. I'm extremely good at improvisation - even when I'm not "trying", and I still do prep. Granted to many people my "prep" might seem light, but that's because before I launch a campaign I do a lot of work establishing my sandbox and what goes on in it. I make writeups of all places of note, factions - who they are what NPC's comprise them, their motivations, schemes etc. I have lots of NPC's of all social-rank levels, their basic motivations which can be as simple as "making sure their crops come in on time" to "having ambitions to do <X>". I usually do a basic economic map of the region of how things operate, how organized crime (if any) operates, I know what major trade (if any) routes exist and with whom. Of course I also map out what regional threats exist - some monstrous (Goblinoid tribes? Giants? Lizardmen? Undead?) or it might be domestic threats (secret cults amongst the nobles?) blah blah blah. It's a LOT of stuff for most new GM's, stuff they never think about - especially if you're just doing Dungeon-runs, which is fine (I have those too). But ultimately my "prep" is an ecosystem that I drop my PC's into.

It becomes "seemingly zero-prep" because once the world is spun-up and I drop the PC's into it, it kinda runs on its own. It acts and reacts to the PC's. I know who all the major NPC's are, but I always have to make up new ones to fill in gaps. I know what all the major locales are - but the PC's *always* go to places I didn't consider. Hexcrawling mechanics work well for filling in those gaps, and often become, as they should, springboards for potential more adventure.

Between sessions I will use some hexcrawl mechanics to fill in hexes where I think the game seems to be going, but I rarely do it at the table. And if I use *any* kind of random generator, I always customize the results to the needs of the setting. So I'm not sure if this is the same as running an entire game using Hexcrawl mechanics in an "zero-prep" sandbox. This is how I do it. Players have total agency (or as close as I can give it to them within the context of the setting.)

As a side-note, I never really felt I used hexcrawling in the traditional sense "well" until I ran Vault of the Drow. I know a LOT of GM's in my area that felt Vault of the Drow was a real "achievement" in pulling off well, and hexcrawling was a big deal for me, personally, when I felt I really got it "right".

Quote from: Nobleshield on December 19, 2024, 10:27:21 AM

Quote from: Slambo on December 19, 2024, 10:21:36 AMI think you just have a novel definition of a hex crawl if you think its just goong from hex to hex. When most people think of a sandbox campaign they usually just mean there isnt a set plots and especially no story beats that have to be completed in order.

That's part of the disconnect. I've seen (and watched some actual plays) of hexcrawls that seem like it's just "travel and explore the map," as if you're basically moving in a game like the OG Ultima or something. Sandbox—I get the concept, but I don't understand how you run an entire campaign around it since, again, a lot of the discussion makes it sound like it's literally turning up to the table as DM and saying, "So, what do you guys want to do?".

Even Keep on the Borderlands makes it very clear in the text that the main goal is to get the PCs to visit the Caves of Chaos, with everything else just filler and side quests in between forays to the cave, and then the Caves of the Unknown being for the DM to flesh out themselves (or, I guess, drop B1 there). That I understand perfectly, it's the "the players don't have a 'main' objective at all" that is confusing or, rather, the notion the players might say, "Nah, we don't care, we're going to leave and go westward" out of the blue since that sounds kinda douchy on the part of the players.

At least, from how I played in the 90s and even when I played 3e and beyond, it was general etiquette to pick up on the adventure hook if one was provided and follow through, since the DM put in effort. Now, obviously, if the players talked about doing some side thing at the end of the previous session, that was fine too (and gave the DM something to prep), but in general, the idea was that if the DM is planting rumors about the Caves of Chaos, that's a pretty good sign you're meant to be going there, and it's rude to just say "nope."

That's the part that has me baffled. I never played with people who would go out of their way to ignore the DM's adventure or, worse, try to sabotage it (well I did once, the players ruined an Eberron adventure in 3.5 because they didn't like I was using a published module and sunk the whole campaign; the last time I DMed ). I actually LIKE the idea of at the end of the session the players might suggest what they want their characters to do next time.

I can explain what i mean when i say hexcrawl if it helps. I usually prep the map first and put a bunch of points of interest, the characters learn of the points of interest usually from rumors or just from their starting map. The party then set their own goals. In the past ive used modules to fill out parts of the setting. Not to mention most of the dungeons have something that relates to some of the mysterious parts of the setting or links to stuff in other towns or dungeons. There isn't a central plot, though, and they can go off in any direction, but as you said, most players aren't jerks that just want to leave the map they just set their own goals. I also have a few lists of events that may happen in the future if conditions are met like "If the demons in the west are banished the Giants will invade from the edge of the world thinking the Forces of Law are weakened" or something like that. I admir ive nevee had the PCs wait out an event like that but they could if they wanted, and other times they've triggered events they werent prepared for. Most often they prevent events from occuring by stopping some necessary step. But i call it a sandbox cause the players can do as they please in the world and a hex crawl cause i do have random events too when they move in the wilderness and stuff. Like monster lairs are usually a half days travel in whatever direction a random encounter is moving towards (if its evening, opposite for early morning cause they're moving out to hunt and opposite on both ends for anything nocturnal)