How do you make exploration/traps FUN?

[OgreBattle]

A lot of great movies and novels have exploration sequences but I haven't really found tabletop rules that quite satisfy me for it.
Most tabletop RPG's I've done focus most of the action on combat or just talking with different things, they can do those well, but I'm still looking for a better way to do "I use disable device"

Exploration is a big part of adventuring but most games I've played it's flavorful descriptions or we just teaparty through a situation. That's not a bad thing but I'm curious about getting solid rules for doing exploration.

And when it comes to traps it's usually just "Rogue rolls a d20" or Wizard Solves The Problem. Most of my experience is with D&D2/3/4.

I've heard Shadowrun mentioned as being 'better' or more suitable for encounters based around traps, I'd like to know more about how it does that. Or if there's a way to make D&D traps and exploration more fun I'd like to hear about it.

[PhoneLobster]

Traps are harder to do as the sensible thing to do with them is to throw them into several different categories of... things... like in combat hazards, alarms, and stuff you shouldn't put in your game damnit, etc...

But exploration is a relatively easy one.

Exploration is largely sidelined by the fact that many GMs (and systems) are lazy and assume, and use, the convention of one encounter/event per "room".

Pushing towards a "whole of dungeon" encounter scale where an encounter in any one part of the "map" could draw in reinforcements, or otherwise effect or spill over into other parts of the map heightens the interest in Exploration.

Exploration then becomes about avoiding events and enemies that would trigger a whole of dungeon encounter until you have figured out a bit of the layout of the place, determined the kind of opposition, and maneuvered into a better position and started things on your own terms, assuming you succeed at the exploration.

There are a fair number of pre-requisites required for this.

1) You need some good stealth rules.
2) You need some good rules to cover basic terrain and map layout.
3) You need reasons why places in the dungeon will be important during combat encounters, so you need things which are good to fight near, bad to fight near, or important to "secure" or something.
4) You need some relatively predictable and interactive rules for how information propogates between allied (and non-allied) forces within a whole of dungeon encounter.
5) and other things I forget right now.

When the mission, and actual encounter is "defeat the entire Cathedral Of Evil" the "Exploration" phase then ends up being the important bit where you try and gain the information and positioning required to then do that.

[Daztur]

Some good blog posts here:
http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/9 ... -syndrome/
http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/9 ... rap-blues/

[shadzar]

while D&D can have traps like an Indiana Jones movie, the game wont really work as well to do that sort of thing. the problem is the author or screenwriter has MUCH more control over the characters and "camera angle" for books and movies. if a DM were to take that much control over the characters, then he would be most like to the author and just telling the story of finding and disabling a trap. then you lose the game part of the game.

the only way to really build tension in such cases is one some people just dont like, and that is a death-timer. something is going on that is this isnt done quick, then it can occur in death to the player characters.

[RobbyPants]

I remember Frank saying a while ago in another thread that if you want people to explore a dungeon, you need to remove the finish line. If the goal is something like "kill all the demons", then you have to go through the whole dungeon to make sure you got them all. Also, if the locations are truly interesting, then the players will be more likely to want to explore them.

As far as traps go, I'd avoid the HP-tax style traps that are shown in the DMG. You can maybe plant them in obvious places like treasure chests or doors, but don't just sprinkle them throughout the dungeon. It just encourages taking 20 every ten feet.

I'd try to actually turn the trap into an encounter of sorts where everyone has to work to stop it. Think of the slow moving death traps you see in Indiana Jones movies or the trash compactor in Star Wars. To pull this off, you have to make it so it can't just be solved by a single spell if you want everyone to participate.

Exploration is largely sidelined by the fact that many GMs (and systems) are lazy and assume, and use, the convention of one encounter/event per "room".

Pushing towards a "whole of dungeon" encounter scale where an encounter in any one part of the "map" could draw in reinforcements, or otherwise effect or spill over into other parts of the map heightens the interest in Exploration.

This is a really good idea.

[Xur]

As far as traps go, I'd avoid the HP-tax style traps that are shown in the DMG. You can maybe plant them in obvious places like treasure chests or doors, but don't just sprinkle them throughout the dungeon. It just encourages taking 20 every ten feet.

I'd try to actually turn the trap into an encounter of sorts where everyone has to work to stop it. Think of the slow moving death traps you see in Indiana Jones movies or the trash compactor in Star Wars. To pull this off, you have to make it so it can't just be solved by a single spell if you want everyone to participate.

Exactly my take on the subject. In the thread about MC's and homebrewing someone mentioned the encounter traps from 3.5 Dungeonscape, I took some inspiration from there. Problem is that, unless you as DM really dive into all options given by higher levels gameplay, after a certains level even these traps become meaningless, thanks to spells or super-specialized characters. There is most definitely a way to create interesting traps for a level-16 party, but I'm way too lazy to wrap my head around all the spells and special materials needed for a task like that.

For me, it only works on low-to-med levels but it works a lot better than standard SRD traps.

Exploration is largely sidelined by the fact that many GMs (and systems) are lazy and assume, and use, the convention of one encounter/event per "room".

Pushing towards a "whole of dungeon" encounter scale where an encounter in any one part of the "map" could draw in reinforcements, or otherwise effect or spill over into other parts of the map heightens the interest in Exploration.

This is a really good idea.

Well, isn't this already quasi-standard in lots of modules? I remember reading phrases like "... if the players fight the guards in room 2, reinforcements from room 5 are entitled to a Listen check and will enter the fight after x rounds if they hear something." many times. Games I participated in as DM or player almost always followed the routine of research>scouting>entering>Initiative!

[RobbyPants]

Problem is that, unless you as DM really dive into all options given by higher levels gameplay, after a certains level even these traps become meaningless, thanks to spells or super-specialized characters. There is most definitely a way to create interesting traps for a level-16 party, but I'm way too lazy to wrap my head around all the spells and special materials needed for a task like that.

For me, it only works on low-to-med levels but it works a lot better than standard SRD traps.

The traps need to become more magical. Mundane hazards are less and less of an issue as PCs gain levels and gain better magic.


Edit: fixed tags.

[OgreBattle]

Thanks for the posts. The blog is also very handy, I'll have to loot it of info and pretend it was my own idea all along.

It seems a large part of it is 'anticipation', having people realize their next action will have some kind of consequence while avoiding the "ZAP" trap