How many mods here actually have their players go somewhere, when they go somewhere? Often it seems like the party, as soon as they announce they're off to a destination, are sedated by mysterious agents, crammed into crates on the backs of trucks, then shipped to the target location where they are unloaded, awakened, loaded down with gear again, and left to amble off the short distance to the goal.

Ever feel like your missing something? Remember when half the adventure involved getting lost on the way there, and having all sorts of useless, irrelevant encounters? Whatever happened to serendipitous discoveries? Whatever happened to the accidentally encountered peoples, tribes, and lands who later proved such a help in the adventure? What happened to the accidental joys?

Why do so many have such a tizzy over the unexpected and have such a fuss when events don't proceed in an unvarying path between getting hired by that merchant, and obsconding with the maguffin he paid you to get.

Is it because we've lost so much control over our real lives we must have control in our games?

No, just that most systems don't by their nature accommodate that kind of realism, designers just don't think about it.

When was the last time a D&D group got lost in a dungeon for example - even world class spelunkers just plain old get lost in caves sometimes, they pulled one such out of the limestone depths near me recently. Hell, people get lost on well marked and signposted two lane road networks.

I outlined some very effective system-neutral rules to shore up the weakness however, in a thread called "the living dungeon", which applies also to outdoor explorations and enables far larger and more interesting dungeons in my opinion.

The OSR crew on here will tell you that in their hex crawl sandboxes that is exactly what happens using the book of lairs or the 4000 meticulously prepared monster and lair encounterss get in their 3 hex (3 ;leagues by 3 leagues) starting space.

I think the reason for it not staying a popular mode of play for other D&D subgroups and for other RPGs in general is that it can be a bit dull and de-protagonises the hero. So if the Star Spangled Sentinels get lost trying to find their way to Dr Devious's hideout and dying from rehydration on a mountain somewhere in Armenia ..that isn't really the story everyone geared up to participate in.

So you need to set out the sort of game you are playing and if exploration is a key part of the game then fine. Again though the key to exploration is the doing of it and if you were to read some books about what actually happened on those 90 long days it took to cross the gobi Dessert in a 3 legged race tag team it would be quite dull we just want the highlights.

So like most of the discussions it comes down to playing style and preference. You can lump it in there with tracking supplies, ammo, roleplaying the buying of dinner, explaining how you set up camp, using a full encumberance model with locations for each item, all that stuff that can vary from hand wave to micro minutia

Quote from: mythusmage;605570Ever feel like your missing something?

Nope.

Quote from: Gabriel2;605648Nope.

Ever go beyond the cellar door?

Quote from: jibbajibba;605644..that isn't really the story everyone geared up to participate in.

What about gearing up to participate in a game rather than a story?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;606118What about gearing up to participate in a game rather than a story?

An adventure maybe?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;606118What about gearing up to participate in a game rather than a story?

What is the game about?  I mean, when I play D&D, I'm signing up to kill dragons, not get lost in the woods.  In the same way I don't have to roleplay out my quarterly review by J. Jonah Jameson unless it's important to the plot when playing Champions, I probably shouldn't have to wander around dully for days at a time unless it's important to do so.  Or unless that's what I like.

When I was twelve, I had time to engage in those kinds of exercises, but I also had more gaming time than I knew what to do with on multiple days a week with plenty of prospective players.  Now, I have four or five hours a week.  I'm not interested wasting three or four of those on blown navigation rolls in the woods unless it's a key part of the experience.  (Like survival rolls in "Return to the Mountains of Madness" or something.)

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606272What is the game about?  I mean, when I play D&D, I'm signing up to kill dragons, not get lost in the woods.  In the same way I don't have to roleplay out my quarterly review by J. Jonah Jameson unless it's important to the plot when playing Champions, I probably shouldn't have to wander around dully for days at a time unless it's important to do so.  Or unless that's what I like.

When I was twelve, I had time to engage in those kinds of exercises, but I also had more gaming time than I knew what to do with on multiple days a week with plenty of prospective players.  Now, I have four or five hours a week.  I'm not interested wasting three or four of those on blown navigation rolls in the woods unless it's a key part of the experience.  (Like survival rolls in "Return to the Mountains of Madness" or something.)

I see what the problem is, knowing too much, and thinking there is nothing new to learn. A false familiarity in other words.

Blase Player: It's a forest, let's get on to the real adventure.

GM: An attitude like that makes your surprise roll an automatic failure, as the horde of pygmy kobolds comes rushing out of the trees waving trinkets for purchase.

And yet what would the Hobbit have been without the sidetrack involving trolls? Or even the confusion leading to Bilbo finding the One Ring, which in turn ostensibly inspired the rest of the saga? I didn't see a dragon winging about the place there. With a good GM anything can work.

Quote from: The Traveller;606276And yet what would the Hobbit have been without the sidetrack involving trolls? Or even the confusion leading to Bilbo finding the One Ring, which in turn ostensibly inspired the rest of the saga? I didn't see a dragon winging about the place there. With a good GM anything can work.

Sure, or if that's what I've bought in for.  If I play a horror game centering around a Danielewski-space, exploraton and getting lost is part of the story.  A game set in a massive wood where the PCs are rangers might have a whole story set around getting lost.  

But the "sidetrack" involving the trolls within The Hobbit was narratively an important, planned plot-point that only within the reality of the story was unplanned and unexpected.  It moved the story forward and expanded on various characters. It served a specific, useful purpose.  It didn't kill time.  It wasn't filler.  It's only when Tolkien wants to emphasize the scale of Mirkwood or the danger of the spiders or get Bilbo into position to get the ring that the characters get lost.  When the time comes for Bilbo and company to just get places, they do so with ease, and any encounters they have are hand-waved or ignored (such as in Bilbo's return trip to the Shire.)

I'm all for relevant encounters, I'm not for irrelevant encounters, to use the original poster's phrasing, that just pad things out.  Now, if that's what I signed on for -- exploration, random encounters, all that -- cool, but my base assumption is that random encounters and travel will only get screen time if they serve an important purpose beyond, "Oh, yeah, this happens."

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606306Sure, or if that's what I've bought in for.  If I play a horror game centering around a Danielewski-space, exploraton and getting lost is part of the story.

It doesn't seem like much of a story if its predictable from start to finish. I get what you're saying, but really what kind of adventure exists without surprises? And I mean surprises beyond, yes, that chest is trapped. You signed up to fight a dragon and now you're on the run from rabid orc marauders escorting a wagonload of innocents and a wheel is about to come off. Will you leave that table disappointed?

Incidentally if you could clarify what plot point the trolls (or Tom Bombadil) served, that would be great.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;606306I'm all for relevant encounters, I'm not for irrelevant encounters, to use the original poster's phrasing, that just pad things out.  Now, if that's what I signed on for -- exploration, random encounters, all that -- cool, but my base assumption is that random encounters and travel will only get screen time if they serve an important purpose beyond, "Oh, yeah, this happens."

Life, unfortunately, doesn't follow a dramatic structure, life just happens. You may have an event planned for later on that day, but there are times when things just happen. You, sir, appear to hold to the belief that an event has no purpose if it has no immediate use.

RPGs however are not stories where you can plan out overthing, and have nothing useless happen. RPGs are more like life in which the unexpected and the unforeseen will happen, and very often when you don't expect it. You are the sort of person who demands that the cat have a job.

The trouble with random events is that certain people see no purpose in them, so when they happen these people present them poorly and in a way that discourages or boors the players. There is no such thing as a boring encounter, only boring GMs. Run with verve and vigor that woman with a load of laundry down by the riverside can be an exciting encounter.

As a man once said, "There is never nothing going on."

Quote from: The Traveller;606313It doesn't seem like much of a story if its predictable from start to finish. I get what you're saying, but really what kind of adventure exists without surprises? And I mean surprises beyond, yes, that chest is trapped. You signed up to fight a dragon and now you're on the run from rabid orc marauders escorting a wagonload of innocents and a wheel is about to come off. Will you leave that table disappointed?

Incidentally if you could clarify what plot point the trolls (or Tom Bombadil) served, that would be great.

Something doesn't have to be predictable to be a relevant part of the story.  Let's take The Hobbit, since we're both familiar with it -- Bilbo's player signs up to rob a dragon, but he should know that between A and Z there are a lot of different possible points to go, a lot of detours that can be taken.  But all of those points should avoid being "filler," or irrelevant encounters, unless that's what people are looking for.

In a sentence, I'm not saying players should only get what they expect; I'm cautioning against what I saw in the original post as kind of a "stuff happens for its own sake," and use of terms like "irrelevant."  I don't want irrelevant -- even things that are off the map or unpredictable should matter, should be interesting, and should be relevant.  

As for your other question, the troll scene exists because we need some way to demonstrate that Bilbo is braver and more adventurous than he thinks, but not as good as he needs to be, serving as a contrast with the Mirkwood spiders later on.  It's character illustrating and a moment of failure.  He approaches the trolls and tries to sneak past them and steal their money, but he's caught.  This, in turn, leads to a moment of danger to liven up the trip, putting the dwarves at risk, which in turn leads to Gandalf having a moment where we see exactly what kind of wizard he is -- outwitting the trolls with minor trickery rather than acting as a showy and overwhelming force.

Basically, it illustrates key points about Bilbo and Gandalf as well as serves to arm the party with the retrieved weaponry.

Quote from: mythusmage;606319Life, unfortunately, doesn't follow a dramatic structure, life just happens. You may have an event planned for later on that day, but there are times when things just happen. You, sir, appear to hold to the belief that an event has no purpose if it has no immediate use.

I hold the belief that my time is at a premium and I'd prefer not to spend it mired in GM wankery.  My problem is with you casting these unplanned events as "useless and irrelevant."  If they're useless and irrelevant, then I need them to be really interesting, or else they might be a waste of my time.  

You seem to be bemoaning the fact that PCs get from A to B with no side-paths and jump right into the adventure with nothing happening on the road to it, but unless there's a very good reason not to jump into the adventure -- or I'm not playing in a hex-mapped sandbox -- I don't necessarily need to get lost in the woods or have the runs because I ate the wrong fruit or deal with a handful of bandits.  Unless it's interesting, I want to wave that off.  If it is interesting, it's probably not just being lost, getting the runs, or dealing with Bandit 1, 2, and 3.