Friday, December 20, 2019

Distance and Time

Over the past years, going back decades, I have tried to produce various versions of the table shown, here provided by dungeonbot.  And while the effort here is at least somewhat gritty, I must admit that numbers alone are simply not adequate.  Somehow, the structure proposed, exactly the sort I've made myself over and over again, fails to capture any meaningful nuance of what happens when players move from one part of the world to another.  And this is a problem, as any quick search of "make D&D travel more interesting" on youtube will show.  There are no satisfying answers to this question that I've found.  All the pundits that I've found advise the DM to do things that will probably work only once, without addressing the fundamental problem of a game world: it is too big to effectively fill if the party is going to travel distances requiring more than a week.

I have always tried to solve the problem of space with descriptive paragraphs intended to capture a mood.  For example, with the Juvenis campaign, I described the party's approach to their first adventure thusly:
It is not a long walk around the south edge of the lake, and now that it looks like the brewing storm has melted away and given to clear ~ if somewhat crisp ~ skies, you make fair time. Those who have been playing with the clothing insulation calculator will notice they have to take off some of their clothing to avoid taking damage today, as it is hot climbing over deadfall and not tripping over roots.
There is a lot of snow on the ground around the lake, in trenches and low places, but these are easily avoided. The lake, however, is completely clear of ice. The party rounds a hill on the west side of the lake and begins across a flat boggy meadow plain that slowly tilts upwards as they go northwest, into the wind. Occasionally you have to cover your noses with a hand to warm the skin, but it is not cold enough to cause much distress.

In light of such efforts, it may seem incongruous to insert some number to determine how far the party actually gets, but of course that information (whether we state it or not) is relevant to the matter of investigating into a wilderness.  As any one who has done some serious back country hiking will tell you, hours matter.  You can't spend too many of them on the way out, or you will find yourself in trouble before you can get back.  And every pound you hoist on your back will slow you down and bring fatigue ... whereas not enough equipment can mean a very unpleasant night, even if the weather doesn't turn bad.  Time is a critical factor in any travel ... and however poetical the passage above sounds, I'm deliberately glossing over how much time the trip takes because, factually, I don't actually have an answer.

Oh, sure, I can pull up a number for distance/time like shown on the table above ~ but is that number really accurate?  Or is it just a flat number that is automatically applied to every wilderness, as though wildernesses are all alike?  Obviously, they're not ... and such numbers never take into sincere account matters like the party's knowledge of the area, the knowledge of wilderness spaces, how much is carried and how believable it is that a mage can keep up with a ranger over such country.  I have hiked with people who were not up to it; not everyone is and such resolve does not exist in everyone.

So, in fact, the number is pretty nigh useless, if we really want to grasp the matter of travelling.  And if we want to make players feel the travelling that they ask their characters to do.

This is my headspace at the moment, where I am thinking the problem of travel through from end to end.  It is the reason why I find myself reaching to make the combat round shorter, because that is the one change I can make that doesn't call for a drastic restructure of the entire combat system.  The adjustment to a shorter time span for the round may seem rushed ~ but it aligns with actual walking speed, which is the more important matter here.  And while I don't want to get absurdly gritty with the travel system I'm considering, I must admit, ANY system I design must align with what other systems I've previously built.  At this time, I may be unready to incorporate how well your dinner is settling on your stomach with how far you can walk or ride today, the rational approach at this time is to make room for that becoming a thing at some point.  There is NO point in my building a deepened travel system that doesn't account for all the directions that travel system might eventually go.  Otherwise, I'm only creating headaches for myself further down the road.  Who knows what I might wish to add in 10 years?

[incidentally, my daughter has been playtesting the nutrition rules with her campaign for a couple of months now, and says her party loves them; most reassuring]

I haven't put something on the wiki yet because, even scratching the surface, I'm waist-deep in a river that just looks to get deeper.  Starting out with the question of how far can a person walk given the number of action points (AP) they have, I realized that the difference between the road and the wilderness isn't enough.  One road is very not like another, so that I found myself settling in to make categories for every sort of route the party is likely to travel, short of untracked wilderness.  It made sense to tag the route-type to a 20-mile hex's infrastructure, which then brought up the subject of crossing rivers, whether by ford, ferry or transshipment, depending on the width and depth of the obstruction.  Obviously, the existence of these would be tagged by the infrastructure also ... and having resolved upon that, I found myself thinking about tolls and costs for such things, leading to the table below.

table may be subject to change before appearing
on the wiki.
The various sorts of routes, eight in all, would be progressively more difficult to walk, include less drainage, have more bends and deviations around topography, more tight places, a greater likelihood of being washed out or flooded, etcetera ... reducing the straight-line distance between two points and the time it would take to get there.  But though I had originally intended to include the road's effect on foot travel based on the encumbrance of the traveller, I realized I only have encumbrance numbers for walking ... because until now, I've not applied encumbrance to how loaded down an animal is, considering both that which is carried by the animal and that which can be pulled by the animal.

And this is a problem also, because while a horse, say, can carry a rider a greater distance in a shorter amount of time, a horse becomes tired after six hours of being ridden.  This means that some of the distance the animal travels will be while it is led ... and that speed will depend on how much the rider chooses to carry while leading the animal.  Which, in turn, makes it very difficult to produce a simple table.

And, of course, the categorization of various route surfaces is child's play to the possible types of wilderness to be crossed in absence of a road.  And I would also like to take into account such things as weather, orientation, pathfinding, supplies, the discovery of resources such as fresh water, matters relating to camping and how much free time a day a character can find while all these other things are going on.  After all, not every minute is spent in travelling.

All of that is pretty gritty ~ and for some, definitely not the way they'd want to go with their world.  But I think most of that resistance results from the fear of whatever work might be involved in calculating out the specific details.  Which is why, as I'm doing the work, I will have an eye for how to save it where it comes to calculations.

However, I think in the long term, the greater win will be in having a more definite idea of the space being crossed, and explored, if the method of exploration isn't limited to merely distance versus time.  There needs to be a clear understanding of what that distance is, and just exactly why this amount of time passes when crossing it, all of this being wrapped up in a deeper understanding of what it means when the party decides to leave the trail and see where that takes them.


P.S.,

I had meant to post this on my closed blog ... but as long as I've posted it here, it can stand.  Further content about travel, an encumbrance table for animals drawing or carrying loads, and more as I create it, can be had by donating $3 to my Patreon account.

11 comments:

  1. Interesting stuff to consider.

    When I work on a project like this one, I try to think of it as creating stat blocks for monsters. This concept can fit for any new category of opposition.

    What are the common stats a road or path needs in order to "play it" as the GM? What opportunities do the players have to interact with the paths? Ultimately, how do you measure whether the obstacle is overcome?

    Once you've got your stat blocks (templates), you can slot those into any given adventure and flesh out 'this' individual version of that template.

    You're obviously already doing this, but sometimes it helps to be explicit about it in your head. Thinking like this helps me brainstorm which parts of the opposition are commonalities, so I can focus on building those up. It also helps me edit out the parts that won't contribute to the stat-block template.

    In short, how is a road a monster? What do you need to prep in order to make that monster come alive in play?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Essentially you're right, except that making the road an obstacle is not my only goal. I'm also trying to make the road an enabling process.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't follow what you mean by an enabling process.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The nature of space provided by the road allows opportunities such as knowledge, trade, friendship and enjoyment of traveling.

      Delete
    2. Okay, I think I see what you're saying. I guess my first inclination is to say that those happen between the moments of opposition, but I'll continue to think on it.

      When the road is not opposition, isn't it merely a backdrop, just like a town, a building, or a dungeon room?

      Delete
    3. And that's the problem. The game's been driven one-dimensionally towards servicing the adventure god, while personal satisfaction gets relegated to the back bench.

      Delete
    4. I think either I don't understand the problem or I disagree with it being a problem.

      When I play, the short-term the goal is overcoming obstacles, while the long-term goal is bonding with people (the real people). The neutrality of the obstacles is a benefit, not a hindrance, and it parallels other group activities. When I play basketball, I'm playing to overcome the other team (an obstacle), but in between games I am building a bond with my team. When I play in a band, the performances are the obstacles, and we bond between performances.

      When I GM, I find my main role in the game is presenting obstacles because that's the focal point for everyone. Bonding partly happens as we overcome those obstacles, but we also bond as we use our shared experiences as jumping point to discuss other things.

      I don't think there needs to be any deliberate input from the GM to create meaningful bonding.

      Delete
  4. The "adventure god" would be the hedonistic pursuit of "fun." While satisfying in the short run, with repetition, the pursuers tire, and new notions must be pursued, else the game grows tired and dull. This is the problem of life as outlined in Oscar Wilde's Portrait of Dorian Gray. There must be more to the pursuit of gaming than merely the immediacy of overcoming obstacles and feeling good doing so. Eventually, that good feeling can't be fed and the players end up dragging themselves through the adventures with an unsatisfied feeling of ennui. We can see the effects of that all over the online community ~ and the constant, desperate pursuit of the "new."

    Tyler, you bring up ONE of the cures for that: comaraderie. I don't dispute this, not in the least. When I think of games I played 30 years ago, I don't remember the campaign, I remember the laughing faces of my friends, the jibes, the support, the mutual trust and love that we shared.

    But THIS is not a game concept; this is a natural result of shared, positive experiences, and does not need to be designed for in the making of any part of the game's structure to support its function. The rules of basketball do not state, "Thou shalt love thy teammates." Yes, it's true that camaraderie and teamwork win basketball games, but the best teams will embrace one another ANYWAY, whether or not it brings them wins. I played with both winning teams and losing teams, in baseball, soccer and football ... and we all laughed and appreciated each other, regardless.

    I am speaking of another idea altogether, one that the most popular video games have successfully tapped into, and one that has been central to the process of humans achieving the greatest satisfaction for themselves throughout civilisation. The fact of creating something, or mastering something, fills an individual with a magnificent sense of awe and pride, that surpasses any other consideration. "I made that. I did that." These become the larger, more significant accomplishment, beyond even being proud of finishing six adventures, say. It is sitting back and looking at the phenomenal house or apparatus that one builds in any number of games and sighing with contentment.

    That's what I'm talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Are opportunities not just encounters? Basing the number & type of encounters available against the terrain, climate, and infrastructure-times-crime level is straightforward to me, yet, as you've noted, work.

    You've put lots of thought into Charisma and Class-as-Social-presentation; seems a prime time to cross multiply with the social environment to tableize the personalities available by route.

    What are the minimum levels of granularity you're interested in? Actually, I'd rather know the maximum: what is the longest amount of in-game time you would let pass without player involvement? I've driven across Kansas enough to know that, on foot, you would just keep moving one foot in front of the other and hope for dry weather...for a mind-numbing period of days. When, in your view, does the idea of 'zooming out for a travel montage' start being hurtful?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mujadaddy,

    I'm considering these matters, but I'm not ready yet to speak on them.

    Granularity is tricky. On the one hand, there's always the danger that too much will ruin a campaign. On the other, without an increase in granularity, we'd all still be playing Chain Mail.

    My feeling is that my campaign will handle as much granularity as will continue to expand the game's interest for the players and feed opportunities for changing the game's direction from adventure to living life. How far I will go towards that is, given time and technology, theoretically infinitely.

    ReplyDelete