In the Matryoshka Search Technique, I described a method for resolving search checks that keeps players actively engaged with the actions of their characters so that they feel ownership of what their characters discover. You may want to read that post before reading this one, but the short version is:
- On a successful search check, instead of immediately discovering the point of interest, the character discovers an indicator pointing them in the direction of the target of the search.
- This requires the player to draw a conclusion and then act on that conclusion.
For example, instead of saying, “You find a hidden switch on the frame of the painting that opens a secret door,” you would instead say, “You notice that the frame of the painting is quite dusty, except for one spot in the lower right corner.”
Because it is the player’s declared action (“I examine that corner of the painting” and then “I push on the raised portion of the heron engraving”) that result in the switch being discovered and the secret door being opened – rather than the dice roll – the player is empowered and it feels as if THEY were the one who found it. (Because it was.)
I refer to this as a matryoshka technique because it’s like a Russian nesting doll: Instead of showing the players the innermost doll, you instead hand them the full stack and let them open each one.
But it’s not the only matryoshka technique.
If you’re running a hexcrawl, for example, you can use a matryoshka technique even within a single hex.
For example, even if you’re using an extremely simplistic hexcrawl structure in which the PCs automatically encounter the keyed content of each hex when they enter the hex, you can – instead of having them just run directly into it – give them an indicator.
So instead of saying, “You see a goblin village,” you describe the goblin tracks they stumble across. Or describe a plume of smoke on the horizon.
Do they follow the tracks? And, if they do, are they successful?
Do they head towards the plume of smoke? Or avoid it?
Instead of stumbling directly onto an ancient pyramid, the PCs spot a patch of ancient road almost completely swallowed up by the jungle.
Are they able to figure out which direction the road originally ran? Do they divert to see where it went?
And, like any matryoshka technique, this doesn’t have to be just one level deep. It can be nested to several levels.
It can also be interesting if they get two different indicators at the same time. For example, they see a plume of smoke to the west, but the goblin tracks are heading north.
(With a robust structure for running wilderness exploration, multiple indicators like this can be spontaneously generated. For example, you might have both the keyed location in a hex they just entered and the random encounter you just rolled.)
The goal of the technique is to draw players more deeply into the game world and empower them to actually explore the game world (instead of letting the dice do it for them). Not just because it will make them feel cool (although it will), but because it positions them to make meaningful choices. And that’s exciting for everyone at the table, because the consequences of those choices will transform the campaign.
FURTHER READING
Matryoshka Hexes
The link in the last paragraph just leads to a blank homepage. Is that deliberate?
Making the Matryoshka multiple levels deep could be a problem if each layer requires a separate roll, as even a very easy check turns nasty if repeated (three DC 5 checks is equivalent to a DC 11 check, and the odds go down with more rolls). The original Matryoshka article isn’t clear if each step in the chain requires a new roll (“One investigation “opens” new information, which can then be opened by another investigation in turn”).
But then, one could combine the Matryoshka technique with the Three Clue Rule, just in case the players fluff one of rolls in the series.
This is excellent. I feel like this will dovetail nicely with the trailblazing structures you describe in Thinking About Wilderness Travel, but exactly how is elusive. Probably this will help when framing a scene on journey, and becomes all the richer when it meets the agenda of your scene.
Very nice. I am currently working on a hexcrawl, and I was running into weirdness where it made such a small amount of sense for players to discover some of the locations that I was placing. Having clues to the location pop up or tracks to the enemy solves a host of those immersion-based issues, in addition to the benefits you already list.
@Eric My understanding is that each new layer does not require any kind of dice roll.
Let us take the example used in this article with the picture frame. Some steps are being omitted intentionally to simplify Justin’s point, but lets extrapolate.
1. The character is in a room and has decieded to search for secret doors (or Investigate, or other similar check) and got a Success.
2. The GM, rather than just giving them the answer, tells them “There is a painting on the wall. You notice that the frame of the painting is quite dusty, except for one spot in the lower right corner.”
3. The player states their character is going to take a further look at the lower right corner.
4. The GM tells them something about a heron engraving in the lower right corner with a slightly raised section.
5. The player states “I push on the raised portion of the heron engraving”
6. The secret door opens.
As you can see, only a single check has been called for; You aren’t forcing a Roll to Failure outcome. All you are doing is expanding that single check into a process of narrative choices which give the player the agency in finding and activing the switch that opens the secret door.
Hope this helps clear things up!
This is really interesting and would definitely solve the problem I come across where Hexcrawls feel a bit zoomed out and mechanical because you are mostly focusing on the rules and structure of the crawl.
However one issue I have come across is how to zoom into the crawl enough. The problem comes with making large terrain interesting. For example if you are in a forest one hex is going to be similar to another hex, essentially it’s a lot of trees, and it can feel very hard to make some kind of unique description in the hexes they are in.
@Xercies, I can’t remember which post I was reading recently here that makes me think of this, but perhaps in the situation you’re describing, the issue may be a matter of scale? Not enough stuff in the hex to differentiate from one to the next — in which case zooming out some may help?