Archaeological evidence has the Norse primarily in modern day Newfoundland, Canada. They referred to the area as Vinland. Vinland was a reference to native grapes that they said grew in the area. That wouldn't have been likely in Newfoundland but would be possible further south. It's possible their base was the Newfoundland area and they made their way further south for trade and resources.

There were claims of Norse coins being found in Maine. But, if true, this is more likely to have been from indigenous people traveling more than the Norse actually traveling. I'm from Massachusetts, myself, and I've seen a lot of claims that the Norse inhabited areas here or in Rhode Island. I don't think any of that is based on fact or a reliable source. It's certainly not impossible that they would have traveled that far south when based in Canada. But I don't know of any evidence for it.

According to the Saga of Erik the Red there was an attempt at a longer term settlement. Initially they had positive interactions with the indigenous people, the "Skrælings", and they traded back and forth. But it turned hostile and the indigenous people attacked them. The sagas place the blame on a bull who got lose from the Norse camp (classic blame the bull strategy!). Shortly after this they returned to Greenland. The Saga of the Greenlanders also makes a reference to conflict between the indigenous people and the Norse. And that there was revenge on both sides for the killing of members of each group. In that saga there are several further journeys to Vinland for profit and to collect their dead. But not longterm settlement. And it may be true that the Norse continued to visit Vinland long after they had abandoned the idea of settlement. The settlement at Greenland would be sorely lacking in timber and some other resources, which were abundant in Vinland. And Greenland really isn't that far a journey from Canada (relatively speaking). The Norse settled in Greenland at the very end of the 10th century.

The sagas aren't the best sources for information. But archaeological evidence can only tell us so much. It can't give motivations. That both sagas depict conflict between the settlers and the indigenous people suggest that happened. And it's likely the reason it wasn't tenable to remain. They would have been outnumbered without easy reinforcements. And the technological advancement over the indigenous peoples wouldn't have been as stark as it was when the Spanish arrived centuries later. The Norse didn't have gun powder. The Norse were more than capable of making a rational cost/benefit analysis of the situation and choosing to retreat.