D&D 5E Three pillars: what is "exploration"?

[Yaarel]

Indeed. I like to do both. When I'm not partial to what they encounter, I roll randomly. But then if it doesn't fit, I may reroll, or simply pick something from my list. And some of the things that I randomly roll (such as rivers, swamps, mountains) can dramatically affect the lay out of the region, while others could lead the players to discover a dungeon that perhaps I hadn't planned at all. But it's also nice as a DM to be surprised every now and then by what they discover.

One of the best examples of this, was a large crevice in the side of a cliff of one of the islands in my campaign. It lead to a large lake in the middle of a valley, surrounded by steep walls of rock. The crevice was just large enough for the players to squeeze their ship through. And now they are planning to make this location that they discovered, their own pirate base.

I rolled this landmark completely random, and made up the rest of the details on the spot. Such as, that the valley walls were littered with old wooden scaffolding from some long lost tribe of islanders (which they had to carefully navigate). They explored the place, and found indications that the original inhabitants were killed and/or driven off by the local cannibal tribe. This is a pretty straight forward way to link the random discovery to another plot thread and make it feel to the players like a coherent whole.

I feel that one of the key things in making the players 'feel' like explorers, is to not only throw in combat encounters. Most of the random encounters I write, are none-combat encounters.

-An ancient statue/shrine/pillar from some long lost civilization.
-Tracks that lead to another random encounter, if they choose to follow them.
-An old sign post, that gives rough directions to other random encounters nearby.
-A watchtower that provides the players with a view, so they can see any tall structures and geographical features that are nearby.
-An old weapons cache, buried by other pirates.
-A tree full of fruit, with random tropical fruit of course. And beware, some fruit can make you sick if not properly prepared!
-An ancient inactive golem.
-A sleeping giant.
-A parrot sitting on the branch of a tree, who repeats phrases from previous pirates that visited.

I just want to throw in things that are interesting, and may provoke some cool roleplaying opportunities. Or things that I can easily tie to the current narrative. If you were to venture into a jungle in real life, I doubt that you'd be immediately jumped by a hungry tiger or a bunch of cannibals. Plus I feel a combat encounter with one of those baddies is far more interesting, if it has first been build up by other discoveries. Maybe they first encounter an abandoned cannibal watchtower, or one of their victims dangling from a tree? Maybe they first find tracks, or poop from a tiger, but the beast probably hunts at night? If you can make your players afraid to revisit the same place at night, you've already succeeded in creating suspense, without any combat at all.

Good example of why Exploration is a separate ‘pillar’ of the game!

 

[MichaelSomething]

I think I found something that may help...

http://www.froggodgames.com/borderland-provinces-journey-generator

 

[S'mon]

What is exploration? It's everything James Wyatt said was NOT FUN (long treks through ruined dwarven fortresses) - http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315902-The-Guards-at-the-Gate-Quote

Edit: Sorry, of course Wyatt said Social encounters with guards at the gate are not fun
either...

 

[robus]

Exploration must be a key component of a sandbox game, but I do think that too many of the published APs rely on social encounters to deliver information (quest givers and the like) rather than discoveries via exploration.

 

[robus]

Indeed. I like to do both. When I'm not partial to what they encounter, I roll randomly. But then if it doesn't fit, I may reroll, or simply pick something from my list. And some of the things that I randomly roll (such as rivers, swamps, mountains) can dramatically affect the lay out of the region, while others could lead the players to discover a dungeon that perhaps I hadn't planned at all. But it's also nice as a DM to be surprised every now and then by what they discover.

One of the best examples of this, was a large crevice in the side of a cliff of one of the islands in my campaign. It lead to a large lake in the middle of a valley, surrounded by steep walls of rock. The crevice was just large enough for the players to squeeze their ship through. And now they are planning to make this location that they discovered, their own pirate base.

I rolled this landmark completely random, and made up the rest of the details on the spot. Such as, that the valley walls were littered with old wooden scaffolding from some long lost tribe of islanders (which they had to carefully navigate). They explored the place, and found indications that the original inhabitants were killed and/or driven off by the local cannibal tribe. This is a pretty straight forward way to link the random discovery to another plot thread and make it feel to the players like a coherent whole.

I feel that one of the key things in making the players 'feel' like explorers, is to not only throw in combat encounters. Most of the random encounters I write, are none-combat encounters.

-An ancient statue/shrine/pillar from some long lost civilization.
-Tracks that lead to another random encounter, if they choose to follow them.
-An old sign post, that gives rough directions to other random encounters nearby.
-A watchtower that provides the players with a view, so they can see any tall structures and geographical features that are nearby.
-An old weapons cache, buried by other pirates.
-A tree full of fruit, with random tropical fruit of course. And beware, some fruit can make you sick if not properly prepared!
-An ancient inactive golem.
-A sleeping giant.
-A parrot sitting on the branch of a tree, who repeats phrases from previous pirates that visited.

I just want to throw in things that are interesting, and may provoke some cool roleplaying opportunities. Or things that I can easily tie to the current narrative. If you were to venture into a jungle in real life, I doubt that you'd be immediately jumped by a hungry tiger or a bunch of cannibals. Plus I feel a combat encounter with one of those baddies is far more interesting, if it has first been build up by other discoveries. Maybe they first encounter an abandoned cannibal watchtower, or one of their victims dangling from a tree? Maybe they first find tracks, or poop from a tiger, but the beast probably hunts at night? If you can make your players afraid to revisit the same place at night, you've already succeeded in creating suspense, without any combat at all.

This is brilliant. And really a great way to set the tone of the campaign. Gritty infiltration of enemy territory - random encounters are mostly hostile. Exploring new territory, random encounters are points of interest: geological features, ruins, settlements, shrines etc.

A most excellent post!

 

[iserith]

Exploration must be a key component of a sandbox game, but I do think that too many of the published APs rely on social encounters to deliver information (quest givers and the like) rather than discoveries via exploration.

I think certain designers just love their NPCs.

 

[steeldragons]

I'm pretty much stuck on the second post of this thread as the obvious answer.

Are you talking with someone/something? If yes, then you're "in"["on?" "doing?"] the interaction pillar.

Are you fighting with someone/something? If yes, then you're "in[/on/doing]" the combat pillar.

If you are not doing either one of those two things...you're "in[on/doing]" the exploration pillar.

It's not really ambiguous or mysterious. It is, literally, everything else your character does/can do.

 

[Hriston]

Facilitate the PH's development (really, 5e's development) the Pillars were dreamed up during the development and playtesting of Next/5e as part of their efforts to divine/define what exactly made D&D, well, D&D.

I was unaware of the three pillars' origination. I would have though it was earlier. It's a great description of D&D play no matter the edition, IMO. Thanks for the history.

The Role vs Roll 'debate' (really, much like the edition war of its day) on UseNet ate up a chunk of the 90s, and was taken up in a more thoughtful way and re-imagined as the Threefold Theory, which, in turn, was one of the ideas the Forge worked from in hammering out GNS.

The end result is just as wrong-headed and divisive as the original, IMHO.

Thanks for this history as well, although we're going to have to agree to disagree about GNS theory's divisiveness. To me, it seems explicitly inclusive in that it doesn't prioritize any one creative agenda over another.

You mean, it's suggested by taking part of that natural-language definition out of context.

Part of that context is this sentence: "Exploration includes... the adventurers'... interaction with... situations that require their attention." Encounters with creatures often "require [the adventurers'] attention", and can be resolved not only through social interaction or combat, but through exploration as well, for example by avoidance. The suggestion is clear that any action taken by the PCs to address such a situation falls within the exploration pillar, and that only when that action includes conversing or fighting is one of the other pillars also invoked. You don't see the suggestion because you disregard it, not because it isn't there.

 

[robus]

I'm pretty much stuck on the second post of this thread as the obvious answer.

Are you talking with someone/something? If yes, then you're "in"["on?" "doing?"] the interaction pillar.

Are you fighting with someone/something? If yes, then you're "in[/on/doing]" the combat pillar.

If you are not doing either one of those two things...you're "in[on/doing]" the exploration pillar.

It's not really ambiguous or mysterious. It is, literally, everything else your character does/can do.

You're right but I also think that's part of the problem. Because it's everything else it kind of gets lost in the mix.

The environment becomes settings for social or combat encounters rather than providing interactive elements of its own.

I'm definitely going to try and adopt [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION]'s approach in future when introducing my players to new environments.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I was unaware of the three pillars' origination

As used in 5e, anyway.

disagree about GNS theory's divisiveness. To me, it seems explicitly inclusive in that it doesn't prioritize any one creative agenda over another.

It sorts the way RPGs are played into three boxes, and declares you must prefer one, and that any game that attempts to cover more than one is 'incoherent.' Divisive is it's purpose.

The suggestion is clear that any action taken by the PCs to address such a situation falls within the exploration pillar, and that only when that action includes conversing or fighting is one of the other pillars also invoked. You don't see the suggestion because you disregard it, not because it isn't there.

Not nearly as clear and obvious as there being three pillars, not one that encompasses everything, with two sub-pillars.