D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Aldarc]

Unless we're talking about certain 4th ed products, which were literally strings of combat encounters

Which probably was a mistake on their part. Combat in 4e works best IME as a central, dramatic set piece. More like the Fellowship fighting the goblins and cave troll in Moria and less as a room-by-room set of dungeon crawl encounters.

To be fair, nearly every published adventure (playing comprises a large portion of player, especially new player, experience) are based on world-shattering events that the PC deal with largely exclusively for virtually their entire careers. WotC has been doing better with that lately, but they created that "script" as a assumed experience.

A lot of the 5e model for adventure design seems to be built on what Paizo was doing with their PF1 adventure paths.

 

[mrpopstar]

But, when I point to them, you tell me that players never use them. So, which is it? Are there plenty of concrete tools or not?

What did I say players never use?

See, I agree that exploration should be a major element of the game. That's not my issue. My issue is that there are a shopping list of "concrete tools" at the players disposal, many of which completely bypass exploration challenges. And the higher the level of the party, the more resources they have and the more powerful those resources too. To the point where exploration is largely trivial.

Specifically survival becomes more trivial, not exploration as whole.

Giants work REALLY well here.

But, that's a good example for me actually. I played the Storm King's Thunder series of adventures. Some very cool places. Sure. But, I played a Forge Priest. Every short rest, I can create a 100gp value item. Need a key? No problem. Poof. Oh, and because I was a Forge Priest, I got all sorts of exploration bypassing spells. Fabricate is fantastic.

Like I said, I'm not against exploration. I think exploration is a barrel of fun. My issue is that the game gives the players SO MANY ways to shortcut exploration that you just don't see in the other two pillars. Sure, you could Charm Person your way through a social encounter, but, that's risky - the other person could make their saving throw, and, once the charm wears off, you just made an enemy. There's no real risk in Purify Food and Drink or a Light spell.

There's a shopping list of exploration short circuiting spells and abilities at every single level of the game. The higher level you get, the more ways you have.

But the same is true of every pillar. Once characters reach the third tier, a lot of things become trivial. At that point spellcasters have spells that completely change the way they interact with the world, and the Dungeon Master's Guide points that out.

Edit: Breaking up this wall of text.​

 

[mrpopstar]

Please tell me how I was suppose to get all of that in bold out of your earlier comment?

I don't approach threaded discussion like I'm in combat with my fellow posters. You said the game is like X because of the Dungeon Master and the players want Y. I said that is largely dependent upon the DM. ?

I think it's important to recognize the heavy lifting "should" was doing in your argument there and how that may not pan out in typical game play or praxis, particularly when we talk about the styles of games that 5e cultivates and/or gravitates toward (e.g., traditional and neo-traditional play).

This is where my eyes start glazing over. Once we start discussing "praxis," and "player agency over the state of the fiction," and "neo-traditional play," I just don't know how to proceed.

Dungeons & Dragons is produced by a toy company. It's a game. I approach it with the same level of simplistic joy that I approach Hasbro's other properties: My Little Pony, Monopoly, etc.

I receive a lot of flack for that in this community and I really don't know why.

Who decides the NPCs' attitude? Who decides whether the PCs roleplay the right way or say "the magic words" in a manner that can persuade the NPC? Who decides whether the PCs auto-pass, auto-fail, or require a roll? Who decides the check? Who decides the DC? Who decides and narrates the results of a check? Or even what a PC can or can't know may require GM permission.

I'm saying that the gamut of what transpires in the social and exploration pillar is "dependent on the GM" as you like to remind us and can vary more wildly than generally is the case with combat. Some GMs here strongly dislike social skills and require "good roleplay." Likewise some GMs, particularly of the OSR persuasion, require that the PCs describe every meticulous detail of exploration without relying on skill checks to find the trap or hidden door.

The DMG reminds us that the combat pillar is more structured, and there are easily far more player-facing abilities and options regarding combat than the other pillars. This gives players more structured and concrete ways to affect the fiction.

I place a lot of emphasis on the simple tools for personality and background in the Player's Handbook, and on the simple tools for social interaction in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Those tools give social interaction a lot of concrete structure. Players can approach roleplay descriptively or actively, but it's clear to everyone what's happening and what they're trying to achieve with that aspect of the game.

The tools for exploration are the same. They're simple, easy, straightforward, not overthought.

Dungeon Masters are free to dismiss the concrete tools provided in either pillar, because they require "good roleplay," or because they require meticulous levels of detail without relying on using ability scores, but those are deviations from the rules of the game. I'm not saying those things are wrong, but they're different than how the rules teach us to play the game.

Quite a bit actually. We have been talking about which pillars of play 5e typically emphasizes (e.g., combat, exploration, social) and why that is the case, player-facing tools that let players bypass certain pillars, as well as "scripts." Player agency plays a role in all of this. Or to go back to my earlier point in this thread: when players are given a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

But it's okay for players to use the hammers provided in any given pillar. Using their ability scores, traits, features, and capabilities is welcome and expected.

I thought the premise of this thread was "why exploration is the worst pillar." My contributions here have mostly been clarifications on how the concrete structures of the pillar work.

Does unfamiliarity with terminology or jargon somehow invalidate it?

Nobody said anything was invalid.

 

[mrpopstar]

Unless we're talking about certain 4th ed products, which were literally strings of combat encounters

True statement!

To be fair, nearly every published adventure (playing comprises a large portion of player, especially new player, experience) are based on world-shattering events that the PC deal with largely exclusively for virtually their entire careers. WotC has been doing better with that lately, but they created that "script" as a assumed experience.

I acknowledge that. I think there's only so much you can do with a published adventure.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What did I say players never use?


Specifically survival becomes more trivial, not exploration as whole.


But the same is true of every pillar. Once characters reach the third tier, a lot of things become trivial. At that point spellcasters have spells that completely change the way they interact with the world, and the Dungeon Master's Guide points that out.

Edit: Breaking up this wall of text.​

Almost all of those things are exploration things, though. Combat remains non-trivial, and ways to trivialize combat are hard to come by. Same with social challenges -- they do not really become trivial, because easy methods to bypass them have nasty knockon effects (domination wins you the challenge, but not the war, for instance). However, exploration gets more and more ways that are more and more effective and trivializing any exploration challenges, and no new tiers of challenge arise that aren't also trivialized.

The problem with 5e exploration is that it's not integrated as a challenge loop like combat or even the much lesser social pillar rules (which most GMs ignore, oddly). There's no established play loop for exploration challenges like there are for combat or social challenges. Look at traps, probably the densest set of rules for exploration -- how do you detect a trap? Up to the GM. What skill should I prioritize if I want to be good at traps? Up to the GM. What happens when I find a trap, what actions am I expected to take to work through a trap? Up to the GM.

Exploration is entirely on the back of the GM to figure out how it works with only a few places were some suggestions are made (not counting the volume of advice on worldbuilding because it doesn't show you how to use that worldbuilding, just how to do it). Against this are a myriad of ever expanding player side options that just say "nope, we skip that." This creates an absolute mess, and it's really only the GM who can put anything resembling sanity together here. I mean, even Iserith's advice, which I find good, is more about leaning into the vague hints and suggestions and treating them as rules for exploration than it is any actual system in 5e. Because 5e is very, very careful to never pronounce any actual approach -- they merely suggest -- and puts everything on the shoulders of the GM.

And, for someone very used to this approach in D&D, namely those with extensive experience with pre-3.x editions and those that found 4e objectionable, this is fine because they're used to a game where the GM is required at a design level to make it work.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

This is where my eyes start glazing over. Once we start discussing "praxis," and "player agency over the state of the fiction," and "neo-traditional play," I just don't know how to proceed.

Dungeons & Dragons is produced by a toy company. It's a game. I approach it with the same level of simplistic joy that I approach Hasbro's other properties: My Little Pony, Monopoly, etc.

I receive a lot of flack for that in this community and I really don't know why.

To be fair, the designers of those properties don't approach designing them with any level of 'simplistic joy.' The process of creating that joy involves discussions of 'praxis' (this one isn't waffle really, even in the context of play I've seen it in academic journals) 'player agency over the state of the fiction' and 'neo-traditional play' each of those is a fancy way of talking about something that either creates joy, or categorizes how things create joy and what things they create joy in.

My Little Pony for instance, probably involves a lot of discussion about demographics, identities (so the characters can be written to be relatable for different kinds of kids), messaging that blends with that of other properties to leverage and reinforce a mutual ecosystem of what kids like and believe, etc. All that stuff is really technical too, and its (mostly) necessary to create the simplistic joy derived from My Little Pony.

 

[Aldarc]

You said the game is like X because of the Dungeon Master and the players want Y. I said that is largely dependent upon the DM. ?

I'm not following your summation here at all to the point that I'm not sure if we are having the same conversation, which feels a bit frustrating on my end.

This is where my eyes start glazing over. Once we start discussing "praxis," and "player agency over the state of the fiction," and "neo-traditional play," I just don't know how to proceed.

Dungeons & Dragons is produced by a toy company. It's a game. I approach it with the same level of simplistic joy that I approach Hasbro's other properties: My Little Pony, Monopoly, etc.

I receive a lot of flack for that in this community and I really don't know why.

I do appreciate the fact that you treat this as a game rather than, say for example, local community theater, but it's precisely the fact that it is a game that invites discussing it in terms of game design. Even board games adopt language much like we do in TTRPGs. This is why we can use terms like Eurogame, Wargame, and many more when discussing games like Monopoly, Settlers of Catan, etc.

But discussing games in terms of their game design may involve examining how the game designer(s) expects the game to be played one way, but the actual game design or play culture actually pushes the norms of gameplay into another direction. The game designer may not have recognized certain rules interactions, vagueries, or corner cases that prop up. Or the game may claim to be designed for X, but it's not actually good at X type games, but it is actually better suited to Y type games.

For example, Hasbro was actually shocked when their research discovered that most people weren't playing Monopoly with the rules as written. I vaguely recall that it was substantially so. Families and play groups were essentially bringing generations of house rules to the game and teaching those as the standard rules. It was only when they learned what typical praxis of gameplay was that they decided to include many of the most commonly encountered house rules in the game. (I feel like a similar case is likely also true for a game like Uno.)

Discussing games in terms of praxis is valuable because it represents actual gameplay experience in say the same manner as playtesting or what norms, practices, or strategies form around playing a game numerous times. WotC may have the rules as written, but are they actually being played as intended at most tables? What tends to be the norm at most tables? This may say something about the fault lines of the game design or what people actually want out of the game.

I place a lot of emphasis on the simple tools for personality and background in the Player's Handbook, and on the simple tools for social interaction in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Those tools give social interaction a lot of concrete structure. Players can approach roleplay descriptively or actively, but it's clear to everyone what's happening and what they're trying to achieve with that aspect of the game.

The tools for exploration are the same. They're simple, easy, straightforward, not overthought.

Dungeon Masters are free to dismiss the concrete tools provided in either pillar, because they require "good roleplay," or because they require meticulous levels of detail without relying on using ability scores, but those are deviations from the rules of the game. I'm not saying those things are wrong, but they're different than how the rules teach us to play the game.

What do you have in mind here? Concretely speaking.

But it's okay for players to use the hammers provided in any given pillar. Using their ability scores, traits, features, and capabilities is welcome and expected.

Of course, but most of their traits, features, and capabilities tend to be about combat, so IME it tends to take up a disproportionately larger part of the game's focus.

I thought the premise of this thread was "why exploration is the worst pillar." My contributions here have mostly been clarifications on how the concrete structures of the pillar work.

It is the premise of the thread, but discussion is also about why and how that is the case. Player agency plays a role in that. Greater support for the combat pillar plays a role in that. How XP works and character advancement incentive structures play a role in that. Tools to bypass exploration and its subsequent feedback loop plays a role in that. How central the game design supports exploration plays a role in that. There are a myriad set of factors at play here that reinforce each other.

Nobody said anything was invalid.

It felt like you were trying to dismiss discussion of player agency by saying that you have never heard it at the table. I have encountered it numerous times in my circles. (None of whom are remotely familiar with the Forge, by the way.) The issue of 'player agency' comes up a lot in discussion and YouTube videos on PCs in TTRPGs, railroading, agency in video games, sandboxes, etc.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't approach threaded discussion like I'm in combat with my fellow posters. You said the game is like X because of the Dungeon Master and the players want Y. I said that is largely dependent upon the DM. ?


This is where my eyes start glazing over. Once we start discussing "praxis," and "player agency over the state of the fiction," and "neo-traditional play," I just don't know how to proceed.

Dungeons & Dragons is produced by a toy company. It's a game. I approach it with the same level of simplistic joy that I approach Hasbro's other properties: My Little Pony, Monopoly, etc.

I receive a lot of flack for that in this community and I really don't know why.

Simply put, because of statements like this paired with your clear advocacy. You advocate cheerfully and enthusiastically, which is great by the way, for some fairly specific approaches, but when those are questioned or attempted to be discussed with detail or critique, you shunt that off as why bother thinking so hard about it. Which is fine, you're not required to, and it's not a bad thing to not want to at all. The issue, I think, arises when you immediately pivot back to the advocacy as if the questions were well dealt with by your dismissal. If you want to talk about games, let's talk, but it really seems you only want to talk about games in a way that you're right and dismiss as to whatever any discussion that introduces critique.

I mean, one can paint miniatures and advocate for it and use nothing but four colors + black and white with no advanced techniques and be just fine. However, when someone brings up how a wash can really help or the ins and outs of glazing vs layering or methods of zenithal highlighting you just dismiss them as too nerdy for such a simple hobby... you're going to get some pushback for dismissing others' interests in a deeper analysis/understanding/technique.

I place a lot of emphasis on the simple tools for personality and background in the Player's Handbook, and on the simple tools for social interaction in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Those tools give social interaction a lot of concrete structure. Players can approach roleplay descriptively or actively, but it's clear to everyone what's happening and what they're trying to achieve with that aspect of the game.

The tools for exploration are the same. They're simple, easy, straightforward, not overthought.

Dungeon Masters are free to dismiss the concrete tools provided in either pillar, because they require "good roleplay," or because they require meticulous levels of detail without relying on using ability scores, but those are deviations from the rules of the game. I'm not saying those things are wrong, but they're different than how the rules teach us to play the game.

Actually, they're not deviations from the game. The game is quite clear that the rules for social interaction are one way to approach things, and leave plenty of room for just play-acting out the scene. I quite like the social rules, even if I find them to be rather prep intensive. They work pretty gosh darn well for what they are. The BIFTs are the same -- namely the rules for Inspiration are a collection of "you could do this or this or this or something else entirely, it's up to you GM!" As such, the things you're advocating for are in the rules, yes, but so are a number of things that don't look like your preference at all!

But, there's nothing at all similar on the exploration pillar, where they don't even lay out a process like the social rules anywhere outside of how far you travel during a day of travel and how fast march works. The social rules govern the key conflict of the social pillar. The exploration rules chip at the outsides and never establish any core systems. You can build a coherent one, for the most part, by picking up certain examples and suggestions and giving them the force of RAW at the table, but you still need to build in some GM provided frameworks. The exploration pillar, if summed up, is nothing more than "ask your GM how this works."

But it's okay for players to use the hammers provided in any given pillar. Using their ability scores, traits, features, and capabilities is welcome and expected.

I thought the premise of this thread was "why exploration is the worst pillar." My contributions here have mostly been clarifications on how the concrete structures of the pillar work.

There are very few, and it's mostly cornice work on the pillar.

 

[mrpopstar]

The problem with 5e exploration is that it's not integrated as a challenge loop like combat or even the much lesser social pillar rules (which most GMs ignore, oddly). There's no established play loop for exploration challenges like there are for combat or social challenges. Look at traps, probably the densest set of rules for exploration -- how do you detect a trap? Up to the GM. What skill should I prioritize if I want to be good at traps? Up to the GM. What happens when I find a trap, what actions am I expected to take to work through a trap? Up to the GM.

I think it's this part that I'm not understanding. Once you build a dungeon, it becomes static. Things become less up to me as the Dungeon Master as everything is now concrete in terms of what is needed to accomplish various tasks.

Are you saying that things become muddled because it's up to the DM as when checks are necessary or not? Like, if we use the pit trap as an example, that different DMs will treat detecting and noticing the trap in different ways?

Exploration is entirely on the back of the GM to figure out how it works with only a few places were some suggestions are made (not counting the volume of advice on worldbuilding because it doesn't show you how to use that worldbuilding, just how to do it). Against this are a myriad of ever expanding player side options that just say "nope, we skip that." This creates an absolute mess, and it's really only the GM who can put anything resembling sanity together here. I mean, even Iserith's advice, which I find good, is more about leaning into the vague hints and suggestions and treating them as rules for exploration than it is any actual system in 5e. Because 5e is very, very careful to never pronounce any actual approach -- they merely suggest -- and puts everything on the shoulders of the GM.

And, for someone very used to this approach in D&D, namely those with extensive experience with pre-3.x editions and those that found 4e objectionable, this is fine because they're used to a game where the GM is required at a design level to make it work.

I do agree that this is fine. I'm open to it just being my opinion that there's more concrete structure than the game is being credited for, but I do think there's more concrete structure than the game is being credited for.

 

[Yora]

True statement!



I acknowledge that. I think there's only so much you can do with a published adventure.

There is a lot you could do. But WotC love their format and it sells well, so they aren't going to bother with unscripted modular content. And with their stuff being the standard by which everyone judges what an adventure is, not much else is going to happen in that regard.