D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[mrpopstar]

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.

I'm familiar with praxis, it's just not something I'm delving into here. I get it that people are interested in exploring that intellectual endeavor, but my observation of it is that it seems to engender a lot of distaste for the game.

 

[mrpopstar]

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 understand.

What do you have in mind here? Concretely speaking.

What I mentioned above in response to @Ovinomancer. That the dungeon is static once I've created it, that DCs are concrete, etc.

I'm picking up what you're putting down with regard to the sort of malleable, off-the-cuff calls for ability checks from the Dungeon Master, which I can appreciate are frustrating when you're trying to figure out what they want from you or what you need to accomplish, but there is concreteness if you lean into it.

I think that a lot of DMs either roll in not as prepared as they believe themselves to be, or leave things more vague than they should. I don't think that approach is fair to players. Tasks, traps, hazards, DCs, etc., should be laid out, clear, and concrete. The rules help us do that. That's my gig.

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 understand. That's just not my experience (which, obviously, I like exploration and social interaction, so I give those things as much love as I give combat).

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.

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.

I'm not dismissing anything (or at least, not intentionally). I'm just saying that I've never heard this type of discussion in real life, at an actual table where the game is being played. Only here.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

This is a clever hiding of the pea, though. It's not actually static, because it's not shared, and the GM can change it (and is expected to if an error or omission is discovered, even in classic play) at anytime prior to introduction. Further, anything in the dungeon is only there because the GM chose it so, so decrying responsibility due to the mask of impartial referee seems like you've just used slight of hand to flip the pea into your lap so it's not under any of the shells.

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?

No, I'm saying that it's muddled because each of those GMs has to decide for themselves how it works. You're picking out trees, I'm pointing to the forest. There's no central resolution loop for exploration. There is one for combat. There's even one presented for social, even if it's essentially a suggested option. There's nothing at all for exploration. Even the adventures provided aren't uniform in how they do this, even inside the same encounter sometimes!

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.

Okay, but you're incorrect. There are options and suggestions offered that you've kitbashed into a structure, but nothing in the 5e rulebook says this is the structure. At best it's a structure, and not the only one. Honestly, "the GM decides" is a functional structure -- it's clearly worked across multiple editions. 5e leans most heavily on it as structure, though. And, from a player perspective, unless the GM is uncommonly express about their approach, this means that any structure is invisible and they have to guess how things work (this goes to agency). Honestly, most players are trained to accept this as normal. So much so that 4e was very controversial because it said the quiet things out loud and without shame.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm familiar with praxis, it's just not something I'm delving into here. I get it that people are interested in exploring that intellectual endeavor, but my observation of it is that it seems to engender a lot of distaste for the game.

It's not the analysis that engenders distaste. This is like saying that makeup is required else people might not find another attractive. Not examining the game closely for fear that you might find out you don't like it is just a very strange place to be. Not wanting to examine a game closely because you're just not interested, though, seems very reasonable. You're not required to enjoy analysis of games.

I still very much like 5e, and I've come a long way around it. I enjoy it and lean into it's "GM decides" core design concepts. My game has gotten better because of it. I can be critical of a thing and still enjoy it (Pitch Perfect, I'm looking at you, you wonderful mess of a guilty pleasure).

 

[Ovinomancer]

I understand.


What I mentioned above in response to @Ovinomancer. That the dungeon is static once I've created it, that DCs are concrete, etc.

I'm picking up what you're putting down with regard to the sort of malleable, off-the-cuff calls for ability checks from the Dungeon Master, which I can appreciate are frustrating when you're trying to figure out what they want from you or what you need to accomplish, but there is concreteness if you lean into it.

I think that a lot of DMs either roll in not as prepared as they believe themselves to be, or leave things more vague than they should. I don't think that approach is fair to players. Tasks, traps, hazards, DCs, etc., should be laid out, clear, and concrete. The rules help us do that. That's my gig.



I understand. That's just not my experience (which, obviously, I like exploration and social interaction, so I give those things as much love as I give combat).


I'm not dismissing anything (or at least, not intentionally). I'm just saying that I've never heard this type of discussion in real life, at an actual table where the game is being played. Only here.

Weird. I've spent the last 20 years talking about how games work with friends. Granted, most of that was about the meta in various CCGs, or in video games, but also RPGs. Just the other night, I was up to 2 am after a game that ended at 10pm, talking about a host of games and how they work. It was a great discussion! I used to sit down every Friday with a friend for lunch and we'd discuss games and how they work.

I mean, I don't expect everyone to so this, or even many, but just because you've never participated in such doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the wild. You do realize that the hobby we're talking about is exactly the same for the vast majority of people out there -- they've never experienced an RPG in real life. Yet, here we are, on a board dedicated to discussion games, discussing <gasp> games.

 

[mrpopstar]

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.

Thank you for the kind words in there.


I don't think I shunt things, and I imagine it might feel a bit obtuse trying to convince me of something, but it often feels like there's an effort to twist my arm when my stance is really just "this is how this works and it's actually pretty chill if you just take a step back."

If you look at the conversations I get caught up in, they usually look like...

Me. This thing is great!
Others. No, that thing actually sucks.
Me. Well I think it's great?
Others. Well, it isn't because reasons.

...and where do you go from there? Am I supposed to agree and say, "you're right, that thing actually sucks, thanks for pointing it out." ?

That's where it gets awkward. LOL

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.

See, but I'm not dismissing it. That conversation can happen and I support it and encourage it and all the things.

All I'm saying is that you're not gonna suck ME into that conversation. I keep it cute. I have me here a rulebook, I do what it says, the game is super fun, that's good enough for me.

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!

Important to note that those other approaches seem to cause a great deal of upset, displeasure, discontent, or leave people with bad tastes in their mouth because players are punks, or Dungeon Masters want to play a game that their players don't want to be playing, etc., etc. etc.

What I'm saying is, "well, there are clear rules given to us that offer something tangible for us to work with." If there's all this upset, displeasure, discontent, bad taste, etc., etc., etc., let's reel all that in and bring it back to the basics. That's my stance and contribution.

I don't mean to dismiss things. I'm just shrugging things off so much and saying that doesn't sound fun and if that don't work let's not keep investing in it.

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."

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

I like that analogy.


I think I'm also considering vision and light, climbing, jumping, swimming, and crawling, carrying capacity, perception and investigation, blah, blah, all that stuff in my understanding of the exploration pillar. That stuff is pretty concrete.

 

[mrpopstar]

This is a clever hiding of the pea, though. It's not actually static, because it's not shared, and the GM can change it (and is expected to if an error or omission is discovered, even in classic play) at anytime prior to introduction. Further, anything in the dungeon is only there because the GM chose it so, so decrying responsibility due to the mask of impartial referee seems like you've just used slight of hand to flip the pea into your lap so it's not under any of the shells.

No, I'm saying that it's muddled because each of those GMs has to decide for themselves how it works. You're picking out trees, I'm pointing to the forest. There's no central resolution loop for exploration. There is one for combat. There's even one presented for social, even if it's essentially a suggested option. There's nothing at all for exploration. Even the adventures provided aren't uniform in how they do this, even inside the same encounter sometimes!

Okay, but you're incorrect. There are options and suggestions offered that you've kitbashed into a structure, but nothing in the 5e rulebook says this is the structure. At best it's a structure, and not the only one. Honestly, "the GM decides" is a functional structure -- it's clearly worked across multiple editions. 5e leans most heavily on it as structure, though. And, from a player perspective, unless the GM is uncommonly express about their approach, this means that any structure is invisible and they have to guess how things work (this goes to agency). Honestly, most players are trained to accept this as normal. So much so that 4e was very controversial because it said the quiet things out loud and without shame.

I'm not disagreeing that things are up to the Dungeon Master. I think this discussion is elucidating that I'm detailed in my approach to creating adventures and non-player characters, to my treatment of adventure environments and what's happening between adventures.

I do this so that it's very easy for me to position the game wherever the players decide to take their characters. I'm not using sleight of hand when I say that in many ways I operate quite impartially. I use the tables to create a dungeon (not randomly, usually, but I select from the table options), I fill it with hazards and traps, consider what the players might need along the way (light, food and water), I fill it with monsters, I roll on the audible distance table to determine what the characters might hear, etc., etc.

Of course I make calls when and where they're needed, but things are pretty concrete. I like it that way as it embraces the anchors of the game upon which we can build common agreement.

 

[Lanefan]

... world-building is not necessarily exploration.

Perhaps not, but in either sequence one usually leads directly to the other.

 

[Lanefan]

Generally, again IME, people most often distill the game of D&D as "killing monsters and taking their stuff."

Indeed, but in order to kill-and-loot said monsters one first has to find them; and that's where exploration comes in.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

In my nearly 25 years of playing D&D before discovering ENWorld I'd never heard the term and really hadn't encountered the concept.

Ah, to be able to go back to those days...