D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Baron Opal II]

I think the #1 change I would do with stock 5e is eliminate ritual casting, with a quick #2 being adjusting tiny hut back to a 1e-adjacent effect. I don't have enough experience with how the 5e travel rules intersect with the ranger and the druid to usefully comment on specifics.

 

[Lanefan]

Would they not work even better without trivially accessible abilities to flatly nullify their ability to impact things?

In many cases yes, but that's a different issue than what I was responding to.

 

[Lanefan]

I think your idea of exploring a character's perspective and story might differ from mine. What I have in mind doesn't hog the spotlight. It may even be that our approach to play doesn't differ much (IDK), but perhaps that I don't view the character as disposable, and it sounds like you somewhat do.

It's not so much that I view my characters as disposable (with a few exceptions that just don't work out as planned); I more see it that they're very likely not going to last forever and are certainly not guaranteed to last forever*, so while I've got them I'll (to borrow someone else's phrase) play them like they were stolen cars. At low level, that often means straight into their graves. Higher level characters end up with a lot more going for them and also much greater access to - and ability to afford - revival effects.

* - if such a guarantee does exist then IMO the DM is doing it wrong and once I learned of it, I'd be out.

 

[TheSword]

For example, how are the gods relevant outside of roleplaying?

The gods have temples, creeds, factions, they have domains. A temple of Chauntea will be different to a temple of Helm. You can find out information about the gods of a campaign in order to better understand the services they can provide or the disciplines they oversee. If you are investigating a murder of a priest of Sune you may find different clues to a priest of Malar. It’s world building. When you find the Spire of the Morning in Myth Drannor you know the priests of Lathander are less likely to screw your than the priests of Cyric you met on the road. If you find a holy symbol of Loviatar in someone’s belt purse it means something different to a holy symbol of Tymora.

Your say settlement building is exploration, but what rules are there for settlemenet building? I had to go to some 3pp resources to even get a basic sketched out version of settlement building that still leaves me a lot of ground to cover myself.

I refer to the DMG rules for settlement size etc.

You mention skills exploration... but that's only partially true. Deception, Insight, Persuasion, Performance, Intimidation, all of these are the social pillar of the game, not the exploration pillar. Stealth is pretty much just a combat skill, you don't need stealth if there is no combat.

You use stealth if you’re trying to stealthily move through occupied territory. Even before combat. Sure you’ve just named some societal skills. Though Deception can also be used to hide a camp or make a disguise.

How are languages not the social part of the game, that's "talking to people" at it's most core.

When they’re written down in an old book, or inscribed on a map or a sword blade they’re exploration.

Instead of just dismissing these, why not address them.

instead of expecting other people to answer the questions why don’t you try conceiving the answers yourself first. Maybe google it?

Huh, seems that Iserith blocked me.

Now I remember why I did the first time. If you want people to engage with you then you’ve got to be open to discussion. We tend to get walls of text and a very negative approach.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It's not so much that I view my characters as disposable (with a few exceptions that just don't work out as planned); I more see it that they're very likely not going to last forever and are certainly not guaranteed to last forever*, so while I've got them I'll (to borrow someone else's phrase) play them like they were stolen cars. At low level, that often means straight into their graves. Higher level characters end up with a lot more going for them and also much greater access to - and ability to afford - revival effects.

* - if such a guarantee does exist then IMO the DM is doing it wrong and once I learned of it, I'd be out.

Fair enough. I don't typically play my characters like they're stolen cars. I prefer to get in the character's head, so I only play them like a stolen car if it's in their nature to be reckless.

While many of my characters have failed to make it to the end of a campaign, I've had a few over the years that did, so I tend to play them assuming they have the potential to go all the way.

 

[Lanefan]

Fair enough. I don't typically play my characters like they're stolen cars. I prefer to get in the character's head, so I only play them like a stolen car if it's in their nature to be reckless.

While many of my characters have failed to make it to the end of a campaign, I've had a few over the years that did, so I tend to play them assuming they have the potential to go all the way.

Our campaigns tend to be open-ended, meaning there's no set end-point to shoot for.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Our campaigns tend to be open-ended, meaning there's no set end-point to shoot for.

Yeah, ours are fairly open-ended as well. But we tend to hit a point after a year or two where we all feel the campaign has had a good run and we wrap it up. Then we start a new campaign.

 

[Fenris-77]

The idea of playing your character like your driving a stolen car isn't really about being reckless per se, it's more about leaning hard into whomever your character is without worrying overmuch about 'winning' or surviving. Play the character with integrity and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Vaalingrade]

What if your character is someone who doesn't want to die in a world literally run by a mad god who wants them to very, very much despite protestations to the contrary?

 

[Fenris-77]

What if your character is someone who doesn't want to die in a world literally run by a mad god who wants them to very, very much despite protestations to the contrary?

It's your character that matters for this particular bit, not so much the context. If you're playing the response of your character honestly, and to the hilt, to that set of stimuli then you're doing your job.