D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Swarmkeeper]

And, is automatic success interesting? I don't think it always is. So... how do we handle this? We want the PCs to have the information, but a pass/fail die roll isn't helpful, or if they are smart even likely to slow them down.

In 5e, if the stated goal and approach of the player has a chance for success, a chance for failure, and a meaningful consequence for failure, then it would be appropriate for the DM to call for a roll. If the party needs this information to proceed with the adventure, then success with a cost is the tool you would use for a failed roll.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

If that’s what you want though, the great thing about 5e is that there’s a slew of 3pp products - stronghold builders guide by Matt Coleville for instance - that scratch that itch. DMg has a page count. It gives the basics and then future products and 3pp add to that.

The solutions are there, you’d rather just keep entrenching yourself.

If the solution to doing basic, perfectly understandable exploration things is to go buy 3pp products, then it's pretty fair to say that 5e does not support exploration quite as much as you are claiming.

And note, YOU brought up building a home in the first place as something that 5e has rules for.

 

[Mort]

I don't really see tracking people as an exploration challenge. At least with the rules given it isn't.



I agree, but the majority of "exploration challenges" seem to be built under the assumption that the less information the party has, the better. I disagree.



Ah, most of the time when I've heard people talking about an "interesting environment" they are talking in very broad terms, like "a crystal forest" or "an ancient temple". They rely on the environment being something that is interesting in a cut scene, thinking that is a driver of player engagement.

Maybe an "interactive environment" would be more clear, but I don't think it is a much better descriptor.



Okay, but here we are back to an issue. You have the shack, and you have the clues, but how to the PCs pick up on them?

Generally they would roll investigation right? Well, they have four people, so they are going to use the help action and get advantage. Maybe they have access to guidance or bardic inspiration. If they are high enough level and have a rogue then they might have a minimum result of 10+Investigation mod.

If I as the DM know that they missed the cultists by days, and this shack is abandoned... then they have all the time they need to search it thoroughly. There is no actual challenge in getting this information. In fact, I wonder if I would even have them roll, considering the unlikeliness of them failing.

And, is automatic success interesting? I don't think it always is. So... how do we handle this? We want the PCs to have the information, but a pass/fail die roll isn't helpful, or if they are smart even likely to slow them down.

As @Swarmkeeper stated, it's not pass/fail.

The success is automatic but there are degrees of success and possible setbacks. And those degrees and setbacks are determined by how well they party interacts with the situation /environment (quite possibly through rolling).

I'm a big fan of eventually exposing all the cards but when and at what cost- that's often on the PCs.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In 5e, if the stated goal and approach of the player has a chance for success, a chance for failure, and a meaningful consequence for failure, then it would be appropriate for the DM to call for a roll. If the party needs this information to proceed with the adventure, then success with a cost is the tool you would use for a failed roll.

While I agree with this as both a valid approach under the rules AND my personal recommendations as well, this isn't the only, or even strongly recommended method. Firstly, the goal/approach and consideration of chance of failure and meaningful compromise is borrowing from two different sections AND there are other listed options that are presented as equally valid. Finally, success with cost is presented as an option with equal weight to treating 20's as critical success and 1's as critical failures for ability checks.

As I say above, I honestly think this approach is very good and is the one I recommend and use. However, it's not, at all, the way the rules say to do it. Like with so much in 5e, it's a way the rules give room for.

 

[Hussar]

Party with a ranger gets there faster and has that much more time to plan and disrupt the ritual.

Party without a ranger gets there slower and has significantly less time to disrupt the ritual.

Yay, the Ranger has proven really useful in this instance.

I really don't see the problem.

Because you are ignoring the context.

The challenge was in the time limit. That the party needs to get to place X in time to stop the ritual. The presence of the ranger completely removes the challenge. They arrive, not in the nick of time, but, with gobs of time to spare and thus the time limit was meaningless. As in the presence of the ranger completely bypasses the exploration challenge. Note, "stopping the ritual" isn't part of the challenge. The challenge is to get to place X before the clock runs out. Well, having the ranger means that we don't even really have to hurry. We've got so much time now, that the clock is irrelevant.

Thus, the major point that has repeatedly been brought up. The existence of various character powers and whatnot that bypass or render trivial, exploration challenges.

 

[Ovinomancer]

As @Swarmkeeper stated, it's not pass/fail.

The success is automatic but there are degrees of success and possible setbacks. And those degrees and setbacks are determined by how well they party interacts with the situation /environment (quite possibly through rolling).

I'm a big fan of eventually exposing all the cards but when and at what cost- that's often on the PCs.

But this is wrong. It's just as valid for it to be pass/fail. This is, in fact, the default, with the DMG describing such things as critical success/failure on 20/1s, success with a cost, and degrees of failure with the same level of recommendation -- they are mentioned. No real discussion about how these operate or can influence play is given. Personally, I feel that only success with cost makes sense, and then only sometimes, but my preference certainly isn't the way it's done.

 

[Hussar]

Remember, a short time ago you were also claiming that there were no rules for how to find secret doors, and laughed when I and another person showed you different rules that could be used to find secret doors, because that... somehow supported your notion that there were no rules. When I showed you whoops, I was wrong, there's actually an entire section in the DMG on how to find secret doors, no interpretation of rules needed, we heard nothing but crickets from you.

No, I remember asking about the rules for finding secret doors, getting two, MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE and CONTRADICTORY answers, that apparently aren't a problem at all. You've still not clarified how mutually exclusive answers are not actually contradictory.

 

[Hussar]

Collectively these paragraphs tell me you're pretty much only concerned about the mechanics; and by extension the more mechanics a game has, the better that game is.

Conversely, it seems you're saying that a mechanics-absent RPG isn't a game at all.

Disagree on both counts. To me the ideal game has just enough mechanics to provide a framework for resolving things that have to be abstracted (the most notable of which is combat) and for resolving disputes, and after that the mechanics get out of the way in favour of freeform (and, preferably, immersive) roleplaying.

Game mechanics and player immersion don't play well together.

Yup. A game with no mechanics is not a game. And, I totally disagree that game mechanics and player immersion don't work well together. But, your first point, "the more mechanics, the better" is not correct. A game doesn't need to have more mechanics to be better. If that was true then GURPS would be the greatest game of all time.

But, if you want to claim that a game is good at doing something when there are no actual game mechanics supporting that thing? Then, no, that game is not good at doing that.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, we're definitely different players.

I'd take the woods every damn time. If nothing else, the party will have more xp when we get there, and maybe more resources as well depending what we can loot off the monsters.

Never mind that unless the original mission was hella urgent (many are not) I'd almost always be open to spending a lot more time in the woods and clear 'em out proper, if we could, so the next travellers could pass through safely.

But, hang on. I've been told, OVER AND OVER AND OVER, that the smart play is to avoid combat to get the treasure. So, isn't this the opposite of what old school gaming is about? Deliberately choosing the combat route over the non-combat route? Especially in a system where your character dies all the time?

Funny how all that verbiage about "avoid the combat" goes straight out the window.

 

[Mort]

Because you are ignoring the context.

The challenge was in the time limit. That the party needs to get to place X in time to stop the ritual. The presence of the ranger completely removes the challenge. They arrive, not in the nick of time, but, with gobs of time to spare and thus the time limit was meaningless. As in the presence of the ranger completely bypasses the exploration challenge. Note, "stopping the ritual" isn't part of the challenge. The challenge is to get to place X before the clock runs out. Well, having the ranger means that we don't even really have to hurry. We've got so much time now, that the clock is irrelevant.

Thus, the major point that has repeatedly been brought up. The existence of various character powers and whatnot that bypass or render trivial, exploration challenges.

AND?

The Ranger has made this part of the challenge trivial /significantly easier. This is a win for the player and the character.

Some challenges are not meant to be difficult, they are meant to have the player simply recognize that they have an ability that can solve it.

This, in no way, means there aren't difficult challenges to throw at the party.