D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Mort]

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.

It's not wrong, it's just not the default (BTW critical success and critical failure are also not the default with skills) and it's an (IMO) objectively better way to run things because gatekeeping (even accidentally) is no fun for anybody (well maybe adversarial DMs, but that's not a playstyle I want encouraged).

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

The context in which I gave a reply to @Chaosmancer was one in which they did not want to grant automatic success nor did they like the pass/fail dynamic. Hence my suggestion for trying success with a cost. So… what would you suggest, given those parameters?

 

[Lanefan]

I wouldn't say "if done right". IT can be done, but I've rarely seen it, because a lot of DMs make all the encounters that are important beforehand, and even the DM treats the random encounter like it isn't important, so they forget about it quickly.

It is another reason I don't like them, most of the ones I've encountered, even the DM didn't think they were important. They put them in because they felt they were supposed to.

Haven't you ever been in a campaign where something discovered or found or learned in what seemed at the time to be a one-off adventure - and maybe even ignored at the time - turned out to be vitally important later? Or where something done (or not done) in a one-off adventure turned out to have major consequences down the road?

I think that is far too hard-lined, it too easily leads to situations where the players are left with nothing to do but guess, and in your game in particular, that can trivially lead to death.

I don't tell them everything obviously, but if the only reason to keep it from them is because "you wouldn't know that" then to me it is the same as hiding their intelligence score from them. No point, and it just makes the game harder to run well.

"You wouldn't know that" is the only reason I need to withhold information.

Put another way, if the PCs are guessing then the players are guessing.

By enough to ever matter? I've never seen a DC increased or decreased because of that. Seems like this is another homebrew of yours.

You'd likely never see a DC changed, because (I would hope!) the DC is set based on the direction from which the PCs are likely to approach. But if somehow the PCs approach from the other side then hells yes it should be changed. It's called simulation of reality, an important aspect for an immersive game-world.

Easily fixed for what? It never comes up, why would it? I just assume all of my characters are functionally ambidexterous.

And in so doing give yourself a bonus without penalty, I think. Two-weapon fighting, for one thing, assumes a dominant and off hand; ambidexterity should reduce the off-hand penalty (and if it doesn't the game's failing at simulation - again).

Sure, it is a great feature of the game... but every single time I find a problem in the system I'm told it is my fault because I should homebrew a solution. And I always wonder... how is anyone supposed to run this game if the game doesn't work and we need to constantly patch it?

Run it the way you want to run it, and patch to suit.

And... wouldn't it be better if the writers had given us a better product?

Better, after a certain point, is almost completely subjective. Your better, for example, might well be my worse; and vice versa; and we're just two grains of sand on a beach where every other grain of sand each also has its own unique definition of "better". The designers can't hope to nail it for all of us, just try to get as close as they can for as many as they can and call it done.

Hard No. If it is too harsh in the basic version, then people will abandon it in droves. Modules should go both ways.

It's far easier (and more pleasant) to be the DM who is easing off on the harshness than the DM who's ramping it up.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Sometimes a game is good at doing something because there's no mechanics constraining that thing. Free-form in-character roleplaying in an RPG seems the most obvious example here.

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?

Yep, that's me.

Given a choice between high-risk high-reward and low (or no) risk and no reward,I often tend to choose the high-risk high-reward option.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's not wrong, it's just not the default (BTW critical success and critical failure are also not the default with skills) and it's an (IMO) objectively better way to run things because gatekeeping (even accidentally) is no fun for anybody (well maybe adversarial DMs, but that's not a playstyle I want encouraged).

I can attest that I can both always use pass/fail checks and never gatekeep. I'm not saying this is usual, just that avoidance of gatekeeping is not dependent on this approach. Nor is gatekeeping of information prevented by using success at cost as an option. The cost may be less information, for instance. So, success with cost is neither necessary nor sufficient to prevent gatekeeping.

That said, I very much like success with cost for some things.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The context in which I gave a reply to @Chaosmancer was one in which they did not want to grant automatic success nor did they like the pass/fail dynamic. Hence my suggestion for trying success with a cost. So… what would you suggest, given those parameters?

Didn't read as a suggestion. It's a very reasonable suggestion, taking the context as you say (I'm not going back to research it). An alternative might be to offer multiple opportunities to learn the information, or just designing the encounter/adventure such that required info dumps are minimized or eliminated. This later doesn't work with my recollection of the example under discussion, of course, because that example is built on necessary, but not freely given, information to operate. You could, though, just not do that.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

I already explained that. But here goes:

One, the official rule is that both skills are used: Perception to find the door, Investigation to figure out how to open it.

Two, because neither I (who said Investigation) nor the other person (who said Perception) really care. We weren't quoting the official rule; we were showing what the section on skills said and how the skill descriptions indicated that the skills we chose could be used to find secret doors. Again, you failed to acknowledge the existence of an actual rule involving finding secret doors. You're quick to "gotcha" people but very slow at admitting when you're wrong.

And the answers we gave weren't contradictory, just different. It'd be like if the question were "how do you inflict damage" and one of us said "use your action to make an attack roll" and the other person said "use your action to do something that makes the other person have to save or take damage." Two different methods, both perfectly within the rules, not at all contradictory.

Aaand you still didn't answer my question. Actually, you didn't answer either of my questions. I feel that if our positions were reversed, you'd be quick to point that out, perhaps with a condescending "ROTFLOL you can't even answer a simple question!!1!" as is your wont. And so I shall ask them again. Perhaps this time you'll actually answer them.

1. If you have a party that includes a ranger, and you come across a flood, does the DM say "nope, no matter what you do, you can't cross"? Do you try to come up with other solutions and the DM refuses to allow them to work? If so, why do you think that's a problem with the rules and not with the DM? Have you spoken to the DM about this behavior? Have you considered getting a different DM, since this one seems antagonistic?

2. Why do you claim that nobody has come up with exploration rules for D&D in 40 years? There are exploration rules in the 5e DMG and in several other books for this edition, there have been exploration rules in every other edition of D&D, there are probably hundreds of websites with information on exploration in D&D or interesting encounters (many of which are non-combat) or things to find while exploring, and lots of 3pp books, such as Level Up, being produced by this very site, and AiME, which I know you know about. Wouldn't it be more logical to say that you simply haven't researched them?

 

[Faolyn]

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.

No, because the mere presence of a ranger doesn't make you walk or ride so fast as you can get there super-early. Nor does it mean that you can immediately bypass every obstacle that's there. It just means that you're not getting lost.

Here's the actual ranger ability from the PH:

1. Difficult terrain doesn't slow your group's travel.
2. Your group can't become lost except by magical means.
3. Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
4. If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.
5. When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would.
6. While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area.

Absolutely none of these abilities mean that you automatically overcome any obstacles (unless the only obstacle you encounter was difficult terrain). And if the only obstacle you face is difficult terrain, your DM needs to make more interesting challenges.

Depending on your definition of "lost," you either always know where you're going or you can always reorient yourself and retrace your steps. Even if you know exactly where you're going, there's always a change that you can't get there because the road's washed out or blocked, and thus you either have to remove the obstacle or go around it. Both of those are viable challenges--one involves some construction or repair; the other involves going off the beaten path. You still have to forage for food, unless you brought enough. You still have to deal with any creatures that you meet--and "deal with" doesn't necessarily mean with combat. There's zillions of possible noncombat encounters you can have (unless the party is just murderhobos). Bad weather doesn't count as difficult terrain, so you can be slowed by heavy rain or snowfall--and snowfall brings the possibility of suffering exhaustion from cold weather. There's mundane hazards like quicksand and rockfalls, or thieving critters who manage to sneak past your guards and steal your stuff in the middle of the night, or tricksy fey changing the signpost so it points in the wrong direction (does the party trust the signpost or the ranger?); there's fantastic hazards like Princess Bride-style fire swamps, or a tricksy fey casting mirage arcane on the area.

 

[Hussar]

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.

No. The ranger has resolved the challenge full stop. There is no further challenge. They’ve arrived at the ritual. Now we start a new challenge.

It’s not that every challenge has to be difficult. It’s that the presence of the ranger lets the party ignore the challenge entirely.

This is something you do not see in either of the other two pillars.

 

[Hussar]

Sometimes a game is good at doing something because there's no mechanics constraining that thing. Free-form in-character roleplaying in an RPG seems the most obvious example here.
Yep, that's me.

Given a choice between high-risk high-reward and low (or no) risk and no reward,I often tend to choose the high-risk high-reward option.

Free form in character rp with no mechanics is just improv acting. Fun but not a game. There’s a reason this sort of thing was abandoned in DnD twenty years ago.

You cannot claim that Snakes and Ladders is an excellent strategy game for the same reason. If the game has no mechanics governing something then that game is useless at that thing.