D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Chaosmancer]

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?

Nope. Closest I've gotten is knowing that something more is going on but being forced to stumble around in the dark because the DM refuses to let us actually figure anything out until the "big reveal" which we normally could never have guessed at because we had absolutely know way of knowing the key information .

"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.

I still find that a poor way to play, sorry. It's like.. the players have no need to know the DC of the wand of Lightning they have. But there is also no reason not to tell them, it allows them to make a more informed decision about using it, and that's all. But you want the item to be a mystery box, they have no idea what the DC is, they have no idea how many charges it is, it gives them nothing to base their choices on. And I find that just detracts from the game, to have it all be a mystery box with no answers.

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.

Except it isn't. I'm gonna level with you, no one at my tables has ever cared which direction a door opened, and I've never made two DCs to represent that one way is easier to open than the other.

Simulating reality? Sure, but it isn't a detail that is important. It can just be filled in by the players, until they make it important by coming up with a clever plan that requires it to open one-way or the other... and usually if they start talking about which way the door opens without asking me, that turns out to be the way it opens, because it was never important enough to model. I doubt anyone ever figured out I did that.

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).

That is not how 5e works.

In 5e you make the attack with your normal action, and then with your "off-hand" you take a bonus action attack. This attack doesn't add mod to damage, but is otherwise normal. And there is no way to add that mod back in without the two-weapon fighting style. Being Ambidexterous is simply not a factor in the game, it does nothing.

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

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.

I understand that, but I think people take it too far and just see anyone who runs into an issue as being too lazy to fix the game themselves, which leads to toxicity.

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.

That's on you. If I want to ramp the harshness up, I do, if I don't I don't.

What is more concerning is being the guy who doesn't know any better, and finds that they are getting blamed for the game being too harsh when they didn't know that all the optional pieces are meant to make the game easier, instead of the reverse which is far more intuitive.

 

[Hussar]

Well, yes there is: the fail condition of finding yourself unable to open it, or unable to open it without using enough force to break anything fragile inside.

Also, in "Actual consequences" I'd switch out the word "actual" for "potential" or maybe "perceived"; as sometimes players/PCs might think there's consequences when there really aren't and other times might think there's no consequences when in fact there are and this will affect their approach.

Dismissing freeform as "not actually part of the game" badwrongfun doesn't help your argument...or any argument, for that matter.

Indeed, and it's not just 5e that's guilty of this. Find Traps, for example has been around since forever as a spell.

Unless the DC is so high that the person doing the unlocking cannot succeed, which I noted in my post, it will always succeed. There is no, "unable to open it" in 5e unless you are 100% unable to open it. Which, since we're talking about locks here, means it's a magical lock. Fair enough. But, otherwise? The lock opens. No roll. No failure.

I'm not badwrongfunning anything. Freeform is not part of the game. It's something that's bolted on in the absence of a game. I even mentioned that it can be a lot of fun. But, it's still not something you can claim as part of the game. There's a reason that over the years, we've largely done away with freeform resolution to game events. This isn't anything controversial. This is all game design 101 stuff. If you want your game to be about X, then you need mechanics for X.

 

[Chaosmancer]

As already pointed out, that's not really accurate.

The ranger makes sure the party doesn't get lost and the ranger (under some circumstances) allows the group to move faster. Basically, the ranger makes travel easier - he doesn't make it automatically successful.

And if the group encounters obstacles along the way? They're still obstacles that will present a challenge.



Hogwash, you absolutely see it.

In the social pillar:

A bard will CRUSH social situations - especially, say, an eloquence bard.

Or how about a warlock with Mask of Many faces and the actor feat? He will completely trivialize otherwise difficult social interactions.

Maybe, but there is a big difference here.

If illusion magic to disguise yourself as another person is being used consistently in the history of the world, people may come up with counter-measures. These are logical in the world. Sure, you may be able to convince the guards at the gate that you are their commander to get in the city, but convincing the King that you are his Majordomo? That should be far harder in a world that accounts for magic, because they need to prevent magical assassins.

Now, how is this different that the DM causing a rockslide when the party goes through the pass?

Because rock-slides can't make decisions. They can't react to a dynamic situation. People can, they can come up with counter-measures to your plans, as you reach higher and higher tiers of play.

In the combat pillar:

A sleep can win many low level encounters. A hypnotic pattern can completely shut down an otherwise deadly encounter (saw this happen in a Gen Con Game -the bard completely shut down what should have been a deadly fire giant encounter with one spell).

Edit: And on the nonmagic front - A properly built fighter or barbarian can punch way above their paygrade on encounters - happens all the time that a threat the GM thought would be difficult goes down fast or (with the Barbarian) can't take him down before going down easy.

Can the GM challenge these PCs and their groups? Absolutely, just like a GM can challenge a group in the exploration pillar even if the have "short cuts."

Sleep only works at low-level, and hypnotic pattern is amazing, but there are many spells like it and they all take a spell slot.

A ritual spell to bypass an exploration challenge has no DCs to fail and no resources spent, making that alone a very different set-up, before you start looking into encounters you can build to counter those issues with combat solutions.

Remember, another part of the complaint here isn't that there is no way to "counter" a party using these solutions, just that all of the counters fall outside of the Explorations Pillar

 

[Chaosmancer]

I mean, good grief, I POSTED my solution to the problem. Dice pools and mechanical frameworks based on character stats that leverage class and character abilities in order to overcome challenges. I immediately get told to sit down and shut up. Instead of spending all this time trying to tell me why the issues I'm having don't exist, why not take a stab at trying to resolve the problems?

Speaking of this, could you DM me a framework for those type of rules, or was that just theoretical? Because the more I think about them, the more I like them. It seems like an incredibly versatile tool that can help me with a lot of issues I've run into with the social and exploration challenges in my games.

 

[Hussar]

No, it's a 1st level spell. Which means it uses resources that the party could use elsewhere.

Yes, because no group EVER has an extra 1st level slot before going down for a long rest and creating enough water for the next couple of days. That could never happen. Every group always blows 100% of its resources every single day. I'd have a lot less snark if people would actually address the issue and not endlessly chase minutia trying to prove that the problem doesn't exist.

Sure, but you need food that was once edible for it to work. it doesn't necessarily make the inedible, edible. Certainly has it's uses (don't have to worry about spoilage) but it's not a panacea. It's again, a good but tool not the be all end all.

Again, no creature you fight ever has food. Everything is on the brink of starvation. And, of course, all we ever fight are undead, and obviously not things that a giant piles of meat that a single spell makes edible. How much meat do you think would come from a wyvern, for example? Might be a bit gamey, sure, but, it sure beats dying.

But, yeah, it could NEVER happen.

It's hard to discuss when you have this much contempt/snark, especially when you get basic facts like the levels of spells wrong.

It's hard not to have this much contempt and snark after having to deal with this EXACT SAME conversation, over and over and over again because everyone wants to have a go at proving how right they are without actually engaging the ACTUAL issue.

Water Breathing allows the group to breathe water that's it. It's basically the bare minimum to even have an underwater adventure. It certainly doesn't obviate/negate any challenge that happens to be under water - it just allows it to even happen. A group that relies on Water Breathing and not much else? Is going to be very hampered underwater.

And you've run how many underwater adventures? When I ran The Final Enemy, from Ghosts of Saltmarsh, we had an artificer in the group. Poof, instant Cloaks of the Manta Ray for the entire party. Everyone now breathes water and, because they have a swim speed, suffer no combat penalties. Gee, that was a real challenge having to adventure underwater. But, I guess that that was impossible because, after all, it's impossible to trivialize exploration pillar challenges.

Kind of like in our 4e game, set in Dark Sun, an exploration challenge setting if there ever was one. We realized pretty quickly that the Steed (Mount? I forget the exact name of the ritual) could be used to create free transport that would be 100% immune to any environmental hazards - they either could literally walk on any surface, or they could fly. Poof, easy transportation all over Athas with zero cost.

Or my World Largest Dungeon campaign, where survival and environmental hazards were a major element of the campaign. The group finally, after five or six levels, found a place where they could set up shop for a while and craft magic items. First magic item crafted? Rings of Sustenance for the entire party. Poof, environmental hazard trivialized for a trivial amount of gold.

This has been a problem in D&D for a LOOOONG time.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This exchange made me realize that the whole issue here is the clash between the "storyteller DM" mindset and the "present a scenario and let the players' choices and dice determine the outcome DM" mindset.

It has become abundantly clear that the people here advocating for the non-existence of the exploration pillar are in fact, the DM's who cannot have their perfect plots ruined by random chance.

Since things like weather tables, random encounters, navigation and the player's choices of what supplies to bring along introduces a whole new layer of uncertainty, these people tend to dislike the pillar. Especially overland travel, which seems to be what they are focusing the most with their attacks.

Just my two cents.

So, I've gone from being a player just whining about my DM to a DM just unable to accept my players can make choices.

I am an enginma wrapped in "clearly you must have bad intentions otherwise you would agree with me"

 

[Hussar]

Speaking of this, could you DM me a framework for those type of rules, or was that just theoretical? Because the more I think about them, the more I like them. It seems like an incredibly versatile tool that can help me with a lot of issues I've run into with the social and exploration challenges in my games.

Sorry, it was entirely theoretical. I was spit balling. Here's a link to Sufficiently Advanced though, so, that should get you where you might want to go. Should be pretty easy to adapt. (oh, wait, aren't we not supposed to suggest other games? Isn't that like rude or something? )

DriveThruRPG

www.drivethrurpg.com

Note, it's PWYW. I have a seriously old copy since I was playing this about 15 years ago.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but I've seen you dismiss many things as not challenges or challenges in other pillars. Could you perhaps tell us how you define a "challenge" and perhaps give an example or two of exploration challenges... even if from other games?

I think I have once or twice, but sure I can put somethings down.

I don't know if I have ever had a really good exploration challenge, but I do want to refer back to the princess and the cult situation for something that is a good challenge.

Because setting that up as it was in the very end does lead to an interesting challenge I think. First, you have to find the cult, hopefully without them knowing you did so. This will happen, you can't have the players not find them, so the tension on this step is trying to do so without raising suspicion. Then you have to figure out a way to get in and get the princess. This seems basic, but the more information the players have, the more options they have. They could assault the cult directly, and back off, planning on getting them moving and ambushing them while they are not as heavily defended. They could go to local authorities, though that risks adding an element that is out of their hands and may complicate things further. Sneak in? Maybe. Get recruited by the cult and infiltrate? Possibly also viable.

You could even add more complications. Maybe the princess has a magical item on her that is preventing her escaoe, or brainwashing her to be a loyal cult member. That adds a new wrinkle.


And I think this highlights enough to speak in general terms. The players need to have multiple paths to success, and enough information to make those decisions with confidence and some certainty. They don't need to know exactly which room the princess is in, but they need to know she is in this building, for example. And there need to be enough elements and complications to make their plans need more than a single step. If after a single declared action the challenge is solved, it wasn't actually a challenge.

Does that help frame things better?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Fair enough.

What is the cost for a failed roll, searching an empty and abandoned shack for clues? I can't think of anything that makes sense as a cost of failure except... throw a monster at them for combat. Or a trap that does some meaningless damage while they are in a safe location and not using resources.

So, what costs other than damaging trap or monster would you try and use here?



Edit:




I didn't see that this question followed, so I'll ask you the same thing Mort. What are the costs then that we should be using in this scenario?

There may be no meaningful consequence as @Ovinomancer indicated - so no roll needed. You just get the clue(s).

Or there may be any number of things that could happen due to a failed check as @J.Quondam listed - which could also include getting all, some, or none of the clue(s) as the DM sees fit.

The possibilities are endless if you are open to them. Everything is new when you are at the table and the discovery of what the DM has in mind (or pulls out of their backside in the moment) is part of the fun. I’m going to refrain from making a list for you here, though, as it seems examples from my style of game don’t mesh with what you are seeking.

 

[Imaro]

See, both examples, to me, are just the DM railroading the players. The ONLY reason you are doing this is because the players have these capabilities. The only reason to have color coded hand holds is to screw over the players. It's gotcha DMing. And, realistically, it doesn't actually matter that much because, sure, you can make darkvision a disadvantage ... once. Once you do that, you can't do it again. At least not with that group. Not without it becoming abundantly obvious that you're only doing it because you want to bypass their character advantages.

Soo... I'm a little confused on how you are using railroad here... I am creating a challenge for the party, but I'm failing to see how I am forcing them to take a specific action. You're focusing on the specific example (which I don't find as implausible as you since trails and roads are marked why wouldn't people who have to travers a cliffside regularly find a way to mark a safe path upward/downward?? On top of thet how is it gotcha DM'ing when the PC's get an advantage by following the color coded path but can still try and climb the cliff blindly in the dark??) but let's put that aside for a minute. Let me ask you a question... when I design a combat encounter and take into consideration CR, the level of the party and how many PC's makeup the party... am I railroading?

Same with the whole "Oh well, you'll just get ambushed if you use Tiny Hut schtick. It's really, really heavy handed. And, frankly, if the DM was that bothered by this, the DM should just pull it out of the game. Don't leave it in the game and then start screwing around with it. It's really heavy handed and blatantly obvious what's going on.

I didn't suggest an ambush... I suggested creating a choice in which the PC's can stay in the safety of their hut or choose not too... are you reading what I wrote? I mean the purpose here is to create a challenge... correct? Would I do this every time they use it? Well if you read what I posted you already know the answer to that.

But, again, we're not talking about the game we wish it was, but, rather the game as is. So, the game as is, allows the players to bypass or trivialize exploration elements. Heck, the fact that you have to come up with specific counters proves that. If these abilities weren't trivializing exploration, the DM wouldn't have to start pulling out stuff to nerf it.

No the DM allows them too because he is finding reasons not to create an actual challenge... even though that's what everyone sat down at the table for. I'm not coming up with specifc counters, I gave you examples as others have to more clearly illustrate the wider suggestions we are giving you. You've chosen to argue down each specific example as opposed to addressing why (outside of your preference not to use them) they actually do not work mechanically.

EDIT: You are literally arguing for some hypothetical party that has the exact makeup to bring every and any resource to bear on any exploration challenge presented at the exact time it arises to trivialize and/or negate it... I find this, as opposed to the examples being presented to be the most contrived thing in the discussion at this point.