D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

I don't see that as necessarily the DM guilting the players.

Sure, if the players head off to some distant land and run into the parents there, that's probably a guilt trip.

However, if they go back to the town where they found out about the kid and run into the parents, that's just a natural consequence of their choice. Much like if they robbed a merchant in broad daylight and weren't welcome in the town afterwards. Consequences are important in most styles (not so much for a hack and slash though, but in that style of game that kid would be a weird addition).

I'm not talking about logical consequences. I'm talking about they head to the evil caves and find the young couple lost and desperately looking for their son, and then tearfully sobbing and they describe him, and he just loved adventurers you know and surely such brave and good people as you...

Look, I'm not the sort of player who'd let a kid go and die anyways, but I've seen DMs do this when we failed to save everyone in a mission where we literally couldn't save everyone, and rather than being emotional and sad, I felt annoyed, because it was obvious that the DM was just guilt-tripping us over not being perfect.

You can tell the difference between the two. Unless your DM is a professional actor.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'll be honest this single statement right here makes me think our fundamental philosophies when running D&D are so different that I'm not sure further discussion would really serve a purpose. I wholly buy into rulings, not rules while using the D&D 5e framework and tools... I don't think that's how you view the game at all.

You'd be wrong.

The problem isn't that I can't homebrew, I homebrew all the time. The problem is though that we started this conversation with "5e doesn't have good tools or rules for this" and were told we were wrong. I was told I don't read the rules, or I don't understand the rules. Because those rules absolutely existed and could do what I was asking.

Now, after I've shown I do understand the rules, it has shifted to "well, I believe in rulings, not being chained down by the rules." Which hey, more power to you man, but if you are using rulings, that means there is a lack of good tools and good rules to use, because if those things existed, you wouldn't need rulings, you'd have rules.
 

You'd be wrong.

The problem isn't that I can't homebrew, I homebrew all the time. The problem is though that we started this conversation with "5e doesn't have good tools or rules for this" and were told we were wrong. I was told I don't read the rules, or I don't understand the rules. Because those rules absolutely existed and could do what I was asking.

Now, after I've shown I do understand the rules, it has shifted to "well, I believe in rulings, not being chained down by the rules." Which hey, more power to you man, but if you are using rulings, that means there is a lack of good tools and good rules to use, because if those things existed, you wouldn't need rulings, you'd have rules.

Deciding the DC for challenges... isn't homebrewing... it's making a ruling and is called out specifically as a procedure in the game.
 

Like @Ovinomancer said earlier, what you are mostly saying is that to run a exploration challenge I must first change the rules of the game and remove the abilities that counter those challenges.

This doesn't happen with combat. It doesn't happen with social. But it seems it happens quite often with exploration. Either skip it, or change the rules to make it work. Neither solution is running the game as it is written, which leads to threads like this where people disagree that exploration is broken in the game, because they fixed it and so their version is working.
Hardly. If you want to run challenges that differ from the baseline, you may need to make a few tweaks to adjust things to your preferences.

If you want to run combats that differ from the baseline (no yoyo) then you may need to make a few tweaks to adjust things to your preferences.
Sure, but the result didn't come from playing 5e as written. So if the criticism is that 5e as written has massive problems in running an exploration game, turning around and saying "but if you remove all of the problems yourself, it works great"

It's like saying the engine in your car was great, but the mechanic had to pull out the engine and put in a new one... so the original engine wasn't great, it had to be replaced to run great. That's the issue.
Let's stick with the car analogy. I don't think it's at all like putting a new engine in though.

Everything already exists; you're not making anything new by saying creating food is off the table for this campaign. So all of those options exist in the vehicle. However, the owner's manual doesn't necessarily explain how to use all of the options, so you may have to figure out how they work for yourself.
 

Hardly. If you want to run challenges that differ from the baseline, you may need to make a few tweaks to adjust things to your preferences.

If you want to run combats that differ from the baseline (no yoyo) then you may need to make a few tweaks to adjust things to your preferences.

Let's stick with the car analogy. I don't think it's at all like putting a new engine in though.

Everything already exists; you're not making anything new by saying creating food is off the table for this campaign. So all of those options exist in the vehicle. However, the owner's manual doesn't necessarily explain how to use all of the options, so you may have to figure out how they work for yourself.
No it's not like putting a new engine in your car. It's more like recognizing that it would be a gigantic mistake for Ford to put train track wheels on their new mustang having people saying that it was not a design issue because they just built a bunch of new train track lines or replaced the entire drivetrain(?) with something street legal.
 



Some people wish that 5e had put more importance into the survival aspect of the game. This system lacks tension in the form of food, water, being lost, etc. And there are people that miss these from previous editions or from other systems.

How do you fix this? That's the neat part. You don't.

There is nothing to fix because nothing is broken. A lack of something, even if missed, isn't a problem. Its called a design choice. And the design choice of 5e is that the survival elements of exploration aren't the main focus of the game.

So what do the people that miss those segments do?

Hold out until next edition, if WoTC decide that they want to lean into that. If not, hold out until the next or play a different edition/system. This isn't a "get off my lawn" stance, but game design decisions aren't made to please everyone because they simply can't. While you might be upset that a wizard can fly over a pit, someone else might be upset that they can't.

But you really shouldn't take the design decision personally or feel like they "messed up" by making it. The only way you can guarantee a system is made perfectly for you is by making it yourself...but even that doesn't truly guarantee your agreement with it.

So ultimately, yeah, the mundane survival aspects are easily bypassed in 5e. And that's just how it is. Its not a flaw or mistake, just another decision.
 


Here is the beginning of my promised post. I'm having less time than I expected to write out how I would approach it, but I thought I would at least start. More to come.

The party finds a journal on the body of a slain adventurer. In the journal are the usual miscellaneous things, but also notes on some sort of tower, building, fortification- not sure. Between the pages are a couple of foolscap sheets that are a rubbing of a stela somewhere. Notes on translations of an old Elvish script that discuss astrological effects on moon light. The party spends a little time and discovers that the former owner pieced together some clues on a lost outpost and has an idea where it might be.

“Sorry you’re dead, buddy. But we’ll continue your work.”

The party is a fairly basic one, with a fighter, wizard, cleric, thief err rogue, and a ranger all at 6th level. They have a strong front line, scouting / flanking ability, and magical support. After spending some coin and referencing some larger scale maps, they figure out that there are two paths they can take. The perhaps safer one is a three week journey by sea from Grossburg to Vurzendorf, home base to a number of traders that trap beasts for their hide and others that grow and harvest spices that proliferate in the area. There is also an old road that leads from the outpost to a large ruin that was discovered by the first explorers here. While the ruin seems to have a very different culture to what is expressed in the journal, the road could make for some easier travel part of the way. Also, there would be a chance for resupply in Vurzendorf. If the party forgets to pick up something in Grossburg they have a second chance there. It would take six weeks of time to get from Vurzendorf to the area of the site.

The second option is a little quicker. As you would have to sail past the site to get to Vurzendorf, you could instead stop roughly at the point closest to it on the shore. This would be only a two week trip by sea, and four week trek through deep forest. It should be 2-3 weeks shorter travel time, although they won’t have access to the port of Vurzendorf and any goods or information that might be there. The ship certainly isn’t going to wait for them, as it would be a couple of months at best at anchor.

Another factor is that after the wizard reads through the journal and associated notes, assisted with a comprehend languages, she states that there is a door that opens only by the light of the Harvest Moon. When the party gets ready to go, that is about ten weeks away. Given the choice of a potentially easier nine week trip or a hard six week trip, the party chooses the six week long route as it gives them a broader window of time. If they are a couple weeks early that gives them more time to scout the area.

They’re off!

Current assumptions:
The cleric prepares detect poison and disease, purify food and drink, lesser restoration, protection from poison, create food and water, water walk. This takes about half his capacity.

The wizard prepares burning hands, comprehend languages, longstrider, misty step, fly, tiny hut, water breathing. This takes about half her capacity.

The ranger’s favored terrains are forest and wetlands, which coincidentally are the only terrains the party expects to travel through. Hurray!

The fighter is wearing his heavy armor while travelling.

The rogue is actually a thief! Notably, they are rather good at climbing.
Wait, stop. I know you haven't posted again, but, I want to stop you RIGHT THERE.

Why is the wizard preparing Comprehend Languages, Tiny Hut and Water Breathing? All three of these spells are rituals and a wizard never needs to prepare them, unless, for some reason, he wants to be able to cast them as an action instead of taking 10 minutes.

Note, we also have a 6th level Ranger's casting to take into account as well. There's no reason he couldn't have Lesser Restoration, instead of the cleric, and Protection from Poison is a pretty viable choice as well. Detect Poison is quite likely. Note, he's only got 4 spells, so, one's going to be Hunter's Mark, but, it's not unreasonable that the other three could be Detect Poison, Ensnaring Strike and Lesser Restoration. Although, to be honest, I'd probably take Pass Without a Trace instead. That's just too good to pass up.

And, why is anyone taking Longstrider? Has anyone ever taken this spell?

Note, the cleric starts with 3 (for 1st level)+5 spells (for leveling up)+ wis bonus (probably +4 for a cleric)+6 domain spells=18 spells Prepared. 6 spells is not half, it's only 1/3. He still has 12 more (possibly 11, possibly 13) spells prepared.

So, with that cleared up, let's keep going.
 

Remove ads

Top