D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Asisreo]

For exploration to be a key pillar of the game, then it needs to be gamified in some way.

Why?

What's the reasoning behind this claim that if its not gamified, its not a key pillar. Actually, we also need to get the definition of "Pillars" out of the way.

The three pillars aren't meant to say that they are weighted equally in terms of importance. They are the categories of the adventurer's activities. You fight, that's combat. You sneak, that's exploration. You talk, that's social interaction. Nowhere in the game, though, does it say that pillars are meant to be measured against each other or that they should be distributed equally.

TL;DR pillars are categories, not key aspects of the game. They're just used to define what the players are doing in a broad scale.

 

[robus]

For exploration to be a key pillar of the game, then it needs to be gamified in some way.

I disagree. Exploration is the pillar (I prefer foundation) that leads to the other pillars. Without exploration combat and social encounters become meaningless. Exploration can offer challenges (survival, puzzles, traps) but it is not required. All that is required is that it provide opportunities (and context) for adventure.

 

[iserith]

Going to tell us how surprise works yet again and claim thst a momentary one round inconvenience to one character that nullifies the food & water complivstiom for 5 others if they are attacked and[/surprised again? .. that's not making exploration matter and it's such a low cost that it simply has no impact

It's a cost (or rather risk or trade-off). Whether it's a high or low cost depends on the context.

Also, you appear to be assuming the frequency of random encounters here. It looks like you're thinking it's one random encounter check per day. That's not necessarily the case. So one day-long attempt at foraging while traveling can mean multiple random encounter checks or random encounters, potentially more than one of which has sneaky monsters.

In my current hexcrawl, for example, every hex you enter has a random encounter, guaranteed, in addition to any static encounter that might already be keyed to the given hex. So, in context, that's a minimum of 4 per day of travel or 8 if you're a ranger in favored terrain (since you can cover more hexes per day in this setup by ignoring difficult terrain). But that foraging is a day's worth of effort. That's a lot of chances to get surprised. Are all games set up that way? No. But it goes to show that your argument is based on assumptions that are not universally true. Your response also suggests to me a lack of actual play experience using these exploration rules.

Also, I've seen PCs get killed before acting when they were surprised. So let's not pretend it's not a real threat. Even if they don't die, it's a potential ding to their hit points and thus hit dice which can matter in the long run. That will matter more in some games than others, but it's not nothing.

 

[Aldarc]

The three pillars aren't meant to say that they are weighted equally in terms of importance.

I got snapped at much earlier in this thread for claiming that they are not equal and that combat is the given the greatest weight in terms of importance.

They are the categories of the adventurer's activities. You fight, that's combat. You sneak, that's exploration. You talk, that's social interaction. Nowhere in the game, though, does it say that pillars are meant to be measured against each other or that they should be distributed equally.


TL;DR pillars are categories, not key aspects of the game. They're just used to define what the players are doing in a broad scale.

I don't think that these are good or useful categories to adhere to for the purposes of understanding the game and what it means to run/play it.

I disagree. Exploration is the pillar (I prefer foundation) that leads to the other pillars. Without exploration combat and social encounters become meaningless. Exploration can offer challenges (survival, puzzles, traps) but it is not required. All that is required is that it provide opportunities (and context) for adventure.

Which is what the OP was complaining about: Exploration is the filler that leads to the real content.

 

[robus]

Which is what the OP was complaining about: Exploration is the filler that leads to the real content.

Ha, you're right. Well loop closed and obviously I disagree that it's the boring bit between encounters. It's essential but yes it can be done poorly. I don't see that more rules is going to make a better narrator of a DM.

 

[Aldarc]

Ha, you're right. Well loop closed and obviously I disagree that it's the boring bit between encounters. It's essential but yes it can be done poorly. I don't see that more rules is going to make a better narrator of a DM.

I think that it's more about having more reliable a play structure or play loop/process so that (1) there is less of a load on the GM; (2) less reliance on the GM winging-it as the core resolution system; and (3) help better establish play expectations for players and GMs.

 

[robus]

I think that it's more about having more reliable a play structure or play loop/process so that (1) there is less of a load on the GM; (2) less reliance on the GM winging-it as the core resolution system; and (3) help better establish play expectations for players and GMs.

I dunno, just seems like it's with the most magical and free-flowing part of the game: the give and take of players declaring actions and the DM responding. Bogging it down with rules systems seems unnecessary.

Wow I am really not helping am I? I'm going to drop out now.

 

[Aldarc]

I dunno, just seems like it's with the most magical and free-flowing part of the game: the give and take of players declaring actions and the DM responding. Bogging it down with rules systems seems unnecessary.

Wow I am really not helping am I? I'm going to drop out now.

Please don't. I enjoy reading your thread contributions.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I think that it's more about having more reliable a play structure or play loop/process so that (1) there is less of a load on the GM; (2) less reliance on the GM winging-it as the core resolution system; and (3) help better establish play expectations for players and GMs.

This comment confuses me. IMO, all the tools are there in 5e - perhaps scattered and not well organized but not to the degree that I’ve found the numbered points above to be an issue at our table.

I dunno, just seems like it's with the most magical and free-flowing part of the game: the give and take of players declaring actions and the DM responding. Bogging it down with rules systems seems unnecessary.

Wow I am really not helping am I? I'm going to drop out now.

Exactly, the 5e play loop is the same for the whole game regardless of the pillar(s) currently being engaged. PHB p 6.

Ability checks are the key resolution method in 5e exploration - when rolls are even required for adjudication. PHB 174 and DMG 237.

Consistently adhering to the play loop and adjudication method keeps everyone on the same page in terms of 5e play expectations, IME. Am I always perfect with this consistency? Of course not. But I strive to improve each time we play.

 

[Oofta]

I dunno, just seems like it's with the most magical and free-flowing part of the game: the give and take of players declaring actions and the DM responding. Bogging it down with rules systems seems unnecessary.

Wow I am really not helping am I? I'm going to drop out now.

I've been ignoring this thread because I have the same feelings. I don't want a lot of rules for exploration pillar any more than I want a lot of rules for the social pillar. Combat needs a lot of rules because of it's very nature. Exploration (and social) aspects of the game I can envision and understand, I use fairly minimal rules and die rolls to accomplish it. When there is something uncertain that I resolve with die rolls, we have rules for that.

That, and it's such a nebulous area of the game. It's the core of the important aspects of my game most of the time, but structure? What do I need other than the general rules on resolving checks? Campaigns have so much variety, DMs run games so uniquely, I'm not sure what it would look like.

Anyway, back to ignoring the thread.