D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[robus]

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.

The one thing I intend to add is the tension pool/time pool thing. I know people say just use a piece of paper etc but I really like the idea of making it clear to the players that time is passing and something might turn up. That aspect was definitely missing in my exploration pillar before.

Other than that, I think I'm good. I like to entertain my players with cool locations, mysterious items and engaging NPCs.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

If you don't understand my issues with exploration in 5e by this point in the thread, I see little chance that explaining further will help matters any.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Because if it's not something to be resolved, it's just exposition. This is like saying providing a description of a monster is exploration because it's not combat or social -- this is rather silly. It's not anything, it's just a description. A GM that engages in JRRT levels of description is not providing MORE exploration than one that uses terse and efficient ones or even one that has lacking descriptions but good engagement of mechanics to resolve them. If quality or quantity of description aren't MORE exploration, then it stands to reason that it must be those parts that actually matter, and those are the ones that require resolution. Again, the simplest version of resolution in the game is GM says, and that's pretty basic. "Okay, we go left at the T," is a declaration that requires resolution, and that resolution is the GM advancing the game in that direction and reading out the description/challenge. Again, the description isn't the exploration pillar, the GM advancing the game as a resolution is.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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 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 think both perspectives matter here, and while I don't play 5E so I can't comment on how it handles exploration, to me this often boils down to two very different expectations about how a game like this should operate. But I can see the value of both. Exploration is definitely harder than other aspects of play (especially exploration outside the dungeon) and there are a number of tools and procedures that can really help structure that play in a pleasing way (just something as simple as dealing with ten minute turns for time keeping purposes and the purposes of knowing when to roll an encounter, are very handy in my view). At the the same time, I think a lot of the stuff in roleplaying games that tend to have less mechanical support (not in all games or in all playstyles but definitely this is something you see in games) is do to that part of the game being handled as a conversation and a back and forth between the players and GMs, and that conversation has a lot of nuance and varies a lot from group to group. It is also something people start to do naturally, develop a natural rhyme for over time, and if they have to chop that up into a clear set of steps or mechanics it could interrupt the flow for them. But like I said before exploration can be frustrating and hard if this dynamic isn't in place so having clear guidelines and a set of steps can definitely be helpful. I don't think this is a one size fits all, and I don't think it is a situation where people who are doing it more freeform are somehow not playing a game (they've just internalized the process the same way I don't need clear criteria for how to have a casual conversation over coffee at my house: it is just something the group does and enjoys instinctually at this point).

What I am interested in though is what mechanics and tools people do find helpful. I tend to take the approach lately of going by the group I am with. Some groups definitely want more structure and I can provide that if needed. Some groups rebel against structure (it is the classic situation of having a system or process for something that totally works on paper, but the players start doing things overly specific that throw it and pushing things more in a freeform direction).

Also because I don't play 5E, I am curious what people think 5E brings and doesn't bring to exploration and how it is different from earlier editions.

(I believe this is my first successful, intentional use of the multi-quote feature lol)

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I don't agree. This expansive definition of exploration leaves it ultimately meaningless as a distinction. I can no longer talk about how to do exploration well or better or at all because it's now idiosyncratic to each game and so broad as to encompass everything not using the combat or social mechanics of the game.

And, everything you list about challenges fits my definition closely -- it's the amorphous declarations of "everything else" that may not.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Because if it's not something to be resolved, it's just exposition. This is like saying providing a description of a monster is exploration because it's not combat or social -- this is rather silly. It's not anything, it's just a description. A GM that engages in JRRT levels of description is not providing MORE exploration than one that uses terse and efficient ones or even one that has lacking descriptions but good engagement of mechanics to resolve them. If quality or quantity of description aren't MORE exploration, then it stands to reason that it must be those parts that actually matter, and those are the ones that require resolution. Again, the simplest version of resolution in the game is GM says, and that's pretty basic. "Okay, we go left at the T," is a declaration that requires resolution, and that resolution is the GM advancing the game in that direction and reading out the description/challenge. Again, the description isn't the exploration pillar, the GM advancing the game as a resolution is.

Just curious, is this around the GM doing something like narrating an entire journey and telling players what they explore, or would you feel the same about it if the GM told them (say after they decided to head north east as a party in the direction of a mountain peak they can see) that they come to a ravine, she or he gives the ravine a large amount of descriptive text, but then throws things back to the players and they then say how they would like to continue exploring? Like if there are noticeable increments where the players are making choices as part of a back and forth between the GM, is that sufficient?

 

[Oofta]

The one thing I intend to add is the tension pool/time pool thing. I know people say just use a piece of paper etc but I really like the idea of making it clear to the players that time is passing and something might turn up. That aspect was definitely missing in my exploration pillar before.

Other than that, I think I'm good. I like to entertain my players with cool locations, mysterious items and engaging NPCs.

Time passing is always something I try to take into consideration if it's important, when it comes to checks I just kind of play it by ear. When I have exploration encounters, they tend to be dynamic - I know what the situation is and it's up to the PCs to decide how to overcome it.

So sometimes the same check will be possible, sometimes it's possible but at a higher DC, sometimes it doesn't make sense at all to try something again. The problem that I have with trying to add mechanics to it is that ... it becomes a mechanical resolution. People seem to live less and their imagination of the scene we're sharing and instead have their nose in their character sheet so to speak.

Or at least that's how I felt at times with 4E. I understood what they were trying to do and why, but too often skill challenges devolve into "Who has what skill that might be useful? Bob, you have a high X, do that while Sue you have a high Y so try that." instead of "We need to escape this web trap, but Grog is stuck and if he pulls it will let the spiders know where we are!"

I don't know how better to explain it other than to say that there will never be a perfect system, nor a system that will work for everyone. All I know is that trying to have iron-clad rules for resolving exploration made the game less fun for me. YMMV.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Just curious, is this around the GM doing something like narrating an entire journey and telling players what they explore, or would you feel the same about it if the GM told them (say after they decided to head north east as a party in the direction of a mountain peak they can see) that they come to a ravine, she or he gives the ravine a large amount of descriptive text, but then throws things back to the players and they then say how they would like to continue exploring? Like if there are noticeable increments where the players are making choices as part of a back and forth between the GM, is that sufficient?

The description wouldn't be exploration, the players declaring actions that require resolution would be.

IE, if I spent 20 minutes describing, in detail, the ravine, this isn't MORE exploration than if I spent 10 seconds giving a quick, terse description. The meat here is the players declaring actions that have to be resolved.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The description wouldn't be exploration, the players declaring actions that require resolution would be.

IE, if I spent 20 minutes describing, in detail, the ravine, this isn't MORE exploration than if I spent 10 seconds giving a quick, terse description. The meat here is the players declaring actions that have to be resolved.

I would agree twenty minutes doesn't make it more exploration. I don't think it makes it less, either but I do think for it to be exploration the players have to be more than passive recipients of description. Personally I am not fond of long descriptions. Obviously twenty minutes is probably too long for everyone. I have noticed, because I give very brief descriptions and don't get heavily into that side of things (I just don't like sounding like I am writing a book), occasionally I bump into players who expect or need that and so I can get there is a difference of taste on this front.

I do think more of the right details can make it more exploration (i.e. the GM providing specific information about what they are exploring, things they can see that help them know what options may be available). But I also think a big part of this is better handled by back and forth questions from the players (the GM might say there is a ravine, the player may ask how deep it is and if there are any visible trails leading around it, or any bridges within sight if they look further along the ravine)

 

[Ovinomancer]

I would agree twenty minutes doesn't make it more exploration. I don't think it makes it less, either but I do think for it to be exploration the players have to be more than passive recipients of description. Personally I am not fond of long descriptions. Obviously twenty minutes is probably too long for everyone. I have noticed, because I give very brief descriptions and don't get heavily into that side of things (I just don't like sounding like I am writing a book), occasionally I bump into players who expect or need that and so I can get there is a difference of taste on this front.

I do think more of the right details can make it more exploration (i.e. the GM providing specific information about what they are exploring, things they can see that help them know what options may be available). But I also think a big part of this is better handled by back and forth questions from the players (the GM might say there is a ravine, the player may ask how deep it is and if there are any visible trails leading around it, or any bridges within sight if they look further along the ravine)

That depends on whether you're just prompting the GM to tell you more things or if there's actually something to be resolved. If just prompting, this is just continuation of the description by other means. If the PCs do something and that needs resolution, then we're engaging the exploration pillar. Getting told stuff doesn't become different when you ask a question versus it being provided without asking. Getting more information because of an action your PC takes, however, get into the resolution business.