D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Chaosmancer]

Here's the rub, for me -- the PCs didn't do anything for this information. They just see it. What's happening here is that there's imperfect communication between the GM's idea of the scene and the players' ideas of the scene, and you're hashing it out in discussion so everyone is on the same page. If no PC does anything at all to get this information, it's not part of the game, it's just a discussion between players.

This I think is a very important point.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Giffyglyph's Darker Dungeons Trials module: a fresh take on skill challenges (I intend to make some adjustments as I'm not entirely smitten)

I haven't heard of this one, can you elaborate?

 

[Nefermandias]

I am back against my better judgement.

No snark intended here, just genuinely trying to understand what seems to me a very unusual perspective.

Here's a genuine example from an adventure run by a much better DM than me. The party were helping a young boy escape from the clutches of an evil wizard who had been abusing him. They were racing across the wilderness with pursuers on their heels.

Due to the abuse he had suffered, this boy was very highly stressed and distrustful. He was also a budding sorcerer who couldn't really control his powers. When he got too stressed, he would either cause some sort of magical explosion (potentially hurting his allies), or he'd try to run off alone into the wilderness so that he didn't hurt anyone else.

Now, the only reason for including all this was to make things difficult for the players. To complicate their wilderness travel and bring in an extra inconvenience they had to deal with.

I thought it was a great idea, but if I understand the feedback here some of you think that it would just make players decide they won't help any more NPCs because NPCs are too much hassle.

Is that a correct interpretation? Because it doesn't really fit with how I see people play the game.

This example is from Angry GM, if anyone is interested in knowing more about it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If the DM describes a long harrowing trip through the underground caves - from when the PCs enter to when they eventually get out? That could be fun and interesting but it's not really exploration because the PCs didn't have any true interaction with the environment, there were no consequences because they didn't really make any decisions. That's exposition, even if it's good exposition.

Full agreement

If the DM starts the players at the entrance to the caves and then gives them options (left or right, climb up or slide down etc.), those options have consequences and the PCs choices are meaningful - and through their own choices and actions the PCs end up at the exit to the cave, that's exploration.

Partial agreement.

If the players have no information on the difference of the paths (left or right, up or down) then their decisions aren't meaningful, it is random. A decision made with no information lacks meaning, and it lacks engagement.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I do respect that. I used to be very particular about this division myself. Over time, I've just grown more loose and conversational. But to be clear in this case, if a player said to me "Is there anything beyond the tree", all I would do is give them the information about what is beyond the tree because I am assuming they directing their character's attention there (maybe it is just because my players wouldn't ask for out of character knowledge so it is a pretty logical conclusion to reach). I wouldn't, however, say something like 'you peer behind the tree and see'. I am just loosely assuming something that is a safe bet. Now if for whatever reason this is a problem and the player feels the need to say "I wasn't looking beyond the tree, I was just asking you the GM if there was anything beyond the tree" I'd cross that bridge when I came to it, but haven't had that problem yet.

Honestly, I've found very few of my players care that much about it. I think that is because of the general lack of traps in my games. I've never found an interesting way to set up a trap that the player's can't see coming, so saying "you peer behind the tree" doesn't get them upset with me because it will never be "you peer behind the tree and see a fang-filled mouth, take 16 damage"

If there is little risky in carelessly touching things, and only in intentionally touching explicitly dangerous things, then people seem to be less worried about a little loss of control for ease of play.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Um, in what world is stating a fact about the game world 'exploration'? That's just silly.

It was literally one of the examples given by Thesword before they blocked me again. I also think it is silly, but this falls into the "everything that isn't combat or social is exploration" line. Some people really do mean EVERYTHING

 

[Fenris-77]

It was literally one of the examples given by Thesword before they blocked me again. I also think it is silly, but this falls into the "everything that isn't combat or social is exploration" line. Some people really do mean EVERYTHING

I think we can safely discard the bloody ridiculous here.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Um, in what world is stating a fact about the game world 'exploration'? That's just silly.

I think the idea was the GM describing something or providing details is part of the overall exchange in exploration. Not that stating facts about the world would be an act of exploration by the players, just that the GM giving them facts as they explore is important to the process.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think the idea was the GM describing something or providing details is part of the overall exchange in exploration. Not that stating facts about the world would be an act of exploration by the players, just that the GM giving them facts as they explore is important to the process.

Well, sure, some of those facts may be exploration related, but that one is pretty manifestly not and I feel like someone is making a category mistake that's muddying the waters here.

 

[Baron Opal II]

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.

Unfortunately, I forgot to preface my post with some assumptions and stances on my part. I will do so with my next substantive post. Until then, it is my understanding that clerics and wizards can prepare up to their level + spell casting modifier in spells per day (PHB, pgs 58, 114). I am assuming at this point that they have an attribute of 18 or 20, which seems typical with my limited experience with 5e.

Longstrider is to boost the rogue's movement rate to better enable flanking maneuvers and/or a sneak attack.

And, I forgot that rangers get spells early. I'm not sure how that will impact things. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.