D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Ovinomancer]

So if a character finds a trap and decides to ignore it (they backtrack and go down another hall), that isn't exploration?

I think it is exploration. Even if the players choose not to investigate, they still have made a choice, and they have gained information that they didn't previously have. They might even decide to come back later and investigate then.

Is this an action that the GM must resolve, or not?

 

[Asisreo]

And how does any of this map to, "You've arrived at a vista, make a perception check so I can tell you more things?"

I didn't advocate for that. I have never done that to players. They see everything that's visible to them, within 360 degrees. If something is hidden, then they need to take the initiative to find it. I never hide information that is in plain sight behind a dice roll.

 

[Lyxen]

Of course not. The GM resolves the player's declared actions for their PC. What this doesn't do is say the GM puppets the PCs and declares actions for them that the GM then resolves. This isn't what's presented. The GM describes a situation, which should prompt actions if done adequately, and the players respond by declaring actions. Which the GM then resolves. Loop as needed. Nowhere does it say, "the GM declares actions for the PCs based on the PCs' abilities."

First, this does not preclude the DM using the passive, exactly as described and intended, to see whether the character succeeds at something in a passive way because the player has not actively described an action, just because the character has the capability.

Second, this is used exactly this way in published adventures, by the way, so it's clearly the intent of the rules. For example, in BGiA, this is exactly how pickpocketing is resolved. If the passive perception of a character is 11+, he will detect the theft, whether the player has declared it or not.

And when this happens, the DM will describe, without any input from the player, how the character catches the hand of an urchin going for his purse.

If you want to call it puppeting, it's up to you, but it's clearly within the expected actions of the DM.

Sigh.

Do you play this example in a different way ? Would you ask the PC whether he steps back or decides to fall in the pit ? No, and the player has not declared anything at all apart from walking down the corridor. The DM, as part of his description, narrates what happens when the character walks down the corridor and falls into a pit or avoids it narrowly, it's his job.

 

[Ovinomancer]

First, this does not preclude the DM using the passive, exactly as described and intended, to see whether the character succeeds at something in a passive way because the player has not actively described an action, just because the character has the capability.

Nothing at all about passive checks suggests that the character does nothing. We have two cases -- one where the character is performing an action continuously and the other when the GM wishes to secretly resolve an action by the character. Nothing at all about passivity on the character's part.

Passive checks are poorly named -- they have nothing at all to do with being passive as defined.

Second, this is used exactly this way in published adventures, by the way, so it's clearly the intent of the rules. For example, in BGiA, this is exactly how pickpocketing is resolved. If the passive perception of a character is 11+, he will detect the theft, whether the player has declared it or not.

And when this happens, the DM will describe, without any input from the player, how the character catches the hand of an urchin going for his purse.

If you want to call it puppeting, it's up to you, but it's clearly within the expected actions of the DM.

It's not used this way. Instead, the assumption there is that the passive check applies when the PC is continuously doing an action (and looking out for danger is an established baseline action while moving through dangerous environments) or if the GM needs to secretly resolve an action. At no point is it just something the character does without effort or trying.

Do you play this example in a different way ? Would you ask the PC whether he steps back or decides to fall in the pit ? No, and the player has not declared anything at all apart from walking down the corridor. The DM, as part of his description, narrates what happens when the character walks down the corridor and falls into a pit or avoids it narrowly, it's his job.

No, the PC declared an action, and the GM resolves it, including narrating the results of the action. If you declare an action to step out over a pit, then the result is up to the GM to resolve. I'm not sure why you think I've indicated that nothing can happen to a PC without permission. Falling into a pit is not a declared action for the PC (or, perhaps, not a commonly declared action). The GM resolving an action that has falling into a pit as a possible outcome isn't puppeting the PC and declaring actions for them, they are resolving declared actions.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Basic 5e play loop:

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.
Go to step 1

Assuming a non-combat, non-social interaction situation, @Ovinomancer are you saying that step 1 is never part of exploration?

Put another way: If the players declare some kind of specific exploration actions in attempt to accomplish something (Step 2), and the DM adjudicates those declarations with or without a roll (Step 3), are you saying that the DM narrating the new environmental state (Step 1) is somehow not part of the exploration?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Is this an action that the GM must resolve, or not?

Yeah, both continuing on the path and leaving the path to investigate are actions the GM must resolve.

Heck, even a Perception check must be resolved (the GM sets the DC, determines factors such as advantage or disadvantage apply, etc). Calling for the perception check is simply an automatic action which makes the reasonable assumption that the PCs aren't traveling with their eyes shut.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Basic 5e play loop:

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.
Go to step 1

Assuming a non-combat, non-social interaction situation, @Ovinomancer are you saying that step 1 is never part of exploration?

Put another way: If the players declare some kind of specific exploration actions in attempt to accomplish something (Step 2), and the DM adjudicates those declarations with or without a roll (Step 3), are you saying that the DM narrating the new environmental state (Step 1) is somehow not part of the exploration?

1 ALONE is not exploration. You have to complete the loop.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, both continuing on the path and leaving the path to investigate are actions the GM must resolve.

Heck, even a Perception check must be resolved (the GM sets the DC, determines factors such as advantage or disadvantage apply, etc). Calling for the perception check is simply an automatic action which makes the reasonable assumption that the PCs aren't traveling with their eyes shut.

Okay, then, seem good.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

1 ALONE is not exploration. You have to complete the loop.

Yes but, per the 5e play loop, 1 is never alone. 1 sets the stage for and is followed immediately by 2.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes but, per the 5e play loop, 1 is never alone. 1 sets the stage for and is followed immediately by 2.

I'm confused. Are you saying that it's impossible to ever just do description and not engage with declared actions because the play loop demands it? This seems strongly counterindicated by multiple examples.

For instance, if I just do a travel montage where I describe a cool vista you pass by on your trip to Waterdeep but don't do anything more, I've done 1 (described a scene) but not allowed 2. This is not part of the exploration pillar of the game, it's just (potentially cool) description. I don't think the existence of the play means that every moment of play at every table is following it.