D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Ovinomancer]

That would be a very weird table experience, IMO, to disallow action declarations based on things that have been described in the environment. Is that truly your experience? Or, I think maybe you answer this later in that very poor quality play can prove your definition correct.


Agreed


Got it, so the DM must not be interrupted and will shut down any such interrupting declaration, saying (cue Dustin Hoffman voice or, if you prefer, Cousin Nicky): I'm talkin' here!


My point was that the DM always ends their environmental description in a way that leads to step 2. What else happens at the end of a travel montage? Or are you trying to say sometimes there's a Step 1 then another Step 1 then we get to Step 2. I say, mush those two Step 1s together - the DM hasn't finished setting the scene, hence Step 1 is not over.


I... guess?

I do not actually think it's that odd an occurrence, actually. I think a number of games are rife with just described sets of events as things are elided and that these get pointed to as "exploration." Just thinking of Descent into Avernus, there's lots of descriptions of things that don't engage the play loops -- flights on griffons, travel montages, descriptions of larger scenes that then zoom into a play loop with a different description, etc. These just descriptions don't engage the loop. I think that, perhaps, you're only looking at points where you expect a play loop to exist and finding that a play loop exists.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's not moving goalposts.

You are. My example was specific to my point. You've changed it.

It demonstrates that the potential for exploration exists even with such montages. And if the potential for exploration exists, then it's exploration.

Here the change is postulating a player interrupts such a montage successful to force a play loop to occur.

If an NPC says, "Hi" to a PC and the player responds with "Bye" then that was still a social encounter. It's simply a social encounter that the player chose not to engage with.

If orcs attack and the PCs run away, that's still a combat encounter, simply one they chose not to engage with.

Similarly, opportunities for exploration (which are quite common) are exploration encounters, whether or not the players engage with them.

Here, the very examples are play loops, and not what I was explaining in my example.

The choice not to engage is a choice, whether it is made overtly or tacitly.

And here you're explaining that a non-choice is a choice, because players aren't interrupting? I dunno, it's very vague. There aren't any choosing to not chooses in your examples, so this isn't following at all.

It seems your saying that a GM just describing a scene and then moving forward to the next scene is somehow a play loop because the action declared is no action and that's resolved with no resolution, or that it's the players' choice to not force a play loop by interrupting the GM and demanding one. I dunno, that latter really seems antithetical to the concept of the game being the GM's. Works fine in some other games.

 

[Fanaelialae]

You are. My example was specific to my point. You've changed it.

Here the change is postulating a player interrupts such a montage successful to force a play loop to occur.

Here, the very examples are play loops, and not what I was explaining in my example.

And here you're explaining that a non-choice is a choice, because players aren't interrupting? I dunno, it's very vague. There aren't any choosing to not chooses in your examples, so this isn't following at all.

It seems your saying that a GM just describing a scene and then moving forward to the next scene is somehow a play loop because the action declared is no action and that's resolved with no resolution, or that it's the players' choice to not force a play loop by interrupting the GM and demanding one. I dunno, that latter really seems antithetical to the concept of the game being the GM's. Works fine in some other games.

I wasn't trying to change it, just offer a new perspective.

Let's assume that the player doesn't interrupt.
Example unchanged, right? However, unless you're being extremely heavy handed with railroading, the player could interrupt and ask to engage with whatever you were describing in more detail, right?

What I'm saying is that if the option exists for the player to engage in exploration, then it is an exploration encounter. They may simply choose not to engage with it. Much like they can choose not to engage with a combat encounter, but it is nonetheless a combat encounter.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I wasn't trying to change it, just offer a new perspective.

Let's assume that the player doesn't interrupt.
Example unchanged, right? However, unless you're being extremely heavy handed with railroading, the player could interrupt and ask to engage with whatever you were describing in more detail, right?

What I'm saying is that if the option exists for the player to engage in exploration, then it is an exploration encounter. They may simply choose not to engage with it. Much like they can choose not to engage with a combat encounter, but it is nonetheless a combat encounter.

Okay, let's explore this. You see an orc. You could attack it. You could talk to it. You could investigate the area the orc is in. So, in seeing an orc, this means that even if you just walk away, you were just involved in the combat pillar, the social pillar, and the exploration pillar.

Similarly, on seeing a vista of a wooded landscape, I could assume that it's all evil treants and attack, so, even if I don't, this is a combat pillar encounter?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I do not actually think it's that odd an occurrence, actually. I think a number of games are rife with just described sets of events as things are elided and that these get pointed to as "exploration." Just thinking of Descent into Avernus, there's lots of descriptions of things that don't engage the play loops -- flights on griffons, travel montages, descriptions of larger scenes that then zoom into a play loop with a different description, etc. These just descriptions don't engage the loop. I think that, perhaps, you're only looking at points where you expect a play loop to exist and finding that a play loop exists.

Odd - but I suppose not all that surprising - that some of the published adventures stray off the path of the core rule books.

If you are not engaging the play loop at the table, what exactly is going on? I don’t think any of us willingly signed up for “DM storytime”!

 

[Ovinomancer]

Odd - but I suppose not all that surprising - that some of the published adventures stray off the path of the core rule books.

If you are not engaging the play loop at the table, what exactly is going on? I don’t think any of us willingly signed up for “DM storytime”!

Oh, you'd be very surprised. I think a majority of play is signing up for a good bit of GM storytime.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not moving goalposts.

It demonstrates that the potential for exploration exists even with such montages. And if the potential for exploration exists, then it's exploration.

If an NPC says, "Hi" to a PC and the player responds with "Bye" then that was still a social encounter. It's simply a social encounter that the player chose not to engage with.

If orcs attack and the PCs run away, that's still a combat encounter, simply one they chose not to engage with.

Similarly, opportunities for exploration (which are quite common) are exploration encounters, whether or not the players engage with them.

Exploration to me isn't an encounter. It's finding out about something new by exploration. If you go into a room you've never been in, you're engaged in exploration. If someone says to you, "Do you want to see my room?" and you respond with "no," it's not exploration despite the potential to be. You never explored it. You have to actually engage in the exploration for it to be exploration.

 

[tetrasodium]

Odd - but I suppose not all that surprising - that some of the published adventures stray off the path of the core rule books.

If you are not engaging the play loop at the table, what exactly is going on? I don’t think any of us willingly signed up for “DM storytime”!

"what exactly is going on" is kind of the point. we are told that the gm simply describing a vista constitutes exploration as a counter to all of the ways 5 makes efforts to nullify & trivialize any complications & challenges that the exploration pillar would otherwise allow but when the same question is asked the example suddenly changes with the expectation that the trivializing & nullifying simply gets ignored by sliding into a combat social investigation or whatever challenge.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Okay, let's explore this. You see an orc. You could attack it. You could talk to it. You could investigate the area the orc is in. So, in seeing an orc, this means that even if you just walk away, you were just involved in the combat pillar, the social pillar, and the exploration pillar.

Similarly, on seeing a vista of a wooded landscape, I could assume that it's all evil treants and attack, so, even if I don't, this is a combat pillar encounter?

I think upon seeing the orc we're still in the exploration pillar, since you just gained more information about the environment.

Whether you engage with the combat or social pillars is up to the players (assuming the orc isn't aware of their characters). If the orc is aware, it might force that choice by attacking or talking to the characters.

If the orc in this example attacked you, then that would be combat. If you won initiative and ran away without a single attack ever being made, it would still be combat.

No, simply seeing a vista of trees and assuming that they're evil treats does not make it combat. Assumptions aren't necessarily the same as reality.

 

[Maxperson]

What if you describe a lush forest and one of your players interrupts and says, "I leave the road to take a closer look at the forest"? Outside of a very linear game, that possibility ought to exist.

Even in a linear game you can do that. There just won't be anything there for you to do unless it's on the line. A railroad is the only thing that will stop you from going to take a closer look.

The only reason such montages occur is because the GM presumes what the players will do (continue down the road to their stated destination).

Yep, and even then sometimes one of my players will interrupt and say he wouldn't do that and would do something else, in which case I back up and continue with the new thing. It's not my job to control the character.