D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Swarmkeeper]

I think the point more is that if you count describing the environment as exploration, then weird things might start happening. For example, you could go straight from the travel montage and into combat, in which case the description wasn't leading to an actionable environment for exploration, it was leading to combat.

Every environment is actionable if the players want it to be. Doesn't matter what the DM has planned.

This is the point, which I think is pretty basic, that Ovinmancer is making. A description alone does not count for exploration, and just because you have described an environment doesn't mean you are engaging in exploration. To give another example, I could describe a throne room as the players approach the king. I have described the environment, but we are not engaging in exploration, this is a social encounter.

Who decides it is a social encounter? Sounds like by virtue of the DM setting it up as a meeting with the king that you are presupposing that it is a social encounter. Truth is, the DM has no idea which pillars are being engaged until the players declare what activities their PCs are doing. The throne room scene could be all three at once, or two out of three, or even one out of the three (though it would be a real stretch to say it was pure exploration if they are approaching the king in full view). You said earlier in the thread that a wandering monster is part of the combat pillar. It's no such thing until the PCs take action to make it so.

Descriptions, in my mind, are not tied to any of the pillars, because they are part of every pillar.

I think we just about found some common ground here. Also, very Zen: something that isn't and yet is.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Sure, but does exploration show up whenever I learn anything? Is it invoked by a successful persuade check that reveals a new fact?

Depends on the fact?

The PHB defines Exploration as including "both the adventurers' movement through the world and their interaction with objects and situations that require their attention." And Social Interaction as featuring "the adventurers talking to someone (or something) else." Interpret those definitions as you like in the context of whatever scene(s) you have in mind and whatever motivations the PC has in said scene(s).

 

[Ovinomancer]

Depends on the fact?

The PHB defines Exploration as including "both the adventurers' movement through the world and their interaction with objects and situations that require their attention." And Social Interaction as featuring "the adventurers talking to someone (or something) else." Interpret those definitions as you like in the context of whatever scene(s) you have in mind and whatever motivations the PC has in said scene(s).

Then we're back to exploration being an amorphous cloud that just means everything. I suppose the circle has come around again, with people unable to define exploration except as everything?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Then we're back to exploration being an amorphous cloud that just means everything. I suppose the circle has come around again, with people unable to define exploration except as everything?

You know it when you see it

 

[Ovinomancer]

You know it when you see it

Ah. Exploration is like pornography. This is, indeed, what the internet is for.

EDIT: although, this very clearly explains why no one can come up with a satisfactory exploration challenge.

 

[Mordhau]

An exploration challenge is usually called a dungeon.

 

[Ovinomancer]

An exploration challenge is usually called a dungeon.

Chips and dips and chains and whips? The usual?

 

[Mordhau]

Before we even ask what an exploration challenge is supposed to be we need to step back and ask what is the threshold for a challange. Combat is quite involved. But 'the social pillar' is only a pillar because someone says it is. It boils down to rolling skills and roleplaying.

So if I want to sneak past a guard then it's a challenge on the same level of an entire supposed pillar of the game. (I decide what I'm doing and roll the dice and the GM adjudicates based on the result). So why isn't there a stealth pillar?

WotC

You gain XP for recovering lost magic items, claiming hidden treasure caches, and exploring abandoned sites or places of power. Your character can gain experience points by retrieving a mighty weapon from a dragon’s hoard, stealing a diamond from an evil baron, or uncovering the location of a lost temple of evil.

Notice this is what WotC thinks you would get Exploration pillar XP before. It's basically largely indistinguishable from story or goal based XP. And involves activity that almost certainly includes combat and AND/OR social interaction. This is why a dungeon would be an exploration challenge (if anything is - which is questionable).

This means that exploration is not like the other pillars, but then none of them are anything like the others. Actually the worst fit is social interaction, because without it you would have a clear split between combat based/skills and utility based methods of resolution.

We need to be clearer about what we are talking about here. There's no point complaining about the implementation of the exploration pillar and then acting as if the concept was something much more coherent and categorical then it actually is.

We would be better complaining about the poor implementation of things that make sense. Wilderness survival is largely written out of the game. This seems to be an issue regardless of whatever we imagine the exploration pillar to be. There is no systematic way of structuring non-combat challenges. This is something can be discussed without worrying about whether we think the vague thought bubble about the 'exploration pillar' implies there should be one.

It's not surprising some people think that the 5e handles exploration really well and others think it's awful. What the exploration pillar is really good at is getting people to think they know what it means (which is invariably different to the next person) - it's a kind of vaguely half completed construction to which people can't help attach meeting.

 

[Asisreo]

This has moved past identification of pillars of play and into preferences for how to run a game. I don't think the former relies on the latter. I have plenty of preferences on how I play.

Isn't the whole discussion about preferences of play? The only reason the exploration pillar is being called out, in my mind, is because the current system doesn't align with certain people's preference of play.

Those that dislike the exploration pillar in 5e, correct me if I'm wrong, dislike it either because there's no rule system as granular or moreso than the combat pillar or because they find the features that make certain exploration challenges significantly easier and therefore takes away from the exploration pillar.

From how I see these two opinions, its based on how the individual enjoys playing D&D. The former enjoys more player-facing universal rulings like Travel Speed and Extreme Weather that gives places less control from the DM and more to the players. The latter enjoys playing a more survival-focused game/minigame between or during adventures, where you'll have lower-fantasy difficulties or more tactical solutions for exploration outside of announcing a feature you've acquired.

The game isn't particularly designed for these play preferences so they aren't as well-supported.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Isn't the whole discussion about preferences of play? The only reason the exploration pillar is being called out, in my mind, is because the current system doesn't align with certain people's preference of play.

Those that dislike the exploration pillar in 5e, correct me if I'm wrong, dislike it either because there's no rule system as granular or moreso than the combat pillar or because they find the features that make certain exploration challenges significantly easier and therefore takes away from the exploration pillar.

From how I see these two opinions, its based on how the individual enjoys playing D&D. The former enjoys more player-facing universal rulings like Travel Speed and Extreme Weather that gives places less control from the DM and more to the players. The latter enjoys playing a more survival-focused game/minigame between or during adventures, where you'll have lower-fantasy difficulties or more tactical solutions for exploration outside of announcing a feature you've acquired.

The game isn't particularly designed for these play preferences so they aren't as well-supported.

I disagree that this is the way it is. I dislike how the rules treat the exploration pillar, but I don't require a more granular system, just A system. I mean, I love games like PbtA and FitD game, and those only ever have 1 resolution mechanic for everything. They do exploration just fine. The problem I have with D&D is that it poorly defines exploration, only provides any system for survival stuff and traps, and then adds mechanics that negate any real challenge of these, forcing GMs to either pump up the difficulty absurdly to find a way to create a challenge, or disable parts of the rules so they stop interfering, or invent new mechanics, or some or all of these. That's a sign of poor design -- when the solution space is "eh, do it yourself and pick what things we give you to break or throw away."

I mean, I do exploration pretty well in my 5e games. I break the system to do so.