D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Aldarc]

Seems all a new player needs to know is:
Combat = fighting creatures
Social interaction = talking with creatures
Exploration = interacting with stuff

It seems like a player actually doesn't need to know this at all, but that these categories, instead, complicate the process of learning the game. So what do these categories actually contribute to understanding the game and how to run/play it?

Because at the moment those three pillars are all we have to work with, meaning the "purple crayon" of Downtime gets shoehorned into one or another even if-when it doesn't fit well.

So is "downtime" a Vegetable, Animal, or Mineral?

Now you're just being absurd.

And you're not?

The pillars can overlap and transition between each other.

There can be one character who is fighting, while another tries to negotiate a truce. There's no reason exploration can't be involved in combat.

There's no reason to impose these categories on the game at all apart from the fact that WotC said that they are somehow pillars.

How did people manage to cope with D&D before 5e told them that these three pillars apparently existed?

More than one pillar can be active at a time depending on the activities of the PCs.

This is reification, though that certainly applies to the entire conversation in some respects.

 

[Mordhau]

But, apparently, going to buy armor would be the exploration pillar... because reasons.

Ok. I'm confused who is saying this?

 

[billd91]

Take this up with others then, because that's NOT the way I was absolutely, 100%, no take-backs told that 5e skill checks work. It's ALWAYS, Player makes declaration, DM calls for a skill check if needed, check is made, DM narrates result. At no point does the DM do that. Is the metal plinth visible? What's the passive Perception of the party? If it's less, then they see it, if it's more, then they don't.

You know what? Absolutes like this are effing dumb. You want to use passive perception? Use it. You want to tell the players to make a perception check? Do it. Both are fine.

 

[Hussar]

You know what? Absolutes like this are effing dumb. You want to use passive perception? Use it. You want to tell the players to make a perception check? Do it. Both are fine.

Hey, don't take it up with me. I 100% agree with you. But, I was told, in this thread and others, in no uncertain terms, that this is NOT how skill checks are done in 5e. Full stop. That I was playing the game wrong and not understanding the rules when I suggested doing exactly the same thing.

Spinning it around, asking as a player if I can make a perception check to notice more information is also completely off the table. Players are not allowed to ask for checks. Players can only tell the DM what they are doing, and then the DM will tell them to make a check or not as the DM decides.

Like I said, I agree with you. Now, in this specific case, I do think the right answer is either use passive perception or just straight up success (which is likely what I would do). The DM has set up a sign saying, "Hey, there's something interesting over here" and then for some reason decided to let it be totally random as to whether or not the players can choose to investigate. It's a really bizarre setup.

 

[Hussar]

Ok. I'm confused who is saying this?

Everyone who is telling me that everything that isn't combat and social pillars is exploration by default. So, going to the store would be exploration. Learning what armors they have available and for what prices would be exploration. Possibly, just possibly, buying the armor might be social pillar, but, everything else is exploration.

Like I said, I'd much prefer to stick to challenges since that's what the game is set up for. All this narration stuff and stuff that has zero chance of failure isn't really part of the play loop so, it's not really part of any pillar.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Side note.... Huh?!

Is this supposed to be a thing in the rules, that if you have thought through a prepared a story it is impossible to use insight and figure out something is wrong? I think that is a very very poor precedent to set.

Did you mean "use insight" in the sense of telling the DM you want to roll a d20, add your wisdom modifier and PB (if proficient in Insight), and if the number is high enough the DM will tell you if he's lying?

Or do you mean the players themselves being (literally) insightful and asking probing questions?

 

[Aldarc]

Like I said, I'd much prefer to stick to challenges since that's what the game is set up for. All this narration stuff and stuff that has zero chance of failure isn't really part of the play loop so, it's not really part of any pillar.

Challenges IMHO are an easier way to think of of how the game works. Navigating the wilderness, investigating a room, locating and disarming a trap, fighting a monster, talking your way past a guard, etc. are all challenges that GMs present as challenges. I don't see what's effectively gained by trying to fit every aspect of the game into the categories/pillars of Vegetable, Animal, or Mineral.

 

[Lanefan]

I play 3(ish) hour sessions 1/week.

4-ish hours here, but otherwise same.

There is zero chance that my players are going to waste that very valuable free time that we've managed to carve out of our schedules to "gossip" in character. It does happen, typically during something else going on, but, to just sit around the campfire? No thanks. We have email for that. And, even then, it's almost never happened.

It doesn't happen all the time here either, but it does happen and is really useful for getting to know other players' characters and for presenting a bit of what makes your PC tick, in a non-stress situation. Times like this also provide a chance for things like in-party romances, rivalries, friendships, etc. to develop; without which a party-based game is, IMO, lesser.

That, and the way we see it we know we're going to play again next week, and the week after that, and so on into the almost-boundless future; so there's no need to rush anything right now as whatever we don't get to this week will still be there next week.

Whereas I have zero problem taking depth and detail out behind the barn and putting a gun in its ear in service to speed of play. There might just be a reason why my campaigns take about 1/10th the time yours do. Not that I'm right and you're wrong. I certainly don't mean that. But, like I've said many times, we really, really don't share playstyles.

So it seems. I suspect were I in one of your games I'd be constantly asking for - and then insisting on - more detail. I also suspect arguments would follow.

Whereas I don't sweat the details. Does your character have ink and quill? Yup. Does he have lamp oil? Yup. Does he have parchment? Yup. I treat equipment exactly the same way that D&D treats Spell Component Cases:

I just raise the value a bit to about 10gp. A backpack is the adventurer's equivalent of a spell component pouch.

That's one approach, for sure; and I too use the component-pouch idea for non-valued spell components (components with a listed value you still have to pay for and note on your sheet, just like 3e does it).

But one can get away with this for a components pouch for the simple reason that a components pouch isn't likely to affect one's encumbrance status. They're small, they're lightweight, and as they're on a belt they're easy to carry. Further, the contents have a net acquirement cost of zero, which nicely takes finances out of th epicture.

A backpack, by comparison, can get huge and bulky and hella heavy if allowed to; and while I don't enforce encumbrance to the letter (or anywhere even close!) there's still limits.

Further, just about everything inside said pack costs money - big-ish money, in some cases. Sure, rations and torches and iron spikes are dirt cheap; but things like high-grade spyglasses or telescopes, accurate sextants, or vials of scroll-grade ink for copying spells can pack a serious cost for a low-level character. Depending on location (e.g. if you're operating in an area whose main language doesn't have a written form) even ordinary quills, ink and parchment might be very costly and-or hard to find.

So, even if I were to go with your idea of a backpack being similar to a components pouch I'd have no way of setting a value on it, as the contents of a backpack (and their value) can vary so widely from one character to another.

Oh, and to forestall the obvious: yes, I expect and non-negotiably demand that character finances be meticulously tracked, largely due to some unfortunate instances in the past where they "conveniently" weren't....

 

[Lanefan]

It seems like a player actually doesn't need to know this at all, but that these categories, instead, complicate the process of learning the game. So what do these categories actually contribute to understanding the game and how to run/play it?

Quite a bit, IMO; in that they take what were sort of muddy not-quite-concepts and rather elegantly, if imperfectly, put them into focus.

The three-pillar concept was and remains perhaps the best design invention (or, more properly, clarification) 5e has given us. It needs work, of course, but at least now there's something to work on.

So is "downtime" a Vegetable, Animal, or Mineral?

Category error in question. Does not compute.

There's no reason to impose these categories on the game at all apart from the fact that WotC said that they are somehow pillars.

How did people manage to cope with D&D before 5e told them that these three pillars apparently existed?

By thinking of/around those pillars anyway, or at least the underlying idea, just without quite understanding or being able to define what it was we were thinking of.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Dude, I already said that seeing the orc is exploration, not social or combat. To disengage from social/combat, one party would need to talk/attack the other, respectively.

The game doesn't say that description is necessary, but not sufficient, that was you. For what it's worth, I technically agree. That said, I strongly believe that a lot of what you are discarding as "not exploration description" is in fact exploration description.

The play loop is already occuring. The players declared they were traveling to Waterdeep and now the DM is resolving it, telling them what they see along the way. This might result in its own recursive gameplay loop wherein the players take an interest in something the DM describes and investigate further.

I think the problem is that you are assuming the Exploration pillar is the default of the game. If you are not actively in combat or actively in social, then you are in the exploration pillar. Which, again agreeing with Aldarc, just highlights that the pillars are a poor tool for describing the entirety of the game.

Let us take a different example. You go to the palace guards and convince them of a threat to the king's life. This is a Social Pillar encounter, clearly. The guards then decide to take you to see the king.

Example One: You say the guards decide to take you to the king, you arrive in the throne room. Has any exploration taken place?

Example Two: You say the guards take you to the king. You pass through the heavy golden gates of the palace into the courtyard, where dozens of soldiers in enchanted armor train and keep watch. The halls, as you pass through them, as line with statuary and banners of fallen insurgents. Finally, you arrive in the throne room, the carpet is blood red as all eyes turn towards you. Has any exploration taken place?

All I did was describe more. Which is a good thing, don't mistake that, but I moved from one social encounter to the other, and that was accomplished equally by both examples. You could say that "but the players could interrupt you and go explore the palace, and therefore your description counts as exploration" but by that same token, the players could have jumped the guard and killed him, and therefore my description was combat.

So, I think we are left with three models.

Model 1: Every description of anything for any reason is exploration. Describing the town is exploration, describing a sword is exploration, all of it is exploration.

Model 2: Exploration is passively engaged in. Every time you are not actively in combat or social encounters, you default to being in exploration.

Model 3: There are other parts of the game, perhaps other pillars, that have gone unnamed for the sake of ease and focus. Description may be a tool, but not one associated with any particular pillar, and there are aspects of the game that don't fit in any of the pillars well.


Personally, I think Model 3 is more accurate and best explains our issues. While it seems you are engaging in Model 2.