D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Asisreo]

At 5th level, the party is absolutely still facing mundane social and combat challenges. They can (and on occasion should) face fantastical social and combat challenges, but a bandit captain supported by guards is a good 5th level combat challenge, as are cult fanatics with cultists. Same thing for social challenges.

I...don't really agree with this, because there are ways to just shut those mundane situations down completely even at 5th level.

Guards and bandit captains have no magical defenses. They also have fairly low HP. All it takes is 1 fireball and at-will pileups on the captain and that's it for them. And if you're thinking it costs a resource...kinda but fiend warlocks get 2 fireballs per short rest and a elemonk can do (33) 6d10 damage with one action for a short rest resource and basic fighters are doing 44 average damage on short rest resources as well. With a good combat setup, that fight was more than a cakewalk.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

Unless the guards blindfolded the PCs for the trip between gate and throne room, if it's the PCs' first visit to the palace the answer in both cases is yes.

It's unintentional exploration*, to be sure; but the PCs are learning a bit about what's where inside the palace that it's highly likely they didn't know before. Whether this info will ever be of any further use to them is irrelevant to the fact of their learning it now.

And the level of description doesn't matter. The PCs still see the same things during the trip in either example, with the only difference being that in 2. you described more of it. Further, if they chat with the gate guards while in transit a Social element enters as well; you're in two pillars at once.

* - but may be very intentional, if there's a Thief or Spy PC in the party making use of the opportunity to case the place/people for later...

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.

Your models carry a built-in flaw in that they only look at descriptions rather than at a) the whole play loop and b) the context in which the description is being provided.

Looking at the whole play loop would answer why the description is being provided, as in what PC action(s) are the descriptions in response to. It might be exploration (and always will be at least in part if the scene is new to the PCs), it might be merely scene-setting, or whatever.

Looking at the context will tell us whether it's exploration or something else. If the description is a repeat of things the PCs have seen before (e.g. this isn't their first visit to the throne room) then there's no exploration happening. But if it's the first time the PCs have seen these things then yes, it's exploration.

Your model 2 is correct whenever the PCs are seeing or learning something new; as that's exploration, whether passive or intentional. Your model 3 holds water if-when the PCs are covering familiar ground, or are not engaged in adventuring at all.

 

[Lanefan]

While I haven't kept up with all of this thread, thinking about what I've read has lead me to the exact opposite conclusion. The three pillars concept is of net negative value. It provides nothing, and only obfuscates and confuses.

The strength of 5e is in its move to universal resolution mechanics,

Universal resolution mechanics are nice and convenient at cost of sometimes not being the best tool for the specific job at hand. Given the choice, I prefer a more modular system where each resolution mechanic is (ideally!) better suited to what it's trying to achieve.

and I think it would aid understanding a lot and help people plan games if they were encouraged to think of things this way, and not separate encounters into arbitrary categories.

We're not just talking about encounters, though; and that's the problem.

Back away from encounters and look at what happens between encounters. There's where you'll find a lot of exploration; while if you're looking for Combat you'd want to look inside the encounters, and Social can be either and easily overlaps with both other pillars.

 

[Lanefan]

I think that is in part because with a lack of challenges it becomes hard to highlight the difference. We seem to have a deep struggle in this thread to even define what is and what isn't exploration and why that is. Now, you may have an answer that seems obvious to you, but others of us are seeing it from a different angle that makes your answer not seem 100% accurate.

Is describing a location important? Yes, it could even be considered the most important thing in the game, but that is because we can't do anything without describing it, and therefore description is a part of every single pillar. Which makes it difficult to imagine that's what was intended. Setting it up so one pillar is the bedrock of the other two isn't having three pillars. So, for a lot of us, we go forward with the idea that this isn't the case. That description =/= exploration.

So, I don't think it is that people think non-challenge exploration isn't "important" to a smooth running of the game, as much as they are saying that it is so integral to the game that it can't be a pillar like the other two. You can't interact with the gameworld without moving through it, so the "exploration pillar" can't default to being that, because that is such a bedrock element that you can't seperate it from any other portion of the game. Which means "exploration" must be something else, something smaller.

Or we have to allow the pillars to overlap, and assume they rather often do.

I certainly don't see them as being completely isolated; they're more like three partly-overlapping circles on a Venn diagram.

See, this is a weird non-starter for me. Re-rolls make sense. I'm going to switch examples to highlight this, but I'll try and bring it back to exploration.

If I try to break down a door, and I fail in real life, then I can always try again. I can try again in the exact same manner, and there is a god chance that, given enough repeats, the door will wear down. However, by not allowing re-rolls it feels like I get a single chance to break it down, and if I fail it becomes an impenetrable force construct, locked into reality and immovable. You can say "you put in your best effort" but I know that isn't true, because I know my best effort would break down the door.

Interesting example, and a good one; in that in my game whenever you try to break down a door I'll give the door a saving throw. If you succeed by a lot in your own attempt, door's broken no matter what. If you succeed only by a little*, or fail**, the door's save will sometimes tell you whether it's worth trying again. In broader terms, a poor save by the door indiates it's been weakened by your attempt; this is a material change in the situation and thus if you try again you'll get another roll, likely modified in your favour.

In searching, the only ways to effect a material change are to either have someone else do the searching or to change your own approach.

* - here, the door's broken but a secondary effort might be required to get through e.g. moving the remains of the broken door out of the way; all this costs is a bit of time and maybe more noise.
** - if you fail terribly i.e. roll a 1 then I'll skip the door's save and there'll be a secondary roll to see if you hurt yourself.

It ends up feeling like the DC changes. As though it goes from whatever value to infinite after a single attempt, which is very jarring to my verisimilitude. And going back over a paper or a book or a searched room and finding something that you missed before happens all the time in real life. It makes sense.

To a point, I agree; but I also want to get away from two things: auto-success (and auto-failure) where such is in doubt, and lots of re-rolls.

Now, I get why you don't like re-rolls, because what they mean is that given a non-threatening environment, the players will always eventually succeed. And I think that is why I prefer sometimes to take a roll that failed, and say that instead it succeeded, it just took longer. It is the idea of failing forward, but I think I want to evolve that concept a bit. Not right now, but ideas are percolating as I'm writing.

I'm not much of a fan of fail-forward as it's been presented, mostly because it often seems like the intent is to turn a failure into a success-with-complications. To me, a fail's a fail; success-with-complications can come in on a narrowy-successful roll, rather than a failed one.

What if failing a roll, not catastrophically, but just by a bit is the driver of that Doom Pool idea?

Not familiar with Doom Pool. Readers' Digest explanation, please?

I struggle with the exact cut-off point, but looking at Xanathar's tool rules and everything else, I think I lean far more to the Eberron Model. By level 1 you are already highly trained, and by level 3 you are exceptional.

That sounds very much like the 4e approach: you're already heroes before you even start adventuring.

However, I also tend to make a lot of other people exceptional too. Your blacksmith PC is as good as any highly-trained blacksmith, but the City Watch in the Capital are all likely level 3 fighters, because they are just that good.

Kind of like a rising-tide-lifts-all-boats idea. Got it.

I do a bit of the same thing myself, but I guess I start from a lower tideline. A 1st-level adventurer isn't much removed from a commoner (I've got a 0th level in between), while a 3rd-level adventurer is - while certainly better - still rather mortal.

At the other end, there's always a bigger fish.

IT causes issues, the game isn't set up well for how we balance the power of PCs/NPCs/and monsters in the world, but there has to be a middle ground.

I think there's an opening to flatten the power curve significantly by making everyone except commoners less powerful in general, starting right at 1st level (or 1 HD for monsters) by making those be closer to commoners and then scaling back the powers gained through levelling.

The problem is that to do this in the current 1-20 environment would necessitate "dead levels", which while being fine with me tend to generate howls of complaint from others. So, the answer might be to reduce the number of levels - sure, design from 1-20 but make 1-9 or 1-12 the playable range (and thus, those are the only levels shown in the PH) with harsh warnings for DMs that going beyond this will cause things to wobble; the higher levels are presented in the DMG largely for purposes of world, monster, and opponent design.

shrug I have never had a party not roll with advantage. They always use the help action on every check they can. And a lot of abilities exist to boost skills, and they all tend to stack.

Which makes it difficult to find appropriate challenges. I think 5e does better, but it isn't perfect.

Quick and dirty houserule idea: disallow some things from stacking.

 

[Fenris-77]

The three pillars is just one way to describe the game, not a atraight jacket.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I...don't really agree with this, because there are ways to just shut those mundane situations down completely even at 5th level.

Guards and bandit captains have no magical defenses. They also have fairly low HP. All it takes is 1 fireball and at-will pileups on the captain and that's it for them. And if you're thinking it costs a resource...kinda but fiend warlocks get 2 fireballs per short rest

I am currently DMing a game with a fiend warlock and I can state with some confidence that this has not been my experience. The warlock is extremely aware that using their spells is a resource, and they may or may not get an opportunity for a short rest when they want it. A low init roll for the warlock could mean that it is difficult to place the fireball without hitting allies, and a low damage roll (or lucky saves by the enemies) may mean that the spell os ineffective. Setting the area on fire tends to engender consequences, from reinforcements, to destroying stuff.

Overall, a warlock with fireball does not obviate mundane challenges.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

I don’t think anyone disputes that, I think we are more protesting an overly broad definition.

For example, If every time I learn new information that is exploration, then when I interrogate someone I am engaging in exploration. When I learn that someone is lying through the use of insight, that is exploration. When I persuade the town guard to tell us what happened, that is exploration.

What then is the social pillar? Because everything in the social pillar that matters has just become exploration, because it is all tied to learning new information. This can’t be true. So “learning new information” alone cannot be a defining element of the exploration pillar.

 

[tetrasodium]

I...don't really agree with this, because there are ways to just shut those mundane situations down completely even at 5th level.

Guards and bandit captains have no magical defenses. They also have fairly low HP. All it takes is 1 fireball and at-will pileups on the captain and that's it for them. And if you're thinking it costs a resource...kinda but fiend warlocks get 2 fireballs per short rest and a elemonk can do (33) 6d10 damage with one action for a short rest resource and basic fighters are doing 44 average damage on short rest resources as well. With a good combat setup, that fight was more than a cakewalk.

Luckily fireball is limited to a 20 foot radius sphere, is subject to line of sight, and consumes a nontrivial 3rd level slot.

 

[Asisreo]

I am currently DMing a game with a fiend warlock and I can state with some confidence that this has not been my experience. The warlock is extremely aware that using their spells is a resource, and they may or may not get an opportunity for a short rest when they want it. A low init roll for the warlock could mean that it is difficult to place the fireball without hitting allies, and a low damage roll (or lucky saves by the enemies) may mean that the spell os ineffective. Setting the area on fire tends to engender consequences, from reinforcements, to destroying stuff.

Overall, a warlock with fireball does not obviate mundane challenges.

That's only because the warlock doesn't know what the future adventuring day holds. If they're guaranteed 1 fight, even per short rest, they'll be very confident in using their spell slots.

And this is the same concept with bypassing mundane encounters. It takes at least a 1st-level spell to create food, which could be needed for something else. But because we're guaranteeing that the player doesn't need the spell slot for anything else, they're free to cast spells like Goodberry without any competition.

In an adventuring day, mundane things become a challenge. But when we're talking about "travel days" with no other encounter besides the one exploration/social/combat challenge, it will be trivialized extremely easily.

So on these days, you have to challenge them with the fantastic, rather than just mundane and hope they're scared a ravine will suddenly be a problem when every time one appears, they'll recover their ability to fly for the next time.

 

[Faolyn]

That's only because the warlock doesn't know what the future adventuring day holds. If they're guaranteed 1 fight, even per short rest, they'll be very confident in using their spell slots.

Why are you guaranteeing one encounter per short rest?