D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Chaosmancer]

Not necessarily, be it through smart use of Silence spells or attempts to be quieter* or just sheer dumb luck; and once the players figure this out they'll become a bit more cautious.

* - e.g. using a padded crowbar to pry the door open slowly rather than just bashing it with shoulders and hammers.

No, I meant if the party makes a ton of noise, I generally handle that immediately, not later on down the line.

Comes back to my contention that there's too many expected-to-be-playable levels (an issue since 3e).

I think that there just isn't enough design effort put into the higher end. They just expect DMs to handle it, which on one hand makes sense (party power diverges wildly the more levels you go up) but on the other just makes it less attractive for people to run, because there is less support.

Which - though unfortunate - makes sense, given that low-grade monsters have been toughened up such that they can present reasonable challenges for low-level PCs. What's a commoner to do?

Not much of jack. It is actually one of the reasons I try and avoid putting commoners in a situation where they might actually get attacked by a monster, becuase they are made of wet-tissue paper and if the players are supposed to be protecting them, it is almost unfair to put them on the battlefield.

Have had DMs do this, where we were supposed to protect the townspeople, but due to where we were placed on the map and initiative we failed pretty much on turn 1 because we simply couldn't get there in time to do anything effective. It leaves a sour taste in your mouth to be set-up for failure like that.

It is also why I allow PCs to take hits for non-combatants if they are nearby. Throwing yourself bodily in harms way is a good trope, and I always want the option to protect an important NPC.

Agreed; and to fix it I'd prefer a design philosophy that doesn't give so many abilities so early but instead generally holds them back and more slowly metes them out as the levels advance. (corollary: I don't agree at all with those who (sometimes loudly!) proclaim that a character should be mechanically fully-formed by 3rd level, because where can you go from there that isn't straight-up power creep?)

eh, I think there is a difference between power creep and growth. I like the idea that by 3rd level your character feels like they are fulfilling their role in the story, instead of having to wait for 6th or 7th to feel like you are finally who you've been wanting to be all game.

It might be poorly named but hey, what else could it be called? I suspect Exploration, while not a great name, is probably the least-bad.

I suspect "least-bad" was their determination. Doesn't mean I'm not open to different ideas. For example "Navigation" gives a lot of the same feel, but avoids some of the associations with newness and knowledge that I think cloud the issue.

 

[Lanefan]

No, I meant if the party makes a ton of noise, I generally handle that immediately, not later on down the line.

Ah, gotcha. Makes sense. (though you could always do both - handle it now and add a die to the pool for later... )

Not much of jack. It is actually one of the reasons I try and avoid putting commoners in a situation where they might actually get attacked by a monster, becuase they are made of wet-tissue paper and if the players are supposed to be protecting them, it is almost unfair to put them on the battlefield.

Which speaks directly to my preference of lowering the power levels of starting adventurers and low-grade monsters such that a commoner at least has a bit of a chance. Ideally, a low-level party should be able to take a commoner along as a hench and have half a chance of it surviving.

Have had DMs do this, where we were supposed to protect the townspeople, but due to where we were placed on the map and initiative we failed pretty much on turn 1 because we simply couldn't get there in time to do anything effective. It leaves a sour taste in your mouth to be set-up for failure like that.

It is also why I allow PCs to take hits for non-combatants if they are nearby. Throwing yourself bodily in harms way is a good trope, and I always want the option to protect an important NPC.

I'll always allow a PC to try this if close enough, but it's not guaranteed to work. They also often do it when trying to protect a fellow PC who's been getting clobbered.

eh, I think there is a difference between power creep and growth. I like the idea that by 3rd level your character feels like they are fulfilling their role in the story, instead of having to wait for 6th or 7th to feel like you are finally who you've been wanting to be all game.

Depends which is seen as more important, I suppose: the journey of growth or the destination of having grown. Also, if most of the growth is done by 3rd level yet you've still 17 more levels that can't be "dead", how can you design to avoid a "supers" game by level 15 or so and yet still add new abilities each level? The answer is you can't, which means one of the following has to happen:

--- the "growth" period gets strung out longer, into the mid-levels instead of being mostly complete by 3rd or 4th; and-or
--- at least every other level after about 4th has to be "dead", with the only gains being hit points and (maybe) saves; and-or
--- the upper ten levels or so need to be separated out and made mostly DM-side only (thus the playable range becomes 1-10); or
--- we have to throw up our hands and accept that by about level 15 it's a supers game rather than conventional D&D.

This "supers" issue isn't new - hell, it goes all the way back to BECMI and 1e - but I really think WotC-era D&D, starting with 3e, has made it worse.

I suspect "least-bad" was their determination. Doesn't mean I'm not open to different ideas. For example "Navigation" gives a lot of the same feel, but avoids some of the associations with newness and knowledge that I think cloud the issue.

OK; Navigation. Now where do discovery, research, and info-gathering fit in?

 

[Hussar]

OK; Navigation. Now where do discovery, research, and info-gathering fit in?

Well, since discovery, research and info-gathering are most likely not challenges (they could be, but, most of the time they aren't) and are almost never going to kill/disadvantage you right now, we put those off to the side and not include them in any pillar.

See, to me, when they talk about pillars of the game, the key word in that phrase is game. Which means there has to be some sense of a play loop in order for it to be a game. Research, for example, doesn't really have a play loop. You talk to the sage, go to the library, whatever, and get the information. There might be gradiations in how much information you receive, but, by and large, you are going to get information when you research. And, generally speaking again, there's no actual challenge here.

Although, technically, wouldn't information gathering be mostly part of the social pillar?

In any case, I'm not terribly fussed about which pillar it belongs to, since I don't think it really belongs to any pillar at all. There's no game here. There's no risk/reward. It's, by and large, just DM exposition based on a "roll high" check.

I think the bigger mistake is trying shoehorn everything under the sun into the exploration pillar.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Lanefan, can I ask you a question? You don't play 5e, but instead a modified version of 1e, right? Why are you arguing about something that's unique to 5e -- ie, even the idea of pillars of play, much less how 5e works for or against it?

EDIT: To be clear, this is curiosity asking. You're absolutely more than welcome to engage on any topic that interests you.

 

[Asisreo]

I also think that the designers have a completely different philosophy on what the purpose of rules are for the game, when I think about it. Some people think rules are there to make a storytelling exercise into a game. Tools used to let a lost DM know what to do next or to challenge the players.

I think the designers interpret rules as a protection against DM's considering things going horribly for the players. If combat didn't imply possible death, the designers probably would have made it a single dice roll. Same for food and suffocation and falling.

The DM may interpret "I want to fight the ogre band" as "I think it would be more dramatic to get killed by the ogre band." But the rules remind the DM that the players stand a chance.

Likewise, a DM may interpret "I jump off the airship" as "I don't want to live anymore" but the rules reminds the DM that a level 20 barbarian absolutely can walk out of such a impressive feat.

 

[Eubani]

I also think that the designers have a completely different philosophy on what the purpose of rules are for the game, when I think about it. Some people think rules are there to make a storytelling exercise into a game. Tools used to let a lost DM know what to do next or to challenge the players.

I think the designers interpret rules as a protection against DM's considering things going horribly for the players. If combat didn't imply possible death, the designers probably would have made it a single dice roll. Same for food and suffocation and falling.

The DM may interpret "I want to fight the ogre band" as "I think it would be more dramatic to get killed by the ogre band." But the rules remind the DM that the players stand a chance.

Likewise, a DM may interpret "I jump off the airship" as "I don't want to live anymore" but the rules reminds the DM that a level 20 barbarian absolutely can walk out of such a impressive feat.

During the playtest all the design heads at one time or another said that they were not going to write rules to protect from bad players or DMs as they would continue to be bad anyway and that it would only cause problems for everyone else.

 

[tetrasodium]

During the playtest all the design heads at one time or another said that they were not going to write rules to protect from bad players or DMs as they would continue to be bad anyway and that it would only cause problems for everyone else.

They may have said they would not do it, but the design has a wide range of elements that do exactly that & those elements are almost always stacked in one direction

 

[Chaosmancer]

Which speaks directly to my preference of lowering the power levels of starting adventurers and low-grade monsters such that a commoner at least has a bit of a chance. Ideally, a low-level party should be able to take a commoner along as a hench and have half a chance of it surviving.

Eh, I just buff them to level 1 PC hp if they are going to end up in combat. If they are a henchperson (pretty much never) then I generally just have them in the corner cowering during a fight and come out unscathed.

Kind-hearted perhaps, but I don't want to kill someone the PCs are building a rapport with in a random monster attack.

I'll always allow a PC to try this if close enough, but it's not guaranteed to work. They also often do it when trying to protect a fellow PC who's been getting clobbered.

Fair enough. They usually don't feel the same urgency to protect the other PCs as they do the special NPCs.

Depends which is seen as more important, I suppose: the journey of growth or the destination of having grown. Also, if most of the growth is done by 3rd level yet you've still 17 more levels that can't be "dead", how can you design to avoid a "supers" game by level 15 or so and yet still add new abilities each level? The answer is you can't, which means one of the following has to happen:

--- the "growth" period gets strung out longer, into the mid-levels instead of being mostly complete by 3rd or 4th; and-or
--- at least every other level after about 4th has to be "dead", with the only gains being hit points and (maybe) saves; and-or
--- the upper ten levels or so need to be separated out and made mostly DM-side only (thus the playable range becomes 1-10); or
--- we have to throw up our hands and accept that by about level 15 it's a supers game rather than conventional D&D.

This "supers" issue isn't new - hell, it goes all the way back to BECMI and 1e - but I really think WotC-era D&D, starting with 3e, has made it worse.

Personally, I think it gets to be a supers game by around level 9 no matter what you do. But, I also am not saying that the growth is "done" by level 3, but that the character feels... coherent. Which actually doesn't tend to happen to level 5 I guess. Because no martial character feels right until they get Extra attack.

A good example of what I want to avoid is actual the new Phantom Rogue subclass. They have a really cool "Tokens of the Dead" ability that allows them to interact with spirits of those they slay. Very cool, very much something I want to do with the class. It comes on at level 9. Meanwhile, at level three you just get an ability to hit a second target with some sneak attack splash damage. It is flavored to be ghosty, but the real meat I want to dig into come in so late, it doesn't feel worth the wait.

So, by level three I really want you to feel like you are starting to do the things you chose the class and subclass to do. More growth should come, but I want you to have an ability that makes it clear what your character's skills are by this point.

OK; Navigation. Now where do discovery, research, and info-gathering fit in?

Research is downtime

Info-gathering is social/downtime

Discovery can be in navigation, if you mean discovering a new place. Discovering facts might be social.

 

[Hussar]

I also think that the designers have a completely different philosophy on what the purpose of rules are for the game, when I think about it. Some people think rules are there to make a storytelling exercise into a game. Tools used to let a lost DM know what to do next or to challenge the players.

I think the designers interpret rules as a protection against DM's considering things going horribly for the players. If combat didn't imply possible death, the designers probably would have made it a single dice roll. Same for food and suffocation and falling.

The DM may interpret "I want to fight the ogre band" as "I think it would be more dramatic to get killed by the ogre band." But the rules remind the DM that the players stand a chance.

Likewise, a DM may interpret "I jump off the airship" as "I don't want to live anymore" but the rules reminds the DM that a level 20 barbarian absolutely can walk out of such a impressive feat.

That's ... really hard to argue against. I'm not entirely convinced in your exact wording, but, I do understand where you are going.

It's a very interesting point and I think I'm going to have to cogitate on this for a while. You've given me lots to think about. Kudos.

And, it's not about good/bad DM's or players. That implies bad faith. This isn't about bad faith on anyone's part. It's about the rules as an aid to making the game fun. Now, the success or failure of those rules can certainly be debated, but, I think that you are really hitting on a key point here. We have Continual Light/Flame because futzing about with light sources after a certain point gets annoying as an example of how the rules are created to facilitate keeping the game in the "fun zone".

Yes, I do think that these two different approaches to why we have these rules - are they there to suggest the "next step" or are they there to "keep things in the fun zone" - which really characterizes the disagreement in this thread.

That or I've just wandered off a cliff and I'm totally missing the point. I rather hope not. But, I can honestly say, if I did, it wasn't because I don't want to live anymore.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I also think that the designers have a completely different philosophy on what the purpose of rules are for the game, when I think about it. Some people think rules are there to make a storytelling exercise into a game. Tools used to let a lost DM know what to do next or to challenge the players.

I think the designers interpret rules as a protection against DM's considering things going horribly for the players. If combat didn't imply possible death, the designers probably would have made it a single dice roll. Same for food and suffocation and falling.

The DM may interpret "I want to fight the ogre band" as "I think it would be more dramatic to get killed by the ogre band." But the rules remind the DM that the players stand a chance.

Likewise, a DM may interpret "I jump off the airship" as "I don't want to live anymore" but the rules reminds the DM that a level 20 barbarian absolutely can walk out of such a impressive feat.

This reads, and correct if wrong, that you're saying that rules exist to prevent GMs from just killing or doing horrible things to PCs. I mean, I have lots and lots of disagreements with this, but I'd prefer a petard of your own making -- if this is true, how do you square it with the clear statement that rules are free to be changed or ignored by a GM if it serves the story? How can rules be a bulwark against GMs going off the rails while at the same time GMs are fully authorized to ignore them?

Rules exist to define the space of play -- what play will be about and where play will occur (for D&D, on paper, with dice, and in our imaginations). They then provide a way to resolve conflicts in that space -- who gets to say what happens and how. I mean, we can look to Monopoly to see this -- the rules state play takes place on the board and with cards and with fake money. They establish roles and responsibilities (the banker, a player). They establish the order of play, and they establish how to resolve conflicts in play by saying what happens when and who has a say. So, when I land on an unpurchased space, and everyone wants something to happen, the rules say that it's the player whose turn it is gets to decide first -- do they purchase the property at the listed price or do they refuse. If they refuse, the rules establish how the space will be auctioned off -- someone must purchase the space before play continues. There are, of course, many other rules, but none of these rules exist with a primary purpose of stopping a player from setting fire to the board. Similarly, no rules in D&D exist to stop a GM from burning their game to the ground. Because that's not the point of the rules -- it's not to primarily stop GMs who are just making it all up as they go from making up wrong things. The rules exist to establish the play spaces, how play progresses, and how to resolve conflicts in that space. Combat isn't there to stop a GM from just declaring a party dead to ogres, but to resolve the difference of opinion in what should happen next. It acts on all parties.