D&D 5E [+]Exploration Falls Short For Many Groups, Let’s Talk About It

[TheSword]

If it has some impact on the next fight, the next fight is going to be harder. And the next one harder still, since more resources will need to spent to defeat the harder battle. Eventually you will reach the point that the fight becomes impossible. Death spiral is will always happen eventually.

So they cannot run away from a monster, so they die.

So the monster takes one more round to die. And the party dies.

Anything that reduces effectiveness means the subsequent battle is going to consume more resources. If, due to simple bad luck, an early fight leads to a permanent injury, the party won't survive the final challenge. Or the difficulty was set so low that there was never any real challenge in the first place.

The whole point of the discussion has been that prior encounters during exploration be it traps, hazards, exhaustion etc have no impact on future effectiveness. But you seem to be saying any impact on future effectiveness is critical problem?

Parties are made up of multiple characters. I don’t believe that minor effects from lingering injuries has the kind of impact you’re claiming. Certainly not in the 5-8 encounters max that a typical few days of explorations and dungeon crawling would have.

 

[Minigiant]

You are wrong. It functions as communication via spoken word. In common usage that is a language. If it describes a language, it doesn't need to say the word language in order to be one.

The Cypher is the written part described later on.

It's description as a cipher. The class feature says it is a jargon, dialect, and code hidden in normal language... another language.

But that again goes to lack of clarity, examples, and explanations in the game.

 

[TheSword]

It's description as a cipher. The class feature says it is a jargon, dialect, and code hidden in normal language... another language.

But that again goes to lack of clarity, examples, and explanations in the game.

You’re right. We’ve had lots of examples over the year. It’s certainly similar enough to cockney rhyming slang.

Comprehend language translates “apples and pears” as fruit. Not a set of stairs.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So the "G" in RPG should only live in combat? I'm sorry but I want more G than that. And that desire does NOT mean that I am abandoning character and story and imagination and ideas. Frankly, suggesting that it does is a bit insulting to those who don't see RPGs as primary an exercise in collaborative storytelling.

Ability checks are game mechanics. They're a "game". And one has to play the character creation game to get their stats together and decide what they want to focus on, and then when the time comes for making decisions on what to do in the story the player will need to decide whether or not to do things based upon the game mechanics of DCs and such. So my "collaborative storytelling" does not remove the "game"... it just is a different type of game-- one that is based upon only using it when there's a question of success.

People have attempted to "gamify" the Social pillar to match the Combat pillar for decades by creating all manner of "social combat" rules in all manner of RPGs... and they never seem to stick. Why? Because we almost all have realized that the actual roleplaying-- the presentation of character and their wants and desires and the ideas we come up with for argument and disagreement and discussion between PC and NPCs are easier and more powerful of a decision-maker. Sure, you can throw in a couple Persuasion checks too if necessary, but we're even specifically told in the rules we shouldn't bother with those if in the DM's opinion the Social work and roleplaying the players did to convince the guard to open the town gates worked just fine on its own. And we don't need to roll the dice for the game, because in that regard... the discussion between PC and NPC is the "game".

And the same exact thing can be true with the Exploration pillar. Players coming up with ideas to get around obstacles (and using the occasional die roll for a result) is as much of a game as the player and DM "arguing" in character and then possibly rolling a Persuasion check to see if they were able to adjust the other's opinion.

If someone wants more than that... an Exploration mini-game that is as involved as Combat... that's what most of the people in this thread have been bandying about over the last 25 pages or so. And hopefully they've all been able to cobble something together to create something of worth. But if not? Maybe my idea of just letting the mini-game concept go and instead just relying on player creativity and DM reaction to said creativity could be enough.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You are wrong. It functions as communication via spoken word. In common usage that is a language. If it describes a language, it doesn't need to say the word language in order to be one.

The Cypher is the written part described later on.

It really ain’t m dude.

It’s a cypher. “It uses dialect, jargon, and code” it does not replace a language, it uses a common language as the basis of a cypher.

Mechanically it’s up to the DM, but in common usage, if my friends use AAVE, anime references, puns, obscure jargon, and inside jokes, to talk while obfuscating what we are saying, we are using a spoken cypher, we are not speaking a different language.

 

[Maxperson]

It really ain’t m dude.

It’s a cypher. “It uses dialect, jargon, and code” it does not replace a language, it uses a common language as the basis of a cypher.

Mechanically it’s up to the DM, but in common usage, if my friends use AAVE, anime references, puns, obscure jargon, and inside jokes, to talk while obfuscating what we are saying, we are using a spoken cypher, we are not speaking a different language.

That qualifies as the definition of language and how the word language is commonly used. A language is spoken, written and/or uses gestures. A cypher is written.

 

[Maxperson]

It's description as a cipher. The class feature says it is a jargon, dialect, and code hidden in normal language... another language.

But that again goes to lack of clarity, examples, and explanations in the game.

It's not a cipher. It's a conlang, which can be imbedded inside another language. It also fails to be a cipher because it's so widely known and spoken. It's the language of thieves' across the entire multiverse. My rogue can go from Greyhawk to Birthright and talk to the rogues there in thieves' cant. "Cant" by the way means language.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That qualifies as the definition of language and how the word language is commonly used. A language is spoken, written and/or uses gestures. A cypher is written.

Don’t nitpick while trying to lean on common usage. Pick one.

It is a coded manner of speaking using slang and jargon of an existing language alongside gestures and signs, it is not its own language. Like if you use cant in English you are speaking English, in a coded manner. Like, whole phrases would be in English. “Sorry I’m late, almost got nicked, so I gave the pigs an porkie about the your trouble while my birds hiked. Not to worry my old China, no squeaks just rabbits, then down the apples and here we are, rascals all, so let’s plan a game, shall we? Oh, that’s my skin, Mags, she’s a proper fagger and real prig, so eyes off the bottle and pay attention.” That is a sentence in English, using old school cant and more modern Cockney rhyming slang, which is the same sort of code.

Neither are languages.

 

[TheSword]

It's not a cipher. It's a conlang, which can be imbedded inside another language. It also fails to be a cipher because it's so widely known and spoken. It's the language of thieves' across the entire multiverse. My rogue can go from Greyhawk to Birthright and talk to the rogues there in thieves' cant. "Cant" by the way means language.

For the duration, you understand the literal meaning of any spoken language that you hear.

 

[FrozenNorth]

This means that an easy, no-tension montage travel sequence can be intended. Maybe they didn't want to spend a lot of time on what it takes to get through the Serpent Jungle to the Ruins of the Snake God. That's a valid choice, and while it might de-emphasize exploration, not every adventure needs to highlight exploration. And maybe most published adventures just don't value exploration! I'd say that this is the case, personally!

True, it is an excellent point, worth emphasing. You can have a detailed, moderately crunchy exploration mechanic that doesn’t emphasise resource attrition. Meanwhile, you can have a relatively simple mechanic that does (like several OSRs).

The most important thing is that the mechanic reflects the interest of the group.