D&D General Let's Talk About How to "Fix" D&D

[Asisreo]

I don't think it is particularly helpful for discussion to redefine terms that we should generally agree on (with some possible fuzzy edges). Calling an attack roll part of "exploration" (just to pick an example) muddies the discussion.

Its a clarification, not a redefinition. Exploration, as described in the PHB, "is the give-and-take of the players describing what they want their characters to do, and the Dungeon Master telling the players the result of what happened."

They even give an example of pulling a lever to see what it does, which just so happens to also be described as part of an interaction in combat.

Using the wrong definition of words is what fuzzies the discussion and the misuse of exploration is what prompted me to ask the question. Because I agree that Survival could use better rules from a simulationist point of view, but I disagree that Exploration needs any sort of complications within the rules.

 

[Lanefan]

I would say that the pillars of play in 5e are action, move action, bonus action, and reaction.

You forgot the fifth one - inaction - which happens when the player's had one too many beers and has passed out at the table.

 

[Lanefan]

Im glad its not considered as necessary as it once was. In the early years of playing it was a given that someone would be mapping, These days, I find it to time consuming and distracting from the game at hand versus its benefits. As the DM I generally work off the premise that the characters are mapping, marking the ground theyve covered and taking pains to ensure they dont get lost. If there are extenuating circumstances, or the situation significantly changes I will call for an ability or skill check to see if they get lost. Or if the story is better served and I want them to get lost, I will just tell them that they have become lost. This works for us and I cant even remeber the last time I had anyone mapping at the table.

If the dungeon is linear enough that the party couldn't get lost if they tried, not mapping is fine. But if the players don't bother to map I take that to mean the characters aren't bothering to map either, and in some dungeons (S1 Lost Caverns, anyone?) getting lost would be almost automatic without a map; and in other cases only with a map can one see how things link up and-or notice missing "gaps" where a secret chamber might be - or not.

 

[Lanefan]

When you say "I move closer to my enemy." You are exploring. You've stated your intended action and the DM described the result. That's the core of exploration. Likewise, "I attack," is an exploration declaration. Spells are even moreso exploration because their various effects can definitely change the environment around you and help you discover more.

Er...wha...?

Exploration is the act of looking for and-or finding something - usually a physical thing or place - you hadn't seen or didn't know about before*. There's pretty much no exploration involved in combat, and little if any involved in social interaction. (sure, in social settings you can say you're "exploring someone's mindset" or similar; or in certain character development scenes you can say you're "exploring your (own) character, but those aren;t really what the game tags as 'exploration' and thus irrelevant here)

But also, exploration is when you open doors. Its asking the DM if you spot any traps or if you can send your familiar to scout.

* - like this.

 

[Asisreo]

Er...wha...?

Exploration is the act of looking for and-or finding something - usually a physical thing or place - you hadn't seen or didn't know about before*. There's pretty much no exploration involved in combat, and little if any involved in social interaction. (sure, in social settings you can say you're "exploring someone's mindset" or similar; or in certain character development scenes you can say you're "exploring your (own) character, but those aren;t really what the game tags as 'exploration' and thus irrelevant here)

I want to make clear that what the game tags as exploration isn't the same as what we would tag as exploration. And that the dynamic between the pillars are not exclusive but are often, and usually, cooperative to one another.

When a player says "I attack," they have no clue what the result will be. A hit or a miss, sure, but also how the enemy will respond. Will the attack be deflected because of immunity? Will the enemy have a reaction to bail them out? Will the enemy flee? Will they surrender? Or will they fall?

As a player, when you take an action, you're hoping for a positive result due to that action. But you don't necessarily know what will happen next (unless the DM informs you beforehand).

Attacking a scared goblin and it fighting back means goblins in this situation are likely to fight when cornered. Meanwhile, attacking a scared kobold and it fleeing below 4hp means kobolds are likely to flee or surrender. As such, you're learning about the world via combat. You're exploring your enemies and you may leverage that into advantageous positions.

The DM can easily undermine that, and undermine them they have, often enough. When a DM doesn't take into account a creature's personality, the player has nothing more to explore. That creature becomes a puppet rather than a character. Or a training dummy.

Well, all that being said. Its not that simply saying you attack means you're meaningfully exploring, but it doesn't mean you're not. It depends entirely on the situation.
-----------

I don't want it to sound like I'm trying to shift goalposts or whatever, but I want an unbiased approach to helping someone that struggles integrating their fantasy into one of my favorite TTRPG systems. To do that, its better to firmly categorize our ideas without a floating, undefined but supposedly understood definition. Especially when there's an actual definition inside the PHB that we can use.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[R_J_K75]

If the dungeon is linear enough that the party couldn't get lost if they tried, not mapping is fine. But if the players don't bother to map I take that to mean the characters aren't bothering to map either, and in some dungeons (S1 Lost Caverns, anyone?) getting lost would be almost automatic without a map; and in other cases only with a map can one see how things link up and-or notice missing "gaps" where a secret chamber might be - or not.

You make some good points that I had long forgot and just taken for granted. Our game has long since removed things the we consider extraneous just because we dont play for more than 3-4 hours tops every other week, and lately its not even that. Next time were in a smaller dungeon I might make the players map and see if it adds anything or turns into a messy TPK.

 

[TheSword]

The reason we don’t map at the table is that 99.5% of the time it’s irrelevant, and it takes up valuable time with geometric descriptions of rooms. As if the most important thing about a room is the distance between the east wall and the door in the 37 degree acute angle wall extends at 15 feet past. In fact just writing that drags up horrible memories of wasted time and dodgy inaccurate maps.

Players mapping arose for people when the game looked like this...

It’s not so helpful when it looks like this...

I don't expect players to write down the name and description of every NPC or location either, just because in real terms a month has passed since the last session in game terms it was four hours and characters should be allowed to remember. The same goes for finding their way through the door they walked through two hours before.

This seems to be part of a particular school of DMing that tries to punish players for not possessing information their characters would have. As an aside I also don’t expect my players to be able to read elvish script or be able to use a set of lock picks.

 

[R_J_K75]

This seems to be part of a particular school of DMing that tries to punish players for not possessing information their characters would have. As an aside I also don’t expect my players to be able to read elvish script or be able to use a set of lock picks.

From when I started playing through the end of 2E our games were like that, made people write down every bit of information, every piece of equipment and where it was stored, what color hair the gnome cobbler had 5 towns passed, etc. In some cases it did add to the game in specific instances, but for the most part it was just ridiculous and really did punish the players and DM alike. Its really funny how far my groups game has swung in the other direction. 99% of the time I give the players the benefit of the doubt and assume theyve properly informed and equipped themselves for the task at hand. The fun comes in during a roleplaying encounter and they call the king by the wrong name or something similar. Only problem Ive had as a DM is finding the balance between assuming too much and actively making the players do book keeping so the game isnt too easy, which Ive yet to find completely.

 

[TheSword]

From when I started playing through the end of 2E our games were like that, made people write down every bit of information, every piece of equipment and where it was stored, what color hair the gnome cobbler had 5 towns passed, etc. In some cases it did add to the game in specific instances, but for the most part it was just ridiculous and really did punish the players and DM alike. Its really funny how far my groups game has swung in the other direction. 99% of the time I give the players the benefit of the doubt and assume theyve properly informed and equipped themselves for the task at hand. The fun comes in during a roleplaying encounter and they call the king by the wrong name or something similar. Only problem Ive had as a DM is finding the balance between assuming too much and actively making the players do book keeping so the game isnt too easy, which Ive yet to find completely.

I think erring on giving the players the benefit of the doubt, definitely increases player enjoyment.

Giving the player disadvantage on their persuasion check because my made up fantasy name wasn’t pronounced with the right number of L’s definitely doesn’t up the fun factor. After all... Forgotten Realms names?!... the best thing we can do to fix D&D is through out FR’s ridiculous naming conventions.

 

[R_J_K75]

After all... Forgotten Realms names?!... the best thing we can do to fix D&D is through out FR’s ridiculous naming conventions.

I think the FR naming conventions were fine early on, but as the years go on there have been so many writers that its gotten pretty varied and out of hand. The problem I have with any new campaign setting is learning the names and geography. Im currently reading the Midnight CS and compared to when I read the FR setting years ago FR seems rather tame name wise. Then again my attention span and memory while reading isnt what it once was.