Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Libramarian" data-source="post: 7163966" data-attributes="member: 6688858">Hm, yes OK. It can be fun, depends how it's handled. But I still think&nbsp; this kind of thing should 'compete' for adventure space within the&nbsp; combat pillar. If someone were writing an adventure with a guide of&nbsp; equal parts all three pillars, they shouldn't think &quot;OK need more&nbsp; exploration, better make the PCs climb a cliff&quot;. They should think&nbsp; &quot;what's more fun, climbing this cliff with climb checks or a demon who&nbsp; will fly the PCs to the top if they defeat it in combat&quot;, in which case I&nbsp; think the answer is usually obvious.I think you tend to do a bit too much telegraphing.I think I agree. My thinking now is that exploration happens when it's not immediately apparent what the PCs' goal is. When the PCs are dealing with a known unknown, it's an encounter. When they're dealing with an unknown unknown, they're exploring. Exploring is interpreting signs, gathering intel, reconnaissance, feeling things out.So mapping a huge megadungeon with more content than the PCs are ever expected to see is exploring. But clearing a small lair dungeon is not.Talking with an NPC you're not sure is a friend or foe is exploring. Convincing an NPC to do something you need done is not.Climbing a cliff or swimming across a river when you know what's on the other side and just need to get there is not exploring.Exploration is an essential aspect of D&amp;D I think, but you have to be careful it's actual exploration not just an encounter with the same scenery or transcript as typical exploration. That is to say the players should be exploring, not just the characters.Greed I can somewhat understand, but I don't see how XP for treasure contributes to an atmosphere of paranoia.I think the main criticism of treasure XP back in the day was simply&nbsp; that it didn't &quot;make sense&quot; that acquiring treasure would make you a&nbsp; better fight/thief/spellcaster, which just reflects ignorance of the&nbsp; value of metagame currency in games. It's unfortunate this criticism was&nbsp; not ignored.I think that's a really good point. To support exploration, the primary&nbsp; source of XP should be not just gated or guarded, but hidden in some&nbsp; way.If most XP comes from killing monsters, monsters should be rare and hard&nbsp;&nbsp; to find. The default D&amp;D setting of course is nothing like that.&nbsp;&nbsp; The PCs mostly defend themselves from monsters hunting them, rather than&nbsp;&nbsp; the other way around, so awarding XP for that feels perfunctory.&nbsp; Milestone levelling has the same problem but its less busywork so people&nbsp; prefer it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Libramarian, post: 7163966, member: 6688858"] Hm, yes OK. It can be fun, depends how it's handled. But I still think this kind of thing should 'compete' for adventure space within the combat pillar. If someone were writing an adventure with a guide of equal parts all three pillars, they shouldn't think "OK need more exploration, better make the PCs climb a cliff". They should think "what's more fun, climbing this cliff with climb checks or a demon who will fly the PCs to the top if they defeat it in combat", in which case I think the answer is usually obvious. I think you tend to do a bit too much telegraphing. I think I agree. My thinking now is that exploration happens when it's not immediately apparent what the PCs' goal is. When the PCs are dealing with a known unknown, it's an encounter. When they're dealing with an unknown unknown, they're exploring. Exploring is interpreting signs, gathering intel, reconnaissance, feeling things out. So mapping a huge megadungeon with more content than the PCs are ever expected to see is exploring. But clearing a small lair dungeon is not. Talking with an NPC you're not sure is a friend or foe is exploring. Convincing an NPC to do something you need done is not. Climbing a cliff or swimming across a river when you know what's on the other side and just need to get there is not exploring. Exploration is an essential aspect of D&D I think, but you have to be careful it's actual exploration not just an encounter with the same scenery or transcript as typical exploration. That is to say the players should be exploring, not just the characters. Greed I can somewhat understand, but I don't see how XP for treasure contributes to an atmosphere of paranoia. I think the main criticism of treasure XP back in the day was simply that it didn't "make sense" that acquiring treasure would make you a better fight/thief/spellcaster, which just reflects ignorance of the value of metagame currency in games. It's unfortunate this criticism was not ignored. I think that's a really good point. To support exploration, the primary source of XP should be not just gated or guarded, but hidden in some way. If most XP comes from killing monsters, monsters should be rare and hard to find. The default D&D setting of course is nothing like that. The PCs mostly defend themselves from monsters hunting them, rather than the other way around, so awarding XP for that feels perfunctory. Milestone levelling has the same problem but its less busywork so people prefer it. [/QUOTE]

Verification