D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Chaosmancer]

War vs sport again, only in a larger context than just combat.

If you're going to go out adventuring, you're willingly putting yourself into situations where the game world is out to kill you; and will, if you're unlucky or foolish or pick the wrong challenges to take on. It's not sport, it's war. Thus, survival is goal number one.

And with limited information you end up in one of two scenarios

1) Everything is dangerous, so we take an hour to investigate and test everything we encounter in every way we can to keep as safe as possible. Turtle, turtle turtle.

2) Flip a coin, heads you live, tails you die. You alive? Flip a coin, head you live, tails you die.

And neither one of those is enjoyable for me. And having dealt with a lot of people, both in a RPG context and in a written "Quest" context, who have dealt with this war approach... they don't find it fun either. In fact, it has lead to multiple people thanking me for not pulling various crap things that others have pulled on them.

Damn - I knew I got something wrong there; one of them (the silver rod?) was supposed to be harmful on touch.

Because why not, your goal is to kill the PCs, might as well.

Another example of 5e making things (too) easy on its players/PCs.

No. This is an example of the game giving you a way to make a choice, instead of flipping a coin. The whole reason it has gotten to the point it has is because of BS like this.

Indeed; they're a not-quite-death trap. Not quite death, in that the PC is technically still alive and can still think etc., but not exactly conducive to a continued career in adventuring either.

They are dead. "Well, technically being trapped for eternity and unable to do anything ever isn't dead" doesn't sway me. They are dead, roll up a new character and never wear an item that hasn't been identified ever again.

Seriously, no one should ever experiment by putting something on in your game, unless they are truly fine with it being a coin flip of death. It is utterly pointless.

I've actually had these gems in my game for ages, with a wide variety of powers and abilities, and there's a small body of knowledge built up around them which PCs would be able to learn with a bit of inquiry.

Removing one outright is a Very Bad Idea, and probably can't even be done without violence - i.e. literally prying it out with a crowbar - as it's fused to the wearer's skull. There's a way of replacing one gem with another, at some risk. Dispel Magic, if it manages to knock out the gem's enchantment (low odds at best), is deadly. If the wearer fails a save vs AoE damage, having the gem fail a save vs destruction is Bad (but its saves are pretty good).

These gems are usually very powerful, though; and thus arte high-risk high-reward items.

Then it might be worth the risk. But see, this is the difference between this item and the boots. I can make an informed decision here. I can weigh risks and rewards, I can check with you via this "small body of knowledge" and maybe figure out those DCs.

This is a fine item, once you know the risk vs reward. But if I have no knowledge, I can't make a decision.

The point of the wish ring is that there's no way of learning what it does without wearing it, and as soon as someone puts it on its effect takes place after which it's a bland gold ring.

Just for laughs? I mean, why have an item like that that you can never know what it does? Again, this is removing a player's ability to make a meaningful choice.

Firstly, if I was in your game and had a magic ring I couldn't figure out what it did... I'd never wear it. Trash heap or sell it, because it could be another instant death item. Then, if someone did wear it... it could still be an instant death item, because they say the wrong thing in-character. Poof, guess you shouldn't have said "I wish I could see their face" you didn't know about that secret magic item you were wearing, and now you are all going to die.

And sure, it could be beneficial. But it isn't a choice, it is just random luck.

Deception. Trickery. Chaos. High risk, high reward.

Chaos sure, but why deceive and trick your own players? What do you hope to gain. High risks can lead to high rewards, but not knowing the risks just makes it random chance. And no, I don't mean, "You know you risk dying" I mean actually being able to make a decision based off real information.

It'd be a variant on the old Potion of Delusion, which makes you think it's a real potion but in fact Does Nothing. Here, it just does something different; still beneficial, but not what you're expecting.

See, there are two problems with this.

1) No one would make this item. It is completely nonsensical. There is no single reason to make a potion that is a better healing potion, and disguise it as a giant strength potion. It makes no sense.

2) It is such a waste. Sure, if you drink it hoping to get strength, and you were low on HP, then at least you got something. But if you weren't low on hp, you just wasted a resource to get... nothing. Seriously, this item bothers me more than any other item on your list, because it is just so mean-spirited. It is meant only to deceive the players into wasting it. There is no situation where it makes for an interesting decision or a useful resource, because it can only be wasted. And the only time it can't be wasted... is when if it was just a normal healing potion it would likely have been used anyways, or used to better effect.

It truly makes me wonder why. Why even bother. It seems like the only point is just to force the players into situations where the deck is stacked against them and it is only luck and random chance that they survive. Or, they plan things out to such a degree that nothing can ever go wrong, and they are terrified of everything, because it will go wrong anyways, because even the things they know are potentially lies that will turn around and hurt them. It just makes for such a bleak game.

Ayup. And there's loads of precedent for such items, the Necklace of Strangulation being one such.

Just because there is precedent doesn't mean it is a good idea. Again, with these sort of items being common, you just literally touch as few things as possible, until you've used magic to identify everything, because doing literally anything else is just asking to be killed.

There's a strong element of luck in the game, to be sure; and that's part of the point. If the game wasn't built around luck, it wouldn't use dice.

Yes, the game has a lot of luck involved... and it doesn't need more. We don't need to set things up to have the game even more unpredictable. In fact, I think we need the opposite. We need players to have more information, so they can actually do something by choice, instead of being left to either turtle and distrust everything, or flip a coin to see whether they live or die.

Sometimes there's warning, other times not, depending on the situation.

But even warnings can be misinterpreted. Say the party enters a room; and on the floor of the room is a skeleton, posed as if reaching for a sword* on the floor close by it. Now, was the dying person reaching for the sword because the sword could save her, or did the sword kill her and just happen to fall there when she collapsed?

* - the sword's grip is trapped with a deadly-poison needle.

No. I don't do that. If touching something has a serious risk of death, then I tell the players. Sometimes they touch it anyways, other times they avoid it, but I'm not going to trap random items with deadly-poison and just wait and see if the PCs are dumb enough to pick it up and die.

16 sessions for an adventure is just a bit over par for the course here, a shade longer than average (closer to 10-12 sessions).

And you hit the key part: you had fun. And if thats the case, who cares how long any given adventure or element might take?

I had fun, because the guy was doing a good job, and we were willing to go along with it. It was only like his 2nd or 3rd campaign ever too, so we cut him a lot of slack.

We started to stop having fun towards the end though, and start getting annoyed. And, again, if you have to do that for every bit of travel... then you are going to start getting people more and more annoyed.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Have you considered that you, like many people, may not have the skills or experience to prepare and present engaging exploration challenges for overland travel using the rules available in D&D 5e? These can be developed if you put effort into it.

If the game hasn't given me the tools to make an entire section of the game engaging, and the only way to do so is to use them poorly for non-engaging challenges again and again until I "get better" then the game has a serious problem.

Because most people, when they realize something they are doing isn't working and is in fact not engaging and not fun... quit doing it. They don't keep doing it and hope one day they figure out how to make it fun.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The way you write makes me think you’ll never be happy. A lot of players would kill for a DM that went to the trouble of setting up a magical economy, and gave them 16 sessions of fun levelling up and thousands of gold.

Give your DM the feedback and then put up with it, or find another group if you can do one better. You probably can’t. Now I realize you’re a player complaining about their DM it puts even more into perspective. Maybe set up your own group with you as DM. Then you can run the game however you want. If you can find players willing to play with you. I think you would find it an illuminating process.

Thanks. I've been a DM for the past 9 years. I also play. I've found doing both to be very illuminating indeed. Thanks for the condescension and judgement however, it is good to remind myself that people rarely look at both sides of the issue.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There’s no gas lighting. Make the con check after the symptoms appear to see it go they are bad enough to be debilitating. I start coughing and get a fever. A day later I ask the Pc to roll a con save to see if the symptoms become bad enough to have an effect. Ive never been in combat and I’ve surely caught a fair few diseases over the years so I’m not sure why you think they have to come from injuries. Ive also not met a player yet who was comfortable being debilitated by anything, let alone a disease.

Because the only diseases I can think of from the books are gained from combat. There might be one that isn't.

But, you've homebrewed a disease then, which means you've had to reach beyond the rules we are given. And, just randomly getting a disease from somewhere doesn't make it a challenge. Again, with no decision points there is no challenge, just coin flips.

 

[iserith]

If the game hasn't given me the tools to make an entire section of the game engaging, and the only way to do so is to use them poorly for non-engaging challenges again and again until I "get better" then the game has a serious problem.

Because most people, when they realize something they are doing isn't working and is in fact not engaging and not fun... quit doing it. They don't keep doing it and hope one day they figure out how to make it fun.

I base my games on what the rules tell me to do. The tools are there and I prepare and present accordingly. I doubt anyone would say my games aren't engaging.

But obviously, if something doesn't work perfectly right away, you should give up immediately. It's like the old saying goes, "If at first you don't succeed, give up and blame everyone and everything but yourself."

 

[Yora]

As a rule of thumb, when a thread turns into long posts replying to individual sentences, it's no longer about sharing ideas and learning something, but about winning.

 

[TheSword]

Because the only diseases I can think of from the books are gained from combat. There might be one that isn't.

But, you've homebrewed a disease then, which means you've had to reach beyond the rules we are given. And, just randomly getting a disease from somewhere doesn't make it a challenge. Again, with no decision points there is no challenge, just coin flips.

DMG pg 256 “The diseases here illustrate the variety of ways disease can work in the game. Feel free to alter the saving throw DCs, incubation times, symptoms, and other Characteristicsof these diseases to suit your campaign.”

Most diseases are home brewed there are only 3 in the book. If PCs are being blasé about diseases then have them start to spread to other people around them. See how blasé they are then.

Who said anything about random? The disease is there because the DM has determined its there. Mosquito bites, parasites in food, or from contact, airborne diseases. Lots of fun to be had with the blessings of papa Nurgle.

I run it that you start to get symptoms and then the disease saving throw happens. I have a similar rule with stealth checks that when scouting you roll the stealth check when you come into contact with something not when you first decide to sneak…. Cause rolling first can change your behavior when in truth you wouldn’t know if you were hiding well or not.

A bit like when a ghoul strikes you, your muscles start to lock up then you make a save to shake it off. Or someone tries to dominate you, you hear their voice forcing you to act then you fight off the compulsion.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Have you considered that you, like many people, may not have the skills or experience to prepare and present engaging exploration challenges for overland travel using the rules available in D&D 5e? These can be developed if you put effort into it.

Could you tell me what those skills and experiences are?

Should I go camping?
Play GeoGuesser?
Watch The Travel Channel?

 

[iserith]

Could you tell me what those skills and experiences are?

Should I go camping?
Play GeoGuesser?
Watch The Travel Channel?

Read the DMG. Prep the game. Run the game. Continue with what was fun. Adjust what was not. Repeat.

 

[Hussar]

What on earth are you talking about Hussar. It was claimed that a ranger 100% reaches their destination inevitably. I merely said that there are lots of things that might stop that being ineveitable. You’re making this very DM adversarial.

You say that these things that stop the ranger are inevitable. And I'm the one making the DM adversarial? There is absolutely nothing "inevitable" about washing out the bridge. And, when it only happens when the group has a ranger and it happens every time (being inevitable and all that) then, yup, that's the DM railroading the group to protect his precious adventure.