D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[FrozenNorth]

I have been mulling about whether the whole idea of three pillars (i.e., combat, exploration, and social) is even the best way to think about the game. Because it seems to me like it would almost be better to think of the game in terms of phases or units of focus: e.g., encounters, journeys, downtime, etc. An encounter could have social or exploration aspects, but it could also break down into combat. A dungeon room with a trap could be an "encounter," which itself leads to potentially another "encounter," which may involve NPCs (i.e., social or combat). I'm just not sure that this whole "three pillars of the game" is really all that helpful of a divide.

I completely agree with this and have been thinking along the same lines.

The pillars don’t seem to be named in a thematic way, and I think that is causing some of the disagreement on this thread. It seems weird to me that finding out information about the Sultan before our diplomatic meeting would be considered an exploration activity rather than part of the social pillar.

In this vein, while the social pillar and the combat pillar tend to regroup elements that are pretty similar between them, the exploration pillar (as defined in the DMG) seems to include wildly disparate elements whose only commonality is “not being part of the other two pillars”. For example, travel montages, puzzle encounters, world-building, downtime activities, and non-combat wilderness encounters.

As @Aldarc notes, this obscures the fact that many of the best encounters contain elements from more than one pillar, such as a combat encounter with an environment you can affect or lower level monsters you can intimidate.

 

[Hussar]

Really? A PC with an assuredly high charisma and likely expertise in the relevant social skill is no better at social challenges than anyone else? OK then.

Sigh, that's not even remotely what's being discussed. Yes, the PC will be better. But, at no point does having a bard in a social encounter bypass that encounter. The bard still has to interact with the NPC, and, even with a high persuasion check, all he's done is make the NPC more willing to listen. Successful persuasion checks do not compel the NPC in any way.

But I thought spells were trivial resources that could always be applied to minimize the exploration pillar, which is it?

Again, if you're not going to bother reading the thread or try to understand what's being talked about, why are you responding to me? RITUAL SPELLS AND CANTRIPS are trivial resources that could always be applied. I cannot make this any clearer.

You said this doesn't happen in the combat pillar. I pointed to examples (including specifics) where it does/can.

Do it with a ritual or a cantrip and then we'll talk.

So a totem barbarian from the PHB is now breaking the system (and somehow not straight out of the box)?

And you've been shown how your Ranger example doesn't actually break the system either.

I've been shown nothing of the sort. The ranger means I never get lost. The casters mean that not only do I never get lost, but, I'm never hungry, never have an encounter while resting and never suffer any environmental effects. Why are you insisting that the ranger is alone?

 

[Nefermandias]

No, I remember asking about the rules for finding secret doors, getting two, MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE and CONTRADICTORY answers, that apparently aren't a problem at all. You've still not clarified how mutually exclusive answers are not actually contradictory.

Having multiple options to deal with the same situation is not a problem at all. In fact, secret doors aren't nearly the sole example of that.
We have two ways to deal with encumbrance and heavy armor, three ways to deal with character advancement, three ways to deal with overland travel... I don't see the problem here?

 

[Hussar]

I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but I've seen you dismiss many things as not challenges or challenges in other pillars. Could you perhaps tell us how you define a "challenge" and perhaps give an example or two of exploration challenges... even if from other games?

I'm not @Chaosmancer, but, I'll take a stab here. Hopefully this will move things out of the rut of endlessly kvetching about whether or not there is an issue at all, because, frankly, I'm really tired of that conversation.

A challenge, in any pillar, requires the following:

1. Actual consequences. If something has no consequences, then it isn't a challenge. A locked box is not, in itself, a challenge. There is zero chance of failing to open that box, presuming you can actually do it of course. The only resource used is time, and that's, by and large, not much of an issue. For example, opening a locked box in a dungeon after you've dispatched the inhabitants isn't a challenge. There is no fail condition. Needing to open that box, right now, is probably a challenge.

2. Choices. Real choices. As in, the person choosing actually has enough information to make an informed decision. A T junction in a dungeon with no information about what is in either direction is not a challenge. It's a coin flip and, from the perspective of the players, it makes zero difference which way they go. Now, earlier was mentioned that you could take the safe route which took more time, or the more dangerous route - that's at least a choice. Not really a challenge since it's just pick A or B, but, at least it's a start.

3. Engagement of the mechanics of the game. Freeform doesn't count. The reason I don't count freeform stuff is that it is 100% DM dependent and isn't actually part of the game. Earlier was mentioned pushing someone down the stairs as part of combat. Fair enough, there are a number of mechanics - pushing, falling damage - to use to determine success or failure. It's not a case of "Do I convince my DM that I succeed?" which, to me, isn't part of the game. It might be fun, I'm not commenting on that. I'm simply stating that as soon as you are free forming results, then, you're no longer in a game defined challenge.

So, to give exploration challenges: Sure, finding that secret door. Scouting. Environmental hazards. These are all exploration challenges. Again, I don't think anyone is claiming that the challenges aren't there. There are challenges there. It's just that the challenges become trivial or easily ignored with little to no cost to the group. @Lanefan pointed to a couple of prime suspects - Leomund's Hut, Darkvision. Both are easily had in the game, and both have incredibly large impacts on exploration.

 

[Norton]

It has become abundantly clear that the people here advocating for the non-existence of the exploration pillar are in fact, the DM's who cannot have their perfect plots ruined by random chance.

Since things like weather tables, random encounters, navigation and the player's choices of what supplies to bring along introduces a whole new layer of uncertainty, these people tend to dislike the pillar. Especially overland travel, which seems to be what they are focusing the most with their attacks.

I feel seen more than attacked, as to this I must say "guilty as charged" – but mostly with VTTs.

I've found that I need far more control over proceedings if I need to pre-load maps and have tokens at the ready. Random tables are for things like treasure, fumbles, hunting, and wild magic. At most while traveling or cutting loose in an area that's not a dungeon/castle, etc. you're going to get a binary choice and if there's weather, it's either to stop you for an encounter I already have loaded or simply to add atmosphere and mood.

I wish it weren't the case and I'm certainly not advocating for eliminating exploration, but if I'm running 10 hours of D&D/week online I need to do some detailed storytelling (far from perfect, sadly) or it's going to be double that while we both enjoy random exploration with increased agency and partake in the visual "video game" experience we've become accustomed to.

All this is probably to say "I miss the table". Stupid pandemic.

 

[Hussar]

Having multiple options to deal with the same situation is not a problem at all. In fact, secret doors aren't nearly the sole example of that.
We have two ways to deal with encumbrance and heavy armor, three ways to deal with character advancement, three ways to deal with overland travel... I don't see the problem here?

What three ways are there to deal with character advancement? And, I'm sorry, but, I don't know the two ways to deal with encumberance. I'm not being difficult here, I just honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

But, again, this line of questioning is so pointless. The whole POINT of the discussion, if people actually want to surf back was I was being told that 5e had concrete, clear, easily understood rules for exploration. That everything you could typically do in the Exploration pillar was rock solid with concrete mechanics. That's when I brought up searching for a secret door.

Having multiple mechanics is fine. But, the point that was being made, was that exploration rules were easy to find, clear, and concrete. The two, side by side answers to, "How do I find a secret door" referenced two different books, and two completely different rules. Which kinda says to me that the rules are not quite as clear cut as was being presented.

 

[Nefermandias]

I think the exploration pillar is woefully underserved and exploration abilities negate rather than accentuate what is there. I am also very much not a storyteller GM. In fact, my largest current hurdle with D&D is the fact that I have to provide so much as GM. I don't think your argument holds as a generality. It may be true for specific GMs.

I was specifically referring to the whole "princess are going to be sacrificed but exploration is bad because the party will either arrive with plenty of time to save her or fail to arrive on time and she dies and I would rather have them arrive dramatically in the nick of time because it's better for the narrative" thing.
In other words, the jab was directed at @Chaosmancer.

 

[Mort]

Sigh, that's not even remotely what's being discussed. Yes, the PC will be better. But, at no point does having a bard in a social encounter bypass that encounter. The bard still has to interact with the NPC, and, even with a high persuasion check, all he's done is make the NPC more willing to listen. Successful persuasion checks do not compel the NPC in any way.

I was responding to your specific claim that a standard bard will be no better in social encounters than anyone else.

... A bog standard bard with no feats isn't particularly any better at social encounters than anyone else.

Again, if you're not going to bother reading the thread or try to understand what's being talked about, why are you responding to me? RITUAL SPELLS AND CANTRIPS are trivial resources that could always be applied. I cannot make this any clearer.

But that's the point, they don't trivialize exploration, they make some parts of exploration easier. I notice you never responded to my point that water breathing in no way trivializes underwater exploration. And sure, there's tiny hut but even that just facilitates a rest.

Do it with a ritual or a cantrip and then we'll talk.

Just like there are no rituals or cantrips that eliminate exploration. Aid sure, and one (the oft mentioned tiny hut) can be problematic but that's about it.

I've been shown nothing of the sort. The ranger means I never get lost.

And? You still have to encounter the environment, it helps it doesn't eliminate the pillar.

The casters mean that not only do I never get lost, but, I'm never hungry,

Only if you blow resources

never have an encounter while resting

But as soon as the rest is done, they can be waiting for you. Though again, Tiny Hut can be problematic.

and never suffer any environmental effects.

If you expend resources, sure.

Why are you insisting that the ranger is alone?

I'm not. I'm just insisting it's not nearly the problem you're insisting.

 

[Nefermandias]

I think the exploration pillar is woefully underserved and exploration abilities negate rather than accentuate what is there. I am also very much not a storyteller GM. In fact, my largest current hurdle with D&D is the fact that I have to provide so much as GM. I don't think your argument holds as a generality. It may be true for specific GMs.

Just to be clear, I do agree with you on this one. Exploration would be a lot better if we had a bit more crunch to it. It is indeed, underserved as you put it. And yes, the challenge bypassing abilities are badly designed too imo.

 

[Umbran]

It has become abundantly clear that the people here advocating for the non-existence of the exploration pillar are in fact, the DM's who cannot have their perfect plots ruined by random chance.

Mod Note:
So, having painted with a broad brush and dismissed the whole lot... you don't really have much more use for the thread, do you? I mean, what more is there for you to say? You've created a nice little pigeonhole for anyone with criticism or different ideas, neatly making it so you don't have to actually acknowledge that anyone who disagrees with you might have a point. Anyone with a counterpoint? Into the pigeonhole with you! Very tidy.

But not actually conducive to further discussion.

It is, however, conducive to argument, as you've likely cheesed off a number of people, and now you get to treat that as if that is a personal fault on their part, rather than a sort of trollish rhetorical judo redirecting discussion away from issues of the game, and to your rather insulting classification.

This puts you on very thin ice. You've almost earned yourself a ticket out of the thread with this. Let us hope that, should anyone complain about your broad brush treatment, that you actually have constructive, helpful, and kind words for them. Because more of this condescension will not end well for you.