D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Ovinomancer]

In the spirit of illumination (and sorry if you’ve been asked earlier) but what are some of those games and would others here lamenting the sorry state of 5e exploration agree that their rule sets (appropriately adapted) would address the issue?

I’m genuinely curious and the discussion seems to be going in circles.

My very next post covers some.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sort of, My take is that this seems like you want an entire adventure (as opposed to a single challenge) designed solely around exploration...and that may be where alot of the back and forth and confusion is coming from. For me personally something like what you are describing above is an entire adventure and should be built with challenges around all 3 pillars...

Well, I did ask for that earlier, just to see what people come up with.

See, if we can only make exploration interesting with combat, then it isn't an entire pillar of the game by itself. It needs to be able to stand alone. I'm not saying it is best when standing alone, or that I never want to see combat, but that if we looked solely at exploration challenges, with no combat or social elements, we could still make them engaging using the rules in the core game.

And so far... it seems that you can't do that, not without stripping away multiple PC abilities, focusing exclusively on low-level play, and forcing the players on a clock to prevent them from simply taking their time and succeeding anyways.

I mean, can you even challenge a high level party with exploration exclusively? Travel is meaningless to them, disease and food and water are all challenges that are trivial to solve by the time you reach levels 13 and higher. And yet, I can challenge them socially, I can challenge them in combat. I've done it. But exploration seems to not function in the way that allows me to highlight it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

First, the DM doesn't (or shouldn't) cause a Rockslide. The DM determines circumstances (including random chance) that a Rockslide might happen and goes from there.

And so you can't reliably use rockslides as an exploration challenge. If they are even a challenge at all, because bypassing one isn't something I would say is challenging.

But a DM can reliably institute high-level and magical counter-measures to illusion-wearing assassins

But the environment might absolutely be influenced by the fact that magic exists.

By doing what?

I don't mean to keep going in circles, but there are plenty of ways to challenge a group with access to rituals etc. And they don't all involve, throw a monster at them (though, again, I don't really understand your problem with combining pillars; sometimes it's not safe to spend 10 minutes on a ritual because 10 minutes conspicuously out in the open might attract unwanted attention - a plausible and perfectly acceptable consequence).

I don't understand why my desire to have an exploration challenge in a thread about exploration challenges is so difficult for people to understand. Saying "a wandering monster appears" is like asking for an English assignment and getting a math problem. Sure, the math problem might be hard, it might even make sense in the context of the situation, but it isn't an English Problem, which is what I keep asking for.

And every single time, it is just more and more monsters. I pointed out to Iserith that per the rules in the DMG the only reason trekking through a blizzard is a "challenge" is because of the monsters in the blizzard. In a "man vs nature" story, the blizzard would itself be a devastating challenge to overcome, but in DnD it is only dangerous if you are adding monsters to it. This should be seen as a problem, and instead everyone just keeps wondering what I have against combat and combining the pillars to make the game more interesting.

The problem is, one of these pillars seemingly can't stand alone.


But lets take your second example. Unwanted attention from who? Most of the ritual examples have been in the wilderness, so who in the wilderness do you not want to see you that WILL NOT lead to combat?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Edit: Purify food and drink is indeed a ritual. But of the four classes that can cast it (artificers, clerics, druids, paladins), paladins can't cast rituals and the other three can only cast it ritually if they have it prepared. And since you generally only get to prepare spells equal to your spellcasting ability mod + your level, at lower levels especially you might not have the slots to spare.

Just a note, anyone can take the feat Ritual Caster. Humans even at level 1. And then it just costs gold, no spell slots. You also ignored the Tomelock who can take rituals from every list.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Who said that was the only reason in the examples... The party could use rope, torches and so on to not climb blind but it would take longer and require group checks and allow them to be spotted... the child wanders away because she's curious, tempted, charmed, etc. I don't see how you wholly separate your knowledge of what your PC's are capable of from the design of a challenge? Again in a combat challenge I am, through adjusting said encounter based on party level, # in party, CR, etc. creating a challenge appropriate for their abilities... why wouldn't I do the same for the exploration pillar if that is my desired outcome?

EDIT: You do realize everything is contrived, right? And in the realm of adventure fantasy where magic exists I find it weird that nearly anything can't be justified through the narrative without seeming heavy handed.

Part of the issue with the child wandering away is how... really dumb that child has to be. Like.. stupider than most 5 year olds I know.

They know the area is dangerous, because we told them. They know monsters will kill them, because they live in this world. They know the magic circle keeps them safe. So, the only reasonable thing is that they were charmed, through an opague dome that keeps out sound... which is a DM contrivance just to get us to follow the kid out of the dome and into the night.

And then the next night we tie the kid down so they can't do it again.

It isn't "bad" per se, but it really is very heavy handed

 

[Imaro]

See, this frustrates me though, because if we think of exploration as land and travel and discovery... you can't make a lot combats or social encounters harder with these elements. I'm not talking about terrain in combat, because that is a clearly combat effect. Just like Strong winds pretty much are exclusively a combat challenge.

So, turning around and constantly making exploration "challenging" by adding combat seems to hint at something deeper

I don't think this is correct... combat with environmental factors (cold, rain, heat exhaustion, high altitude, etc.) make it harder. Combat in unfamiliar/strange locales (underwater, aerial, magical environments, etc.). Combat while infected with a disease, under the effects of a curse. Mis-information gleaned about an opponent can make a fight harder and so on...

And yeah I'm sorry but the terrain is part of the exploration pillar just as much, if not more that combat, I find it strange that you regard terrain as a combat effect. Terrain literally determines the available modes of movement along with how fast you can move outside of combat.

Well... if it is a climable surface you just climb it, per the rules on 182. If it would be climbable without a check if you could see color, then the worst you've done is make it an athletics check to climb as "a surface with few handholds" and I'm not sure it would even be that difficult of a check. I don't remember exactly where I found it in the DMG, but I think climbing a cliff covered in Ice was a DC 15, so one that just has a few handholds wouldn't be as challenging as that.

Orrrr... It's a climable surface whose DC is set by the DM, not the DMG and as such I can say it's an easy climb during the day if you can clearly see or know the path of handholds... a moderate climb at night under full moonlight and you can clearly see or know the path of handholds... a hard climb if you can't see the marked hand holds and only have moonlight to climb by and very hard if you are climbing totally blind on a moonless night.

In this way darkvision could be an asset if you don't use torches or lanterns and are climbing under moonlight (perhaps you can see gradations of gray where the handholds are marked... it's up to the individual DM) but it doesn't trivialize or auto win this challenge.

But it should work with the baseline rules, not with optional rules. If it doesn't work baseline, that should be a problem.

It does work with baseline rules... optional rules can be used to enhance it as my example showed.

 

[Imaro]

Part of the issue with the child wandering away is how... really dumb that child has to be. Like.. stupider than most 5 year olds I know.

They know the area is dangerous, because we told them. They know monsters will kill them, because they live in this world. They know the magic circle keeps them safe. So, the only reasonable thing is that they were charmed, through an opague dome that keeps out sound... which is a DM contrivance just to get us to follow the kid out of the dome and into the night.

And then the next night we tie the kid down so they can't do it again.

It isn't "bad" per se, but it really is very heavy handed

Yep because it's totally not a trope in adventure fantasy... not at all...

 

[Imaro]

Well, I did ask for that earlier, just to see what people come up with.

See, if we can only make exploration interesting with combat, then it isn't an entire pillar of the game by itself. It needs to be able to stand alone. I'm not saying it is best when standing alone, or that I never want to see combat, but that if we looked solely at exploration challenges, with no combat or social elements, we could still make them engaging using the rules in the core game.

And so far... it seems that you can't do that, not without stripping away multiple PC abilities, focusing exclusively on low-level play, and forcing the players on a clock to prevent them from simply taking their time and succeeding anyways.

I mean, can you even challenge a high level party with exploration exclusively? Travel is meaningless to them, disease and food and water are all challenges that are trivial to solve by the time you reach levels 13 and higher. And yet, I can challenge them socially, I can challenge them in combat. I've done it. But exploration seems to not function in the way that allows me to highlight it.

A high level party should be exploring the planes... and yes that can be a challenge for even them.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure, time pressure isn't a universal tool. It's one tool in your toolbox.

Even if you remove the failure state from the time pressure, you haven't removed the challenge. There's still a challenge in managing the difficulty of attacking the cult. It's not really difficult to inform the players of this. You could have the characters find evidence that the cultists are creating witherlings, or a friendly NPC might simply tell them. Heck, if you don't mind breaking the fourth wall, you can simply tell the players. All depends on your style.

Sure, attacking the cult is still a challenge. But the journey to get there was the point, that was the challenge we were hoping to improve... and much like in the game itself it seems the best answer is to skip it.

Another option for making a journey interesting is survival. Exhaustion, managing resources, etc. Again, depending on your playstyle.

Very much depending on your playstyle, but I've had this conversation dozens of times. And other than water you can carry weeks worth or supplies and tools, with encumbrance limits, and after that you can start some very easy survival rolls. As long as you have a way to reliably fill up on water (water is far heavier than everything else), there is nothing here that is a challenge. And even that is defeated if you have a spare spell slot by the end of the day, or encounter a body of water. We've talked about exhaustion and the various ways the game gives it to come up, but again, water cancels hot weather, winter clothes cancel cold weather, and with no time pressure forced marches are off the table, so exhaustion doesn't come into play.

You guys have listed these rules time and again, but when I turn to actually engaging the rules, you clam up and don't say anything about them, so I don't see how they are of any use.

My favorite form of exploration though are interesting exploration encounters. Like the titan supercomputer encounter I talked about earlier in the thread. That literally changed the entire course of the campaign. If we hadn't found that, and figured it out, the end of the campaign would have been entirely different. I think this kind of exploration suits most styles (apart from maybe something like a hack-and-slash game).

There's really nothing wrong with fast forwarding over the journey and skipping to the adventure site. Although there will probably be some exploration at the site (unless you just skip to combat/social scenes). It all depends on play style.

I'm not in any way suggesting that anyone needs to make exploration a focus of their game. That's a style choice. Not everyone enjoys every type of exploration, and that's important to recognize, IMO. However, that doesn't mean it can't be done, nor does it mean it can't be done well (if you and your group enjoy it).

It shouldn't be so trivial to skip the exploration steps. It shouldn't keep happening that when we dig down, we find that there is nothing but DM fiat holding it together.

 

[Hussar]

Ah, of course: you're allowing rerolls. Another 5e (and 3e, and 4e) flaw.

RPGs are perhaps unique in that the presence and existence within the game of an integral part of said game - roleplaying one's character in character and socially interacting with other inhabitants of the game world (most notably, other PCs!) - does not require the presence of hard-coded mechanics to deal with that part. They're optional, at best.

Yes, I am well aware of this approach to game design and how the OSR holds this up as a feature and not a flaw.

I'm much more of the opinion that it is a flaw in game design. The lack of mechanics causes far more problems at tables than it solves. Again, this is my opinion, and certainly not fact. But, honestly @Lanefan, we are not going to agree on this. I look at game development over the past forty years and come to a very different conclusion than you do. I mean, your first line about rerolls being a flaw pretty much says it all right there. To me, the AD&D approach was always a problem and I saw 3e (and later changes) as being very positive changes and certainly not a flaw.

So, yeah, we do need to be careful to clearly demark WHICH game we're talking about. It would really save on misunderstandings.