D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[iserith]

I will say this, experiencing truly bad DMing first hand is a great motivator to improve your own DMing.

Among my regulars, we call this "rage-spiration." If ever you are feeling bereft of motivation to prep your own game, join a pickup game - which is almost sure to be not stellar - and then use the annoyance of the play experience to fuel your preparation! It really works.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Questions that imply action should be stated as action in my view because the DM can't establish what the characters are doing. That is the players' role only.

It is a play style and preference issue. I find it easier to just talk how comes naturally to everyone and the GM can always ask questions too if it is important. But I just increasingly lean more towards conversational play

 

[iserith]

It is a play style and preference issue. I find it easier to just talk how comes naturally to everyone and the GM can always ask questions too if it is important. But I just increasingly lean more towards conversational play

I mean, sure, my games are a conversation too. But I take very seriously the role of the player to control their own characters. I will not assume their character does a thing until they say so. If their question cannot be answered except through action, I'll ask them to tell me what they actually do to get the information. This is exploration in my view, particularly as the game defines it as "the adventurers' movement through the world and their interaction with objects and situations that require their attention." I can't generally tell a player that their character moves or interacts with something unless they explicitly tell me so. When they do tell me and I resolve that, we're engaged in an element of the exploration pillar.

 

[robus]

When they do tell me and I resolve that, we're engaged in an element of the exploration pillar.

This also exposes their character to the world and possible traps, perception opportunities etc etc. All of which makes the exploration actions much more visceral.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As for part of the game, of course exposition and description are part of the game. They are key aspects of having a shared fiction in which to play. We're talking about what constitutes the exploration pillar, though, not what is an isn't part of the game. Let's not drift into a strawman of my position, here.

Apologies. That wasn't my intention. I misunderstood the meaning of your post

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, sure, my games are a conversation too. But I take very seriously the role of the player to control their own characters. I will not assume their character does a thing until they say so. If their question cannot be answered except through action, I'll ask them to tell me what they actually do to get the information. This is exploration in my view, particularly as the game defines it as "the adventurers' movement through the world and their interaction with objects and situations that require their attention." I can't generally tell a player that their character moves or interacts with something unless they explicitly tell me so. When they do tell me and I resolve that, we're engaged in an element of the exploration pillar.

I do respect that. I used to be very particular about this division myself. Over time, I've just grown more loose and conversational. But to be clear in this case, if a player said to me "Is there anything beyond the tree", all I would do is give them the information about what is beyond the tree because I am assuming they directing their character's attention there (maybe it is just because my players wouldn't ask for out of character knowledge so it is a pretty logical conclusion to reach). I wouldn't, however, say something like 'you peer behind the tree and see'. I am just loosely assuming something that is a safe bet. Now if for whatever reason this is a problem and the player feels the need to say "I wasn't looking beyond the tree, I was just asking you the GM if there was anything beyond the tree" I'd cross that bridge when I came to it, but haven't had that problem yet.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This also exposes their character to the world and possible traps, perception opportunities etc etc. All of which makes the exploration actions much more visceral.

I am not going to assume movement unless they heavily imply it, and then I'd probably ask for clarification. And while looking somewhere is generally safe, if it were a situation like there were people there who might grow violent if they knew they were looking beyond the tree, I'd ask for clarification before assuming something that might lead to consequences. Generally my approach is to keep everything very conversational with the players asking questions but with me also freely asking things as well so I understand how the players are doing things. I generally take an approach that emphasizes immersion in the environment and in the setting but I also like fluid and casual conversation stye as the core of the game.

 

[Fenris-77]

Anyone who says "I wasn't looking behind the tree, just asking you as the GM if there was anything there" is missing something key about the way RPGs work. You don't get to know what's there unless you look. It's not complicated. Now, that said, there are lots of cases where implied movement can be a stumbling block to understanding, just maybe [not] an example as basic as this.

 

[J.Quondam]

Yeah, it's situational, within commonsense. For searching a room, yes, I'd get specific actions from PCs to answer their questions, because the consequences are pretty clear (eg, they do or do not find the secret room, fall into the pit, trip the alarm, or whatever).

But if they climb atop a hill to get a look at the surroundings, they typically just see what they see under the circumstance, no need to specify turning their necks or looking at their map or whatever. It's fine to assume they're looking in all directions and getting their bearings once up there. If something specific comes up and it matters ("What kind of birds are those circling that hill?"), then prompt for more info ("How can you tell?" "We've got a spyglass." "Okay, then...").

Making sure a player is master of their PC's every action is important, but I never want to stray past that into pixel-b##ch territory. (Been there, done that.)

 

[Fenris-77]

A place where complications tend to crop up is "we climb the hill to see what we can see" and the answer is "a war party of giants bent on destruction" at which point there's often a discussion about "well, we were being careful, not highlighting ourselves against the crest of the hill etc etc" to which I'm mostly pretty accommodating unless I've hinted at nearby badness and the PCs ignored me, at which point they can take their medicine like adults.