D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Scott Christian]

Good point; and after the first two or three rooms all being the same the players will most likely come up with some sort of quickie SOP for any further rooms that are similar. Frequent occurrence, too: many castles or dungeons or abbeys or such would have lots of small rooms for staff (or monks, in an abbey) and checking all those out can get tedious.

The concern is that if the DM batches and skips over those similar rooms too quickly she risks either a) telegraphing that there's nothing there or b) not giving the players a reasonable chance to find what is there e.g. the fourth room on the left has a secret door in the back wall leading to a passage...

Ten sessions is about our long-term average for a typical dungeon or adventure; slightly lower at low level and slightly higher at high.

I understand that missing something could be a concern. But in my experience, it never should be. Storytellers, for that is what DM's are, need to highlight, emphasize, foreshadow or imply the difference so players can know. The same way authors or directors choose to highlight a setting. In a scary movie, they use camera angles to make sure that creepy doll is in the frame. In action movies they make sure the protagonist sees the keys dangling from the guard's belt. In a comedy the bigger punchlines are often set up very early on in the movie and then repeated. I see DM's needing to do the same. Thus, any player paying attention (and sometimes even ones that are not) can and will see the difference - thus moving the game forward.

Personally speaking, I cannot stand it when a movie/book/game does not move the story forward. Side quest - sure. They are fun. They are better if they tie into the story or character arc. But just to have randomness to show the world is real is a waste of time. Any good storyteller can do that while also moving the story forward. So (sorry for the long-winded approach) if a DM is concerned about the batching, they can still batch, but need to highlight or emphasize the difference. It will not ruin the exploration pillar, it only makes it more noticeable. You secret door could sound like:
DM: The first three rooms you investigate are guard barracks. They smell like barracks too: sweat, old underwear and stale air. You uncover little more than some personal items, guard clothes and guard equipment.
DM: The fourth room you enter is the same exact setup. But for some reason the air here does not smell. It's as though fresh air has been brought in.

This might be called telegraphing in your definition. But, in my experience (which may differ from others), I find the players appreciate this more than spending fifteen minutes on each room, making up a bunch of stuff like one guard's erotic story stash or another's emotional love letters, and then simply waiting for the players to say: "We search for secret doors" in every room they enter. Then me asking for a roll, describing the walls, etc.

As for ten sessions for a dungeon, I am sorry, I just couldn't. Let me rephrase that please: I couldn't unless the dungeon was full of story and lore and interactive NPC's. If it's a crawl, why spend so much time away from the actual story? I get that it might involve the story arc (escape from the Underdark example.) But couldn't it be accomplished in one or two sessions as opposed to ten? That's just my playstyle though. I appreciate and have had fun doing a ten session dungeon set once, but I am not sure I'd do it again.

 

[Scott Christian]

Invite players you want to game with that fit your style. Exactly.

Like exploration: invite friends who like exploring things.
Like story-telling; invite friends who like telling stories.
etc.

I am not sure the two are mutually exclusive. And to be fair, not everyone has a plethora of players to choose from, so it makes sense to tailor the game to the players one has.

 

[Haffrung]

The Indiana Jones example is a good one. Watch the opening act of the movie. Everything Jones does up until he runs through the dart trap is in exploration mode. Exploring the landscape, examining the map, examining the poisoned darts and identifying them, finding and identifying the shrine, venturing into and exploring the shrine, finding and identifying the dead rival, finding and examining the treasure room, sneaking up and taking the idol... all exploration.

And what's the function of all of those scenes - of the movie up until when the darts start flying? To convey atmosphere, suspense, and character. If exploration is underused in D&D, it's because it seems difficult for a lot of DMs to convey atmosphere and suspense around a table just using words. To foster immersion in a fantastic world.

I'm not sure why this seems to be getting harder. Video becoming more deeply embedded in our psyches? I know my own early memories of D&D are memories of deep immersion in the game fiction. I remember the in-game settings and scenes of those games just as vividly as I remember the scenes from movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark.

 

[Retreater]

@Haffrung the difference between exploration in Indiana Jones and D&D is that in the movie every trap is potentially life ending, from the spears that impale his untrustworthy guide to the rolling boulder chase. They're over in a matter of a few thrilling seconds.
In D&D, he would be poking every 5ft step in his University classroom looking for a pit trap that would (in his universe), cause him to rip his pants (or like, 5 points of damage to a D&D character).
But keeping with the D&D/Indiana Jones analogy, most DMs love to play out the "dotted lines" on the map. But even before the meaningless travel, they role-play out Dr Jones hiring an airplane to fly to Nepal.
I'm not saying don't have exciting traps in a dungeon. I'm not saying don't have the scene where the government agents come to ask about the Ark.
I'm saying simply to skip the crap the movie skips.

 

[Hussar]

@Haffrung the difference between exploration in Indiana Jones and D&D is that in the movie every trap is potentially life ending, from the spears that impale his untrustworthy guide to the rolling boulder chase. They're over in a matter of a few thrilling seconds.
In D&D, he would be poking every 5ft step in his University classroom looking for a pit trap that would (in his universe), cause him to rip his pants (or like, 5 points of damage to a D&D character).
But keeping with the D&D/Indiana Jones analogy, most DMs love to play out the "dotted lines" on the map. But even before the meaningless travel, they role-play out Dr Jones hiring an airplane to fly to Nepal.
I'm not saying don't have exciting traps in a dungeon. I'm not saying don't have the scene where the government agents come to ask about the Ark.
I'm saying simply to skip the crap the movie skips.

Now this I'll agree with. Skip the stuff that isn't necessary is always good advice.

Funny how 4e got absolutely pilloried for this advice. And now it's being held up as a truism.

 

[Micah Sweet]

5e gives this advice. 4e applied this advice from top to bottom, and made it an inseparable part of the system.

 

[Retreater]

Now this I'll agree with. Skip the stuff that isn't necessary is always good advice.

Funny how 4e got absolutely pilloried for this advice. And now it's being held up as a truism.

4e is one of my favorite editions of the game, and I'd gladly go back to it.

Each edition I've played imparted its wisdom on me:
2e: The characters are parts in a bigger world. They are the stars of the story, but the story exists without them.
3.xe: Balance is a noble goal and requires constant tinkering throughout a campaign.
4e: Characters should feel mighty and heroic. D&D is a power fantasy. (But the monsters should be unique and memorable.)
5e: Member berries are mighty tasty.

 

[Hussar]

5e gives this advice. 4e applied this advice from top to bottom, and made it an inseparable part of the system.

Heh. I've said this many times before. The magic that is WotC is stunning. They've managed to incorporate so much of 4e in 5e, but, written in such a way that it doesn't trigger anyone. It's an unbelievably fine line that they walked and the writing teams deserves SO MUCH credit for successfully doing it.

 

[Retreater]

Heh. I've said this many times before. The magic that is WotC is stunning. They've managed to incorporate so much of 4e in 5e, but, written in such a way that it doesn't trigger anyone. It's an unbelievably fine line that they walked and the writing teams deserves SO MUCH credit for successfully doing it.

I believe that much of the hate 4e received was due to phrasing. Change the wording (don't call them "Skill Challenges," "powers," or "healing surges"). Don't be insulting in your marketing. In fact, maybe don't even call it "Dungeons and Dragons 4e."
If it had been billed as a fantasy skirmish game, people might have loved it. Call it "D&D: Battles" and describe it as a skirmish/encounter system with light role-playing elements, and it could've been a hit.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Heh. I've said this many times before. The magic that is WotC is stunning. They've managed to incorporate so much of 4e in 5e, but, written in such a way that it doesn't trigger anyone. It's an unbelievably fine line that they walked and the writing teams deserves SO MUCH credit for successfully doing it.

Completely agree. If they'd given that much thought to 4e's presentation it would likely have had a longer lifespan.