D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Maxperson]

@Hriston I guess I see roleplaying different than combat. Sure you can say something in character during a fight, but when a player starts "role-playing" their character in the midst of a dangerous fight, that's when I get miffed.
"I'm going to heal the monsters during the fight because I'm a pacifist."
"I'm going to grapple the cleric because it would be funny."
"My character is paranoid and I think your character could be a doppelganger (even though there's no evidence) so I'm going to attack a fellow party member."
All of these have happened in my games. It's annoying. Get that crap out of my combat.

Every time you state that your character is swinging a sword, it's roleplaying. You are playing the role of that PC swinging a sword. Everything you have the character do in combat, exploration and social interactions is roleplay.

 

[Asisreo]

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.

It's why 5e is such an impressive system. It makes TTRPG's more palatable without removing some of the best parts about TTRPG's.

I do think their wording has some improvements needed, but they did pretty well.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Funny that people say that DM judgement is the most important thing in TTRPGs...
Wouldn't you say that exploration is the pillar most dependent on DM judgement since there's so little rules covering it?
And this thread is about how bad exploration is?

 

[Hussar]

Funny that people say that DM judgement is the most important thing in TTRPGs...
Wouldn't you say that exploration is the pillar most dependent on DM judgement since there's so little rules covering it?
And this thread is about how bad exploration is?

Shhhh. Quiet. Make noises like that and you'll get labeled a DM hater. Pointing out that the problems of the game may actually lie somewhere between the books and the DM's screen is downright libelous in these parts.

 

[Lanefan]

@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.

The difference between Indiana Jones and a D&D campaign is that an Indy movie has less than three hours to tell its whole story and thus is forced to stick to the highlights, where a D&D campaign has an open-ended amount of time and thus can delve deeper into things.

Same thing, in a way, as watching a baseball game condensed down to 30 minutes of highlights or watching the whole game as it is played.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Yeah, we differ here.

In my view the DM should be as neutral as possible, intentionally avoiding highlighting the difference so as not to end up in effect leading the players/PCs by the nose.

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.

The fresh air is a noticeable difference, fair enough. But if the secret door leads to a passage unused for ages and-or is airtight (to keep the wraiths in!), then what?

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.

Here, SOPs can be everybody's friend. Do the first few rooms in detail, then if there's lots more just like them IMO it's on the players to come up with a standard procedure for how their PCs will deal with each one. After that, things roll along pretty fast.

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?

The crawl IS the actual story! It's the story of what you're doing in the moment right now to a) survive and b) achieve whatever it is you're there to do; along with what you're saying as you do this.

Mapping, exploring, searching, wandering monsters, traps, set-piece encounters, field-testing magic items, sorting out treasure - all of these take time, and that time adds up. And that's before time taken for inter-character role-play and discussion, PC romances and rivalries, arguments or conflicts, etc.

Never mind that oftentimes an adventure's relation to ongoing stories (and my games usually have several not-necessarily connected stories going on at once) might not become apparent until months or even years later. Sometimes it never becomes obvious, particularly if whatever story the adventure's supposed to be tied to for some reason later never gets off the ground or becomes relevant - not every story arc captures people's interest.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Same thing, in a way, as watching a baseball game condensed down to 30 minutes of highlights or watching the whole game as it is played.

One is something I actually want to watch and the second one is something I avoid like the plague? Heck, I LOVE watching NFL games with all the down time removed. Watch the entire game in about 70 minutes? Yes please, give me more of that.

Sorry, not sure what this has to do with your point.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I wonder if there is a negative coordination between players who savor the heroic fantasy* aspect of the game and enjoyment of exploration.

Opening doors, getting shot in the back by arrow traps, drowning in water, getting turned into a goat, pilfering treasure behind the ogre's back, and failing to solve a puzzle aren't very heroic, after all.


*I hate the word "power fantasy". It sounds very derogatory to me.

 

[Scott Christian]

Yeah, we differ here.

In my view the DM should be as neutral as possible, intentionally avoiding highlighting the difference so as not to end up in effect leading the players/PCs by the nose.

Valid opinion and more than fair.

The fresh air is a noticeable difference, fair enough. But if the secret door leads to a passage unused for ages and-or is airtight (to keep the wraiths in!), then what?

I would still describe the air as different, but instead of smelly locker room (as the other rooms were), I would describe it as moldy and still, as one might find in a damp cave.

Here, SOPs can be everybody's friend. Do the first few rooms in detail, then if there's lots more just like them IMO it's on the players to come up with a standard procedure for how their PCs will deal with each one. After that, things roll along pretty fast.

I appreciate the standard procedure in a game. I think we have all fallen into it at one time or another. But what I find, is there are players that always seem to want to break from the procedure. Maybe it's not thorough enough or they feel like they are missing something? Maybe they don't like the repetitiveness of it? Maybe they are antsy because in the procedure set up the bard is the one always rolling? Or a combination of all three. I really don't know, but as much as I have seen standard procedures start, I have seen almost all fall apart. Then it becomes a huge time sink.

The crawl IS the actual story! It's the story of what you're doing in the moment right now to a) survive and b) achieve whatever it is you're there to do; along with what you're saying as you do this.

Mapping, exploring, searching, wandering monsters, traps, set-piece encounters, field-testing magic items, sorting out treasure - all of these take time, and that time adds up. And that's before time taken for inter-character role-play and discussion, PC romances and rivalries, arguments or conflicts, etc.

Never mind that oftentimes an adventure's relation to ongoing stories (and my games usually have several not-necessarily connected stories going on at once) might not become apparent until months or even years later. Sometimes it never becomes obvious, particularly if whatever story the adventure's supposed to be tied to for some reason later never gets off the ground or becomes relevant - not every story arc captures people's interest.

I do appreciate this. A good dungeon crawl, survival, dungeon roleplay. (That sounds naughty, but not intended.) Mapping and random encounters awesome. Field testing magic items - hilarious! All good stuff. But I have two buts to this:

• For most dungeons, the story lies elsewhere. The dungeon may help tell it, but it is hard to have an entire storyline take place in a dungeon. I get it, there are exceptions. But, for the most part, it is a piece of a setting that helps tell the story. So if it just that, I don't understand the need to spend six months on it (if you played twice a month). I feel like the same thing could be accomplished in two sessions.
• I understand that the dungeon is the actual story. But if the characters are travelling through a forest, is that the actual story? If they are finding a pass through the mountains, is that the actual story? If they are hanging out in a city, is that the actual story? Or make it even smaller, if they visit a huge tavern, is the tavern the actual story? Or are these things accomplished in a few sessions?

I appreciate a DM that just lets the players choose whatever path they want. To let one arc drop and be replaced by another. It takes skill and a lot of work to do it well. (Side Note: The ones making stuff up off the top of their head always seems to become a cluster after a few months.) I have a DM right now that is the best I have ever seen at this style of play. But what I see from the players' side is restlessness. There may be infinite objectives out there for our characters, but if all of them are going to play out with or without us, and our choices only influences one or two, then it always feels like a losing battle or we always feel like we are behind. Not saying this is your table, it is just my experiences with this style of play. In the end, it is the reason the thousands of published adventures exist - to complete a story arc.
(Last Side Note: No offense to your table. I am sure you are awesome and your players are great too. If you guys are having fun, then I am all for it! It's just my own experiences at that kind of table to have never seen it work as well as it does in theory, or in my mind for that matter.)

 

[Li Shenron]

Not to go to the same well over and over, but Critical Role is a game that uses 5E rules and still manages to make the Exploration Pillar interesting. If you struggle, listen to a little Critical Role. The first few (recorded) episodes of season 1 covers their investigation into the underdark. Episode 57 of season 1 is their search for some powerful magic items which involves a fair bit of exploration. Season 2 episodes 36 starts a sea exploration phase. Around Episode 66 or 67 of Season 2 begins a traditional dungeon delve with more exploration than combat.

Well I only watched a bit here and there, but my impression was that they are indeed running Exploration mostly through description with casual skill checks, rather than following a structured approach. The DM might be using passive Perception behind the screen, but I haven't heard him mention anything related to that.

It does help a lot however that the players aren't looking to maximize their chances. The typical case I see in their game is one player saying e.g. "I want to check this door" and the DM asking for an appropriate skill check. Nobody springs up saying "no let me do it I have a better bonus than you" or "hey let's all search, so that we have higher chances", or the original player ever asking for a second roll to try again.

While we spend endless times discussing the theoretical consequences of passive checks, repeated checks, or characters "outshining" others, they seem to have zero interest in our bull****. As I like saying, they are more like "shut up and play yer game", and maybe this is why they are having so much fun.