D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I don't think that's it.

I love the DoMT for it's chaos factor. It (or a variant) has made an appearance in most of the campaigns I have run, and many of the campaigns I have most enjoyed as a player. (Though, as I've said, I have also seen some promising campaigns that were ended by its introduction.)

Our difference, as far as I can tell, is that you think the vats are a good illustration of what an exploration encounter should be. To the extent that they are fairly open ended (not on rails) I would even agree.

However, although I think it's a perfectly fine encounter, I do not consider it a good example because I think that kind of exploration encounter should be used with discretion. I certainly wouldn't want every other exploration encounter to be a run in with a DoMT-variant, would you?

Ah...OK...

No. I wasn't advocating for the use of that type of encounter with absurd frequency, simply that it demonstrates the necessity of choice.

The most traditional exploration encounter is the downward leading staircase, which presents the players a choice between more or less danger.

Another is whether or not to disarm the trap as risk of it triggering on a failed roll.

A third is whether or not to steal the gems from the statue's eyes.

 

[ccs]

Forgotten Realms, however, is a terrible setting. Mostly because there's nothing left to explore there.

Really? When I look at at an FR map I see A LOT of empty space in between "Named" places. And many of those places that are named don't actually have volumes written about them. I mean, they name everything on FR maps - rivers, forests, mountains, random towns, roads..... But most of what's written is on the regional/country or major site level. And of course a bunch of NPC/factions/deity detail - most of wich neither DM nor player needs to worry about.
So as the DM I've never had any problems further populating the Realms.

 

[Lanefan]

My general advice is: do not introduce the Deck of Many Things into a campaign that cannot handle either the best or worst outcomes from it.

I'd turn that around to advise: make sure your campaign is at all times both flexible enough and resilient enough to withstand the occasional appearance of a Deck or two.

 

[Lanefan]

Really? When I look at at an FR map I see A LOT of empty space in between "Named" places. And many of those places that are named don't actually have volumes written about them. I mean, they name everything on FR maps - rivers, forests, mountains, random towns, roads..... But most of what's written is on the regional/country or major site level.

Yes, but I have heard of those places; and that's the problem: if I've heard of it before, it's not new.

Sure a DM can take a bit of blank FR map (is there really any left?) and put some brand-new-to-all elements in there; and that's cool for a while but sooner or later it's going to become obvious to one and all at the table that the larger-scale setting is FR - again.

One could, I suppose, use the maps and just rename everything; but that's almost as much work as starting from scratch and nowhere near as much fun.

 

[Reynard]

I'd turn that around to advise: make sure your campaign is at all times both flexible enough and resilient enough to withstand the occasional appearance of a Deck or two.

That's just preference. Some people light a more constrained campaign. The Deck is just a bigger version of "death of a PC" or "the party jumping off the rails." Ultimately it is up to the GM to read the room and understand what the campaign can and can't handle as far as disruption goes, and run the game accordingly.

 

[jayoungr]

Book 4 is the real gem, IMO. It basically is a how to for procedural play and sandboxing. It's one of the better guides I've seen - reasonably detailed without getting lost in the weeds.

Does Book 4 have the exploration rules too? Considering nabbing this while it's on sale.

 

[aco175]

I wonder if exploration has changed with the last couple editions in that the characters have more options as they gain levels. All fighters are not the same with only racial differences. Now, there are so many choices for characters and most of them deal with combat. This, and the skills have made overcoming things easier. Not sure if this last point is good or bad and may depend on how one plays.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Does Book 4 have the exploration rules too? Considering nabbing this while it's on sale.

Yes, it does.

 

[ccs]

Yes, but I have heard of those places; and that's the problem: if I've heard of it before, it's not new.

You know who it's new to though? People who haven't read 30+ years worth of D&D/FR lore for whatever reason.
At my table I have 5 players + myself.
Me: I've been doing this for a looong time. My book shelves are full. I've read (and forgotten) WAY more FR detail than I'll EVER use.
#1: Has been playing since mid 2e. He's read so much stuff it's actually getting in his way.
#2: Been playing since somewhere in 3x. Knows a smattering of FR stuff, mostly from computer games. Two weeks ago? He (not his character) learned that there's a giant mega-dungeon! located beneath the Yawning Portal tavern....
When he was picking a deity for his cleric? He had to google the details.
#3: Started with 5e about 3 months after it's launch. Knows only what he's read in the 5e core + SKT + stuff he's picked up by playing OOTA & CoS.
#4: Started with 5e 3 years ago. Is much like #3
#5: Started about 6 weeks ago. If you asked her "What major FR city is your character in right now?" She'd look at you blankly for a moment. If she thought to look at the map on the wall that we reference often she'd probably say "Waterdeep?" (Yes, as a question.)

For my players #3-5? And #2 to a degree? The FR map might as well be blank. Could they Google anything they pleased about the FR? Yes. Could they get copies of the books/PDFs? Yes. Will they? No. Or if they do it'll only be because one of them is making something specific (player #3 needing info on FR pantheon) or running a game themselves & wonders about a spot on the map.
Guess what? They're hardly unique. There's millions & millions of D&D players who're not at all concerned with the in-depth lore of the FR. Or how many times it's been published.

Sure a DM can take a bit of blank FR map (is there really any left?) and put some brand-new-to-all elements in there; and that's cool for a while but sooner or later it's going to become obvious to one and all at the table that the larger-scale setting is FR - again.

Sure, to people like you who're just old & jaded it's "again".
But for my players #3-#5? 5e is their 1st trip across the FR map (Sword Coast in particular for the moment). They don't have any anti-FR prejudice. Yet. And they won't catch it from me.

 

[Danzauker]

I always thought of "exploration" as everything that's not combat and speaking with NPC, so that includes a lot of things.

Overland exploration, including getting lost, foraging, wheather...
Dungeon exploration, with traps, puzzles, mazes, levers...
City exploration, including shops, churches, bandit hideouts...

So I'd say it's importance is directly tied to how much your play style relies on pure roleplaying and/or combat.

If your adventure design is heavily based on investigation, puzzles and creative dungeon/location design, then you're exploiting the exploration pillar a lot.