D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[iserith]

I really like this idea that while foraging for food and water you might come across something else of value.

Generally I present it as a choice: You can either try to find food/water or you can try to find valuable spices, herbs, animals, minerals, etc. If they don't need the food/water, then they still have a reason to do it at the risk of letting their guard down while traveling. It's pretty fun when they find something like a rare salt or the like and then find a use for it later in the adventure. (Like, say, against that giant rampaging slug.)

 

[Umbran]

"Challenge" may be considered to be a tactical scenario the characters face (and, in D&D, from which they may get XP). Combat is usually such. Social interaction is sometimes such. Exploration often isn't. Thus Swarmkeeper's reference to the definition of "exploration" being too narrow - focused on the challenges, but ignoring those things that aren't tactical scenarios.

I should add, that, from this point of view, overland travel from A to B is not necessarily "exploration" at all, if it isn't set up to reveal new things or make new life choices during the travel itself. If I go from Neverwinter to Phandalin, and I beat up a few bandits on the way, get lost for a day, but eventually reach my destination having learned nothing particularly interesting, this trip wasn't exploration.

 

[iserith]

I don't see it that way at all. I see those abilities as opt-out features, that can be enabled and disabled at either a player or DM level (the DM level potentially overriding the player, since if the DM says a certain spell is unavailable, the player can't choose it).

If players want to engage with the survival features of having to manage rations and water, they don't take spells like Create Food and Water. If they don't want to engage with it, they take the spell.

If the DM wants to run a campaign where management of rations and water is a central conceit, the DM declares such abilities unavailable for that campaign. If they don't want those to be an issue at all, give the party a Decanter of Endless Water and a Murlynd's Spoon, and you're all set.

Rules for managing supplies, starvation, dehydration, and the like all exist in 5e. I think it's absurd to suggest that if you're following those rules without Create Food and Water being allowed, that you're not using the 5e rules.

I agree. D&D 5e is like a game system from which you take whatever bits you want to build a game. My hexcrawls look nothing like my pulp action episodic Eberron game. They don't have the same focus and don't use the same subset of rules. But I'm building both from the tools we're given. For example, characters might have ready access to a bag of holding in my Eberron game, but they would never, ever find one in my hexcrawl because it would remove one of the focuses of the game (dealing with limited carrying capacity). I might use the gritty realism resting rules in a hexcrawl, but never in an Eberron game where it's about set pieces and fast travel. Use the rules that best support the vision of the game.

 

[robus]

and I beat up a few bandits on the way, get lost for a day, but eventually reach my destination having learned nothing particularly interesting, this trip wasn't exploration.

So now there’s a 4th ”boring trip” pillar too?!

Edit: this is why I don’t love the FR it’s hard to imagine an exciting journey when the road has been travelled by thousands of other adventurers.

This is what comes to mind when I think of adventuring in the realms

 

[MichaelSomething]

The exploration challenge here is finding and watching this unavailable video.

Wait, I can't tell if you're joking or actually can't watch the video??? If you can't actually watch it, I don't know why. I copy pastaed the url and checked it on my phone...

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't see it that way at all. I see those abilities as opt-out features, that can be enabled and disabled at either a player or DM level (the DM level potentially overriding the player, since if the DM says a certain spell is unavailable, the player can't choose it).

If players want to engage with the survival features of having to manage rations and water, they don't take spells like Create Food and Water. If they don't want to engage with it, they take the spell.

What's the benefit to the player for engaging these features? I don't see any, when they can be trivially reduced to not a problem. I know it's been cool to point out that the various spells take resources, but surely less than failing to deal with these features, yes? I mean, if I can spend modicum of effort x to avoid abundance of penalty y, why would I not? Even if I have the option to expend effort 2x or 3x to avoid it (spending coin on supplies, dealing with encumbrance, dealing with daily marks, risks of loosing supplies, etc.), why would I choose to spend more effort when there is no benefit other than "hey, you get to engage this feature set that has universally negative consequences and no positive ones?"

If the DM wants to run a campaign where management of rations and water is a central conceit, the DM declares such abilities unavailable for that campaign. If they don't want those to be an issue at all, give the party a Decanter of Endless Water and a Murlynd's Spoon, and you're all set.

Rules for managing supplies, starvation, dehydration, and the like all exist in 5e. I think it's absurd to suggest that if you're following those rules without Create Food and Water being allowed, that you're not using the 5e rules.

I can use the 5e rules for a lot of things and have it not be 5e. For instance, I can import 5e initiative rules into 2e, but that doesn't make 2e 5e. Just using 5e rules is not sufficient for the game to be 5e. So then, what's the line? When do changes make 5e not 5e? Don't care, that's not at all my point. My point is that you're saying 5e supports survival challenges because it has some rules that support it and some rules that actively do not support it (fight against it) and since you, an individual GM, can choose to ignore which of these rules you want that this is still just as much 5e as a game that tries to use all of the rules as presented and fails to have good survival challenges. This is special pleading -- you're arguing that you can ignore anything that disproves your thesis while claim anything that does. 5e supports survival challenges so long as you use these parts and not those parts. This is fallacious, though -- 5e does not support survival challenges when taken as presented. Instead, what is requires is that individual tables use their own judgement to change those rules to support the game they want. This is the table's choice and is done because 5e forces them to do so by failing to provide this straight. 5e does not get to claim support for a thing so long as individual GMs choose which parts to not apply. That's the GMs doing it, not 5e. Let's please stop with this ridiculous claim that 5e is good at everything because you, as an individual, can do work to create new rules and ignore existing ones that enable a specific thing. That's you, the GM, doing this, not 5e. That 5e says that you can change it doesn't mean 5e supports it -- it's literally given you permission to do something you didn't need permission to do.

 

[Mort]

So now there’s a 4th ”boring trip” pillar too?!

Edit: this is why I don’t love the FR it’s hard to imagine an exciting journey when the road has been travelled by thousands of other adventurers.

This is what comes to mind when I think of adventuring in the realms

This is a really common complaint about the Forgetten Realms, and I just don't get it :

1. Is it your players first time in the realms? If so, it doesn't matter AT ALL what others have done. The PCs will forge their own path in the world.

2. The Forgotten Realms is BIG, there are spots that haven't been done to death by the novels games etc. And that's assuming you're past what I said in point 1, which still applies.

3. Let's say you want to roll with the too many adventurers and it's all been done before trope. That can be a fun experience in and of itself - for the right group.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I should add, that, from this point of view, overland travel from A to B is not necessarily "exploration" at all, if it isn't set up to reveal new things or make new life choices during the travel itself. If I go from Neverwinter to Phandalin, and I beat up a few bandits on the way, get lost for a day, but eventually reach my destination having learned nothing particularly interesting, this trip wasn't exploration.

Well, this cuts the legs out from under a lot of arguments made in support of exploration. We've dispensed with survival challenges, with travel challenges, with quite a lot of things and settled down on "does your PC make a life choice or does the GM tell you about a cool place." I don't find this at all useful, though, as a definition of exploration.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Blah blah blah. I'm two minutes in already and he hasn't said anything.

His point that there isn't any framework for combat or social pillars is a joke. I mean, as soon as you stop looking at D&D and look at any RPG, there's a ton of different frameworks.

Now 5 minutes in, he still hasn't actually talked about a single challenge. He's talking about narrating a scene as "exploration". Sorry, this is a complete miss of the point. We're talking about Exploration CHALLENGES. Setup react resolution is great advice, but, it's not actually addressing the issues brought up in this thread.

Yeah, this is pretty good advice but, it does not address any of the actual issues we've been talking about.

I dunno.

I see some people talking about exploration challenges - and some are saying “here are some examples” and others are saying “nope”.

I also see some people talking about whether exploration is even supported by the rules in 5e - with some people saying “here’s how I make it work with the rules” and others saying “nope”.

And I further see people talking about what exploration actually is - with some people saying “it’s everything that’s not covered by the other two pillars” and others saying “nope”.

So, yeah, it doesn’t look like we’re all specifically honing in on “challenges” (all caps, if you prefer) with all our contributions to this exploration discussion, the OP of which is talking about the exploration pillar as a whole.

If we can’t agree on a baseline of what exploration actually is (for 5e, I’d suggest starting with the definition on PHB p8), it makes it hard to make this conversation productive. And when I use the term “productive”, I mean being able to glean some info that may be of use to running the game at our tables.

 

[Fanaelialae]

What's the benefit to the player for engaging these features? I don't see any, when they can be trivially reduced to not a problem. I know it's been cool to point out that the various spells take resources, but surely less than failing to deal with these features, yes? I mean, if I can spend modicum of effort x to avoid abundance of penalty y, why would I not? Even if I have the option to expend effort 2x or 3x to avoid it (spending coin on supplies, dealing with encumbrance, dealing with daily marks, risks of loosing supplies, etc.), why would I choose to spend more effort when there is no benefit other than "hey, you get to engage this feature set that has universally negative consequences and no positive ones?"

I can use the 5e rules for a lot of things and have it not be 5e. For instance, I can import 5e initiative rules into 2e, but that doesn't make 2e 5e. Just using 5e rules is not sufficient for the game to be 5e. So then, what's the line? When do changes make 5e not 5e? Don't care, that's not at all my point. My point is that you're saying 5e supports survival challenges because it has some rules that support it and some rules that actively do not support it (fight against it) and since you, an individual GM, can choose to ignore which of these rules you want that this is still just as much 5e as a game that tries to use all of the rules as presented and fails to have good survival challenges. This is special pleading -- you're arguing that you can ignore anything that disproves your thesis while claim anything that does. 5e supports survival challenges so long as you use these parts and not those parts. This is fallacious, though -- 5e does not support survival challenges when taken as presented. Instead, what is requires is that individual tables use their own judgement to change those rules to support the game they want. This is the table's choice and is done because 5e forces them to do so by failing to provide this straight. 5e does not get to claim support for a thing so long as individual GMs choose which parts to not apply. That's the GMs doing it, not 5e. Let's please stop with this ridiculous claim that 5e is good at everything because you, as an individual, can do work to create new rules and ignore existing ones that enable a specific thing. That's you, the GM, doing this, not 5e. That 5e says that you can change it doesn't mean 5e supports it -- it's literally given you permission to do something you didn't need permission to do.

The players would opt in or out based on their preferences. I don't doubt that there are folks out there who enjoy tracking rations and managing inventory, and by all means they're welcome to it.

Special pleading? Come on dude. The rules themselves give you permission to ignore any rules you don't like. Saying that customizing your D&D experience makes it not D&D means that it's very likely that a significant majority of D&D games since it's creation have not been D&D. And if the conclusion your reasoning leads us to is that D&D is not D&D, I daresay it is your reasoning and conclusion that are at fault. D&D is D&D.