D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Bedrockgames]

That depends on whether you're just prompting the GM to tell you more things or if there's actually something to be resolved. If just prompting, this is just continuation of the description by other means. If the PCs do something and that needs resolution, then we're engaging the exploration pillar. Getting told stuff doesn't become different when you ask a question versus it being provided without asking. Getting more information because of an action your PC takes, however, get into the resolution business.

I am not 100% sure what you mean by resolution here, so not sure if I am in agreement or disagree slightly (I think we actually agree to an extent, I just am a bit less worried about all of the details leading to resolution). But I mean if the GM describes something to me, and I ask a series of questions in an effort to figure out what our next move should be as a party, some of those details will be important in terms of making that choice, some will be helpful for ruling out possibilities and some will be incidental (though I think incidental details in the hands of a party of players can often become useful in unexpected ways). To me that process feels like we are engaged in exploration.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am not 100% sure what you mean by resolution here, so not sure if I am in agreement or disagree slightly (I think we actually agree to an extent, I just am a bit less worried about all of the details leading to resolution). But I mean if the GM describes something to me, and I ask a series of questions in an effort to figure out what our next move should be as a party, some of those details will be important in terms of making that choice, some will be helpful for ruling out possibilities and some will be incidental (though I think incidental details in the hands of a party of players can often become useful in unexpected ways). To me that process feels like we are engaged in exploration.

Here's the rub, for me -- the PCs didn't do anything for this information. They just see it. What's happening here is that there's imperfect communication between the GM's idea of the scene and the players' ideas of the scene, and you're hashing it out in discussion so everyone is on the same page. If no PC does anything at all to get this information, it's not part of the game, it's just a discussion between players.

 

[robus]

Also because I don't play 5E, I am curious what people think 5E brings and doesn't bring to exploration and how it is different from earlier editions.

In the spirit of being constructive here are things I intend to change about the default exploration mode in 5e:

• DMGs alternate travel rules: long rest benefits gained only in safe locations
• AngryGMs tension pool to make the passage of game time more transparent
• Giffyglyph's Darker Dungeons Trials module: a fresh take on skill challenges (I intend to make some adjustments as I'm not entirely smitten)

Anyone else want to chime in with things they've added (or want to add) to enhance the pillar?

 

[iserith]

I am not 100% sure what you mean by resolution here, so not sure if I am in agreement or disagree slightly (I think we actually agree to an extent, I just am a bit less worried about all of the details leading to resolution). But I mean if the GM describes something to me, and I ask a series of questions in an effort to figure out what our next move should be as a party, some of those details will be important in terms of making that choice, some will be helpful for ruling out possibilities and some will be incidental (though I think incidental details in the hands of a party of players can often become useful in unexpected ways). To me that process feels like we are engaged in exploration.

I think exploration would be the players taking action through their characters to get answers to those questions (which may have consequences) rather than a sidebar conversation with the DM.

 

[robus]

The description wouldn't be exploration, the players declaring actions that require resolution would be.

IE, if I spent 20 minutes describing, in detail, the ravine, this isn't MORE exploration than if I spent 10 seconds giving a quick, terse description. The meat here is the players declaring actions that have to be resolved.

This seems similar to the other complaint about a boring trip not being exploration. It's easy to point to poor DMing style and say that's not exploration. I don't think anyone here would try and argue against that?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Here's the rub, for me -- the PCs didn't do anything for this information. They just see it. What's happening here is that there's imperfect communication between the GM's idea of the scene and the players' ideas of the scene, and you're hashing it out in discussion so everyone is on the same page. If no PC does anything at all to get this information, it's not part of the game, it's just a discussion between players.

I do think this is a point where I wouldn't quite agree. I do believe I have your distinction though: it has to be about what the PC is doing (if I understand your meaning here). I think choosing to go in the direction of the mountain would have been the thing to lead to this information, or if it comes through questioning, it is the player asking a question (which if you are saying something like "do I see any bridges if I look south or north along the ravine" you are implying that your character is actively looking in those directions and participating in exploration). To me that back and forth conversation is fun and part of the game (and definitely contributes to the sense of exploring something). I am just not sure I agree with the idea though that something that is less concrete would somehow not be part of the game. Again it might be less important, or not lead anywhere in that instance, but I do think it is a little overly black and white to say thing X is part of the game but thing Y isn't (I could see it might not be for you, or it might not be important for you when it comes to explication, but I think every group is so different here, some things that don't matter or seem relevant to one group, are so for another). I don't particularly like lengthy descriptions for example and to me if a GM starts giving heavy description it does feel a bit like I am on a track and not really as involved. But I've met enough people who don't feel that way, and who enjoy getting that kind of information so they can both make informed choices and so they feel more immersed in the setting, that I think it is just a matter of preference.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think exploration would be the players taking action through their characters to get answers to those questions (which may have consequences) rather than a sidebar conversation with the DM.

The GM doesn't have to be giving players answers their characters wouldn't know. The point of the conversation though is to help build a sense of the location in the player's mind, and help get everyone on the same page. A Gm can be great at descriptions and the players will still need clarifications (or the player may have an idea that hinges on a answering a question about a local detail the GM didn't address). To me that is all part of the exploration process in an RPG. I also do think a lot of these questions imply actions the pcs are taking (i.e. is there anything behind the tree suggests the PC is actively looking behind or beyond the tree------you could phrase that more clearly as "I look behind the tree" but I just find it more natural these days to directly ask the question and I find most of the players I meet tend to answer it that way....but not always: I think this is a pretty fluid part of the game).

 

[Ovinomancer]

This seems similar to the other complaint about a boring trip not being exploration. It's easy to point to poor DMing style and say that's not exploration. I don't think anyone here would try and argue against that?

What people find boring is going to be idiosyncratic. I might very well really enjoy JRRT levels of description of the passing landscape, or I might be bored to tears and hoping there's something that happens that requires me to declare an action for my PC. I don't think boring is a suitable distinction for exploration play -- that's a quality assessment, not a classification assessment.

So, no, I'm absolutely not at all pointing to GM style as any input -- I'm literally saying that style is NOT part of the assessment. It's whether or not there are PC actions to resolve. No resolution due to an elided and montaged trip description? No exploration, even if cool descriptions are used. A bare bones, poorly described trip where players have to declare actions that need to be resolved to complete the trip -- exploration. Quality is an aside, here. I can quite easily imagine things in the latter category that I'd consider banal and of very poor quality play, but they'd still be exploration.

 

[J.Quondam]

What people find boring is going to be idiosyncratic. I might very well really enjoy JRRT levels of description of the passing landscape, or I might be bored to tears and hoping there's something that happens that requires me to declare an action for my PC. I don't think boring is a suitable distinction for exploration play -- that's a quality assessment, not a classification assessment.

So, no, I'm absolutely not at all pointing to GM style as any input -- I'm literally saying that style is NOT part of the assessment. It's whether or not there are PC actions to resolve. No resolution due to an elided and montaged trip description? No exploration, even if cool descriptions are used. A bare bones, poorly described trip where players have to declare actions that need to be resolved to complete the trip -- exploration. Quality is an aside, here. I can quite easily imagine things in the latter category that I'd consider banal and of very poor quality play, but they'd still be exploration.

So just so I'm clear here, you're defining Exploration specifically as an action in the game that is resolved using a rule that can be pointed at in the book.
Is that a fair statement?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I do think this is a point where I wouldn't quite agree. I do believe I have your distinction though: it has to be about what the PC is doing (if I understand your meaning here). I think choosing to go in the direction of the mountain would have been the thing to lead to this information, or if it comes through questioning, it is the player asking a question (which if you are saying something like "do I see any bridges if I look south or north along the ravine" you are implying that your character is actively looking in those directions and participating in exploration). To me that back and forth conversation is fun and part of the game (and definitely contributes to the sense of exploring something). I am just not sure I agree with the idea though that something that is less concrete would somehow not be part of the game. Again it might be less important, or not lead anywhere in that instance, but I do think it is a little overly black and white to say thing X is part of the game but thing Y isn't (I could see it might not be for you, or it might not be important for you when it comes to explication, but I think every group is so different here, some things that don't matter or seem relevant to one group, are so for another). I don't particularly like lengthy descriptions for example and to me if a GM starts giving heavy description it does feel a bit like I am on a track and not really as involved. But I've met enough people who don't feel that way, and who enjoy getting that kind of information so they can both make informed choices and so they feel more immersed in the setting, that I think it is just a matter of preference.

Choosing to go to the mountain requires some resolution, yes. That portion is suitably exploration. The description of the mountain, florid or not, isn't -- it's just exposition. And, sure, if your character is "looking" as in the character is doing something, this needs to be resolved. I think that there's a limit, here, as in if it's something the character sees by turning their head and you require actions to that effect, then we're entering the pixel bitch field and engendering some different questions of quality of play. But, sure, being held to my own words that would be exploration if you did that.

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.