D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Ovinomancer]

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?

No. It's an action the PC takes that requires resolution. At the simplest point, this is the GM says. That's not exactly in the book, although it's strongly hinted at. If you use a rule in the book, cool, that's also resolution. The crux of my point is that there has to be a question of something happening in the fiction for it to be a pillar of play. Description of the fiction isn't something happening -- it's necessary to it, but not sufficient for it, if you follow. Which is why you don't get more exploration pillar just by filling an entire session with descriptions of things -- there has to be some action that is resolved for the game to be there.

 

[Mort]

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?

If the DM describes a long harrowing trip through the underground caves - from when the PCs enter to when they eventually get out? That could be fun and interesting but it's not really exploration because the PCs didn't have any true interaction with the environment, there were no consequences because they didn't really make any decisions. That's exposition, even if it's good exposition.

If the DM starts the players at the entrance to the caves and then gives them options (left or right, climb up or slide down etc.), those options have consequences and the PCs choices are meaningful - and through their own choices and actions the PCs end up at the exit to the cave, that's exploration.

 

[J.Quondam]

No. It's an action the PC takes that requires resolution. At the simplest point, this is the GM says. That's not exactly in the book, although it's strongly hinted at. If you use a rule in the book, cool, that's also resolution. The crux of my point is that there has to be a question of something happening in the fiction for it to be a pillar of play. Description of the fiction isn't something happening -- it's necessary to it, but not sufficient for it, if you follow. Which is why you don't get more exploration pillar just by filling an entire session with descriptions of things -- there has to be some action that is resolved for the game to be there.

That's right at the beginning of the PHB, "How to Play the Game." But yes, I take your meaning. Fortunately, I don't think anyone really plays the game by filling the a whole session with descriptions and exposition. That would be a very lonely DM after a session or two!
Thanks for the clarification.

 

[robus]

If the DM describes a long harrowing trip through the underground caves - from when the PCs enter to when they eventually get out? That could be fun and interesting but it's not really exploration because the PCs didn't have any true interaction with the environment, there were no consequences because they didn't really make any decisions.

I dunno that seems poor form to me from the DM. If it was harrowing then why didn't the players get to experience that? I'll take time (a minute or two) to set the scene if we're going to be adventuring in a location, but if there was is journey that we're skipping over then I'll narrate it with a sentence. "You continue the arduous journey and, after X long days, make it your destination." The players haven't shown up to listen to the DMs storytime. Write a book if the DM wants to go at length about the story playing in their mind.

 

[Mort]

That's right at the beginning of the PHB, "How to Play the Game." But yes, I take your meaning. Fortunately, I don't think anyone really plays the game by filling the a whole session with descriptions and exposition. That would be a very lonely DM after a session or two!
Thanks for the clarification.

You'd be surprised. A couple of years ago, I had a GM who literally read a book to us describing all of our actions between combats.

That lasted exactly 1 session for me!

 

[Mort]

I dunno that seems poor form to me from the DM. If it was harrowing then why didn't the players get to experience that? I'll take time (a minute or two) to set the scene if we're going to be adventuring in a location, but if there was is journey that we're skipping over then I'll narrate it with a sentence. "You continue the arduous journey and, after X long days, make it your destination." The players haven't shown up to listen to the DMs storytime. Write a book if the DM wants to go at length about the story playing in their mind.

As I said in the post above - that's actually happened to me!

 

[robus]

You'd be surprised. A couple of years ago, I had a GM who literally read a book to us describing all of our actions between combats.

That lasted exactly 1 session for me!

So we can dispense with the windy DM as an exemplar of the exploration pillar then

 

[J.Quondam]

So we can dispense with the windy DM as an exemplar of the exploration pillar then

"Everyone, make a DC 15 Dex save to avoid being blown into the bottomless Chasm of Exposition!"

 

[Mort]

So we can dispense with the windy DM as an exemplar of the exploration pillar then

I will say this, experiencing truly bad DMing first hand is a great motivator to improve your own DMing.

 

[iserith]

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).

Questions that imply action should be stated as action in my view because the DM can't establish what the characters are doing. That is the players' role only.