D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Lanefan]

Part of the problem rests in how exploration, as we are reminded by others in this thread, amounts to "everything else" that is neither Combat nor Social.

Well, given the definitions 5e uses, this is about right. Whether it's the best definition, or even a useful one, is an open question.

First off, there really needs to be a fourth defined pillar - Downtime - to cover all the non-adventuring activites characters get up to. As it stands now, if everything has to fall under a pillar downtime activities mostly come under exploration and that doesn't make sense.

From there, it becomes simpler: the Combat and Social pillars are largely built around the concept of encounters, making it pretty easy to know when play has engaged one of those pillars. Exploration, however more fuzzily covers most of what happens between encounters. And this might be in part why some see exploration as unimportant or redundant if one is starting with a "get to the action (i.e. encounter) now!" mindset encouraged by 4e and other games; as jumping from encounter to encounter skips over, by default, a lot of - or all of - that which happens between.

 

[Lanefan]

For exploration to be a key pillar of the game, then it needs to be gamified in some way. This means for something to be in the exploration pillar of the game, it must have some kind of resolution mechanic. This can be as simple as GM says, but there needs to be something that engages in a resolution. As such, descriptions of things aren't the exploration pillar. Finding a new vista isn't the exploration pillar. These may be part and parcel of exploration, but aren't part of the exploration pillar of the game.

Er...let me get this straight: you're saying that actual exploration isn't part of the exploration pillar???

How did we end up down this rabbit hole?

Thing must be resolved via a mechanic (again, GM says is the simplest of these) for it to be part of a pillar of the game. Just like talking to the shopkeeper while buying bread isn't part of the social pillar if there's no resolution, just exposition, finding a cool new tree and hearing it's lore isn't part of the exploration pillar, it's just exposition.

If the game is composed of three pillars it naturally follows that all aspects of the game must fall under one or more of those pillars. Given that, talking to the shopkeeper is Social; finding a new vista is Exploration; scaring away a cougar without taking aggressive action is Combat, and so on.

Resolution and-or mechanical intervention is not required in order to make something a) part of a pillar and b) part of the game.

 

[Fenris-77]

For what it's worth I think the distinction between 'mechanically resolved' and 'potentially mechanically resolved' bridges a lot of the gap indexed above. There doesn't have to be a roll, but there should be the potential for a roll.

That said, straight exposition from the DM is at least tangentially related to a pillar in most cases. However, the possible need for mechanical resolution, which indexes difficulty, danger and potential complications, is a pretty key ingredient.

 

[Lanefan]

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 that exposition gives the PCs (and thus players) information they didn't have before, it's exploration.

Put another way, it exploration by default if the PCs haven't been through these caves before; it's not exploration if they're retracing a path they've already taken, as nothing is new to them.

 

[Fanaelialae]

For what it's worth I think the distinction between 'mechanically resolved' and 'potentially mechanically resolved' bridges a lot of the gap indexed above. There doesn't have to be a roll, but there should be the potential for a roll.

That said, straight exposition from the DM is at least tangentially related to a pillar in most cases. However, the possible need for mechanical resolution, which indexes difficulty, danger and potential complications, is a pretty key ingredient.

I think there's a lot of truth to this. If a character looks behind a tree and there's a goblin hiding in a bush behind the tree, the DM might need to ask for a perception check. In most cases there won't be a goblin in a bush behind the tree, but it's always a possibility.

 

[Umbran]

If the game is composed of three pillars it naturally follows that all aspects of the game must fall under one or more of those pillars.

So, set aside the specific wording from WotC for a moment.

Answer the question for yourself. As you play it - Is the game three pillars, and ONLY those pillars? Or is the game supported by three pillars, with some extra stuff around it too? Or...

Take for a moment the idea that "three pillars" is a model for the game. A way to look at it, its design, and structure. The model doesn't have to be 100% accurate and precise! You can decide for yourself where that model fails, and where it is useful.

I would take the "three pillars" as being a basic point of where players wind up spending most of their attention - combat, social interactions, and exploration. That seems fair enough. But it does not seem fair to say, "Every individual action done at the table is 100% under the bailiwick of one of these pillars." That's one of the basic mistakes of using any framework - be it three pillars, GNS theory, or what have you. Mistake your conceptual framework for all of reality, and you wind up having issues.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Er...let me get this straight: you're saying that actual exploration isn't part of the exploration pillar???

How did we end up down this rabbit hole?

You drove, because that's not anywhere near straight, or what I said.

If the game is composed of three pillars it naturally follows that all aspects of the game must fall under one or more of those pillars. Given that, talking to the shopkeeper is Social; finding a new vista is Exploration; scaring away a cougar without taking aggressive action is Combat, and so on.

Resolution and-or mechanical intervention is not required in order to make something a) part of a pillar and b) part of the game.

No. If my house has 3 pillars, is that the only extent of my house? Description is part and parcel of every pillar of the game -- it's not specific to any. And, as I've said repeatedly, resolution can be as simple as the GM says. I'm not sure why this mechanical resolution things has been appended to my statements. Sure, mechanical resolution also suffices, but it's not necessary. Things other than GM exposition have to happen for exploration to be in play.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Moreover, this is just survival, which is only one aspect of exploration that not all groups want to engage with. As has been pointed out, there are numerous other types of exploration encounters, from mysteries to wonderment to clocks. If you don't like them, that's fine. That's a matter of playstyle. Pretending they don't exist however, is like squeezing your eyes shut, plugging your ears, and humming loudly. It's your choice to do so, but it doesn't actually change reality.

I'm skipping most of this because I'm getting exhausted of talking in circles.

We've discussed clocks. I'm not ignoring them, I've pointed out the problems with them a few times.

No one has really brought up mysteries, but assuming baseline DnD does mysteries well is a joke. There have been more threads how to handle a DnD mystery with the spells and skills available than there have been complaints about yo-yo healing.

And wonderment is just DM cutscenes, and if you are that good of a wordsmith, power to you, but I don't find just describing a pretty scene to be enough to keep most player's engaged.


So, I'm not ignoring reality. Just because other people haven't been bringing things up doesn't mean I haven't considered them, or have thoughts on them. Wonderment is great, but real hard to achieve.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Or maybe your concept of exploration is too narrow. It's funny how your first assumption is that what others are calling exploration, isn't exploration...

No, I don't think it is to narrow. I don't think that "Sune is the Goddess of Beauty" counts as exploration. I don't think telling my players that fact counts as exploration.

And even if they were, it certainly isn't an exploration challenge, because there is no challenge in a fact beyond it being hard to hear.

And maybe if people stopped assuming that I was the problem, we could talk about the rules, instead of me endlessly having to defend myself, because if I was just a better player or a better DM or a better game designer or less of liar or paid more attention or did more research or whatever new implication you want to throw at me still never actually addresses the rules.

 

[Fenris-77]

Um, in what world is stating a fact about the game world 'exploration'? That's just silly.