D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[iserith]

Surprise only lasts the first round and only kicks in if actually attacked by surprise. If players are being subject to surprise attacks so often that the game looks more like deadspace or gauntlet you have a very odd dungeon crawl not exploration. Surprise in past editions caused your AC to be your flat footed ac making nearly every attack a guaranteed hit & was very dangerous as a result...all itdoes in 5e is "If you’re surprised, you can’t move or take an action on your first turn of the combat, and you can’t take a reaction until that turn ends. A member of a group can be surprised even if the other members aren’t.". That's not especially dangerous in 5e given the extreme buffer provided by how phb197 works with spells & abilities like bonus action ranged healing word, 1hp heal LoH, & so on to reset the buffer for damage between zero and negative your max hp. Even with attacks on a downed pc being an automatic crit that buffer is so large & so easily reset that it's really only a risk at very low levels.
.

It really depends on how initiative falls in my experience. Monsters who surprise that PC and also beat the PC in initiative can do some terrible things. But again, even if the PC doesn't die from the attack, it can cost a lot of resources which might be a heavy price to pay for a some foraged food and water. Or it might not be, depending on the context. Still, it's not nothing and represents a meaningful choice for the player to make. In some cases, that choice will be easier to make than in other cases.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Ok, fair enough.

Then how would having a suite of rules in the DMG that would help us, but, since you can ignore them as you please, hurt you?

It wouldn’t.

And, from what I've seen here, "works at our tables" means, "I have played the game for many years, and have developed a suite of changes in playstyles, player expectations and actual mechanics that makes the default work at our table." And I say this because EVERY response to criticism has been, "well, in my game, I've changed this, this and this rule". Which basically means that no, the default doesn't work. You've simply internalized all the changes and assumed that that's the default of the game.

Have I? Are you watching our games? Is that you Kaloruk!? Hum.

EDIT: no, I haven’t changed or added any exploration rules at our table other than occasionally experimenting with the dice tension pool.

 

[Fenris-77]

Rather than dripping sarcasm, maybe just tell us if you've changed those rules or not.

 

[Imaro]

Ah, so, what are you arguing with us for? You are stating, straight up, that exploration is an "inconvenience". IOW, trivial.

Thats not what I said... so don't do that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, sure, some of those facts may be exploration related, but that one is pretty manifestly not and I feel like someone is making a category mistake that's muddying the waters here.

Both myself and Hussar protested it, he insisted that he was right. No one else really ever stepped up to disagree with him. So, I have to wonder where the people saying exploration is "everything else" are drawing the line, because it is getting drawn in multiple places. I would think that saying a fact isn't exploration, but I've also been told that my idea of exploration is far too narrow, so shrug

 

[Asisreo]

This went on for long enough that it stuck out in my mind. Here is EXACTLY what I was talking about. Players who have been trained by DM's who think that challenge=Mother May I and Calvinball. I actually stopped the game at that point and explained that they really, really didn't have to do any of this. I will never intentionally screw over the party like that.

This is the biggest key. You're not going to screw over your players intentionally because they didn't specify something they're doing. But I think there's a spectrum.

I can say "I watch our backs" and the implication is that as long as the creature is visible and within theoretical sight range, it will be spotted by the player. This doesn't mean, though, that once the player spots whatever is sneaking up on them that they will engage it with hostile intent, especially if the monster is a few pegs above their tier.

Its about interpreting what the player says vs making choices for the player. But really, either way, its fine so long as the DM isn't intentionally attempting to make a situation worse for the player.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's hard to fully describe in a short sentence but that's why I made a point of saying the choices are meaningful. If, for example, no matter what choices the players make they end up at the same place having faced the same challenges? THEN it's not a meaningful choice.

I agree with this, but as a player who literally went through something similar, simply having no idea what makes one path different from another instantly killed any engagement I had in the scenario. Because I very much believed the choices were actually different, but the DM was having us guess blind. And at that point, one choice is identical to the other, because I can't make a decision other than random chance. I might as well roll dice, flip coins, or throw a stick in the air and follow that. They all have the same end result from the player's perspective

 

[robus]

I haven't heard of this one, can you elaborate?

I can do you one better and point you to the source itself: https://giffyglyph.com/darkerdungeons/grimoire/4.0.0/en/trials.html

In fact for those looking for more options, there’s a ton of good stuff in Darker Dungeons.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I agree. As an example, exploring a ruin and finding a puzzle is exploration, but solving the puzzle itself isn't exploration to me. It's puzzle solving. It can lead to more exploration as you find out what is behind the puzzle wall or something, but it's not exploration itself. Nor is it social or combat, though it can also lead to those.

 

[Fenris-77]

Both myself and Hussar protested it, he insisted that he was right. No one else really ever stepped up to disagree with him. So, I have to wonder where the people saying exploration is "everything else" are drawing the line, because it is getting drawn in multiple places. I would think that saying a fact isn't exploration, but I've also been told that my idea of exploration is far too narrow, so shrug

Well, I feel I stepped in pretty hard, so I'll take it from here. I do enjoy drawing lines... Just to be clear, which 'he' am I committing myself to a forum deathmatch with?