D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Fanaelialae]

Because I don't have issue with free offers of information because they do prod for action declarations. Are you abandoning the first example, then?

Sure, we can abandon it to just focus on the example where the information is freely given.

Although I don't agree that just because the information is gated behind a roll, it suddenly doesn't constitute exploration. On a successful check, you have the same outcome as if the information wasn't gated. On a failed check, admittedly, the outcome may change, but the possibility was there for the "original" outcome had the roll been higher.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't agree. Nothing in that description requires the player to have declared anything. It's just to see if the character succeeds, but it can be something that he does instinctively or naturally, it applies to both.



It is different because you are restrictive in the way you apply the passive, but the game allows for more situations right out of the box.



The DM can puppet the character exactly when he wants. Of course, a good DM will not abuse this, but nothing prevents it. He just describes what happens, that's all.



Not only. The DM describes a situation, and takes into account the characters' abilities, without a specific description of an action by the player. 100% in the rules and the intent of the game.

The description of play on page 4 of the PHB doesn't agree. It doesn't say that the GM decides what characters do and then resolves that, it says that the GM describes the situation, the players declare actions, and the GM then resolves those. I don't see anywhere in the rules that suggest that the GM declares actions for the characters based on what the GM thinks the character's abilities would indicate.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sure, we can abandon it to just focus on the example where the information is freely given.

Although I don't agree that just because the information is gated behind a roll, it suddenly doesn't constitute exploration. On a successful check, you have the same outcome as if the information wasn't gated. On a failed check, admittedly, the outcome may change, but the possibility was there for the "original" outcome had the roll been higher.

I don't see how considering the outcome of passing the gate means the gate does or doesn't exist.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't see how considering the outcome of passing the gate means the gate does or doesn't exist.

The gate exists. I simply don't agree that it impacts whether or not the scene constitutes exploration.

And you still seem to be avoiding discussion of the description where the information is freely given.

 

[Lyxen]

The description of play on page 4 of the PHB doesn't agree. It doesn't say that the GM decides what characters do and then resolves that, it says that the GM describes the situation, the players declare actions, and the GM then resolves those. I don't see anywhere in the rules that suggest that the GM declares actions for the characters based on what the GM thinks the character's abilities would indicate.

And nothing in there restricts the DM to describing only the world and not what happens to the PCs.

And because I think that you will need convincing, here is an example:

Player: "I walk down the corridor"

But the DM knows that there is a trap in the corridor, and the PC has not declared that he was checking for them. Alternatives:

• Passive high enough: "Just before he puts his foot on a flagstone, your character sees that there is a trap, and steps back."
• Passive not high enough, but dexterity high enough: "Just as you get to the center of the corridor, you feel a flagstone give way, but you manage to catch the edge of the pit."
• "passive not high enough, and dexterity too low: "You don't see the hidden pit, and you fall in."

Of course, there is puppeting in the game, in the last example, the DM will not say: "The pit opens under your feet, do you decide to fall in it ?"

 

[Ovinomancer]

The gate exists. I simply don't agree that it impacts whether or not the scene constitutes exploration.

And you still seem to be avoiding discussion of the description where the information is freely given.

You mean because I didn't have a problem with it, which you quoted me saying just above? Why do I need to discuss a thing I don't have an issue with? What's to discuss?

 

[Fanaelialae]

You mean because I didn't have a problem with it, which you quoted me saying just above? Why do I need to discuss a thing I don't have an issue with? What's to discuss?

So you agree that it is an example of exploration then? If so, we are in agreement. If not, then why?

 

[Ovinomancer]

And nothing in there restricts the DM to describing only the world and not what happens to the PCs.

Of course not. The GM resolves the player's declared actions for their PC. What this doesn't do is say the GM puppets the PCs and declares actions for them that the GM then resolves. This isn't what's presented. The GM describes a situation, which should prompt actions if done adequately, and the players respond by declaring actions. Which the GM then resolves. Loop as needed. Nowhere does it say, "the GM declares actions for the PCs based on the PCs' abilities."

And because I think that you will need convincing, here is an example:

Player: "I walk down the corridor"

But the DM knows that there is a trap in the corridor, and the PC has not declared that he was checking for them. Alternatives:

• Passive high enough: "Just before he puts his foot on a flagstone, your character sees that there is a trap, and steps back."
• Passive not high enough, but dexterity high enough: "Just as you get to the center of the corridor, you feel a flagstone give way, but you manage to catch the edge of the pit."
• "passive not high enough, and dexterity too low: "You don't see the hidden pit, and you fall in."

Of course, there is puppeting in the game, in the last example, the DM will not say: "The pit opens under your feet, do you decide to fall in it ?"

Sigh.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So you agree that it is an example of exploration then? If so, we are in agreement. If not, then why?

No, it's not -- I just don't disagree it's good. Exploration would occur if the players declare actions to investigate and the GM resolves those actions. Description is not exploration, and that's where that left.

 

[Fanaelialae]

No, it's not -- I just don't disagree it's good. Exploration would occur if the players declare actions to investigate and the GM resolves those actions. Description is not exploration, and that's where that left.

So if a character finds a trap and decides to ignore it (they backtrack and go down another hall), that isn't exploration?

I think it is exploration. Even if the players choose not to investigate, they still have made a choice, and they have gained information that they didn't previously have. They might even decide to come back later and investigate then.