D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Fanaelialae]

I'm confused. Are you saying that it's impossible to ever just do description and not engage with declared actions because the play loop demands it? This seems strongly counterindicated by multiple examples.

For instance, if I just do a travel montage where I describe a cool vista you pass by on your trip to Waterdeep but don't do anything more, I've done 1 (described a scene) but not allowed 2. This is not part of the exploration pillar of the game, it's just (potentially cool) description. I don't think the existence of the play means that every moment of play at every table is following it.

What if you describe a lush forest and one of your players interrupts and says, "I leave the road to take a closer look at the forest"? Outside of a very linear game, that possibility ought to exist.

The only reason such montages occur is because the GM presumes what the players will do (continue down the road to their stated destination).

 

[Lyxen]

Nothing at all about passive checks suggests that the character does nothing.

And nothing about passive checks in the rules suggest that the character does something specific either. Once more, your vision is not wrong,it is just partial.

We have two cases -- one where the character is performing an action continuously and the other when the GM wishes to secretly resolve an action by the character.

No, you are quoting it wrong to prove your point, but it's not what it's saying. Read it again, I posted it a few replies back.

Nothing at all about passivity on the character's part.

You mean, apart from the fact that you are not reading the sentence and the word "passive" ?

Passive checks are poorly named -- they have nothing at all to do with being passive as defined.

Only because you are not reading the sentence that is written in the rules.

It's not used this way. Instead, the assumption there is that the passive check applies when the PC is continuously doing an action (and looking out for danger is an established baseline action while moving through dangerous environments)

No, it's not an action, it's an assumption of standard behaviour. Even when it's not declared by the player, it still occurs.

or if the GM needs to secretly resolve an action. At no point is it just something the character does without effort or trying.

And then, it has NOT been declared by the player, QED.

No, the PC declared an action, and the GM resolves it, including narrating the results of the action. If you declare an action to step out over a pit, then the result is up to the GM to resolve. I'm not sure why you think I've indicated that nothing can happen to a PC without permission. Falling into a pit is not a declared action for the PC (or, perhaps, not a commonly declared action). The GM resolving an action that has falling into a pit as a possible outcome isn't puppeting the PC and declaring actions for them, they are resolving declared actions.

And by doing this, they are describing actions that the character does (like trying to catch himself, stepping back, etc.) that were not described by the player, just like he used the passive because the character is more alert than the player about checking for traps.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What if you describe a lush forest and one of your players interrupts and says, "I leave the road to take a closer look at the forest"? Outside of a very linear game, that possibility ought to exist.

The only reason such montages occur is because the GM presumes what the players will do (continue down the road to their stated destination).

What if I change the example to something else, huh, what then? Your answer isn't correct anymore, right?

I mean, are we really doing this?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I'm confused. Are you saying that it's impossible to ever just do description and not engage with declared actions because the play loop demands it? This seems strongly counterindicated by multiple examples.

For instance, if I just do a travel montage where I describe a cool vista you pass by on your trip to Waterdeep but don't do anything more, I've done 1 (described a scene) but not allowed 2. This is not part of the exploration pillar of the game, it's just (potentially cool) description. I don't think the existence of the play means that every moment of play at every table is following it.

I'm not sure the length of the DM's description of the environment matters to A) when Step 1 ends and B) what pillar you are in. The DM might describe a travel montage but eventually the description ends with an actionable environment which will end Step 1 and engage the players in one (or more) of the three pillars. Could be that the travel montage is interrupted by a Step 2 declaration by a player (h/t @Fanaelialae) that puts us squarely in exploration mode.

Or, one could say the completed travel montage is (and very much should be) such a small part of the time spent at the table that it is a true outlier. The odd purple crayon that @Umbran mentions upthread that is not necessary to categorize. Notice it, then move on to the good stuff before people start mucking around on their phones. (Nothing against purple crayons, of course).

Then again, at the end of the day, I don't really care what label the interstitial descriptions carry. All that matters is that the DM does a good enough job in Step 1 so that when they are done with the environmental description the players have some interesting thing(s) to engage with in Step 2.

 

[Fanaelialae]

What if I change the example to something else, huh, what then? Your answer isn't correct anymore, right?

I mean, are we really doing this?

Something else like what? I really don't know what you're talking about. By all means, give me an example that invalidates my answer.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not sure the length of the DM's description of the environment matters to A) when Step 1 ends and B) what pillar you are in. The DM might describe a travel montage but eventually the description ends with an actionable environment which will end Step 1 and engage the players in one (or more) of the three pillars. Could be that the travel montage is interrupted by a Step 2 declaration by a player (h/t @Fanaelialae) that puts us squarely in exploration mode.

Ah. If I describe a sequence of 12 things encountered on a trip, but you can only react to the last one to declare actions, the preceding 11 didn't engage the play loop. They're not exploration. If, on the other hand, I describe 12 concurrent things and you can react to all of them, and a loop completes, then we could be in exploration (it could be combat or social or multiple pillars, haven't nailed down the things).

The interruptions is a change to the example I gave. Changing the example to show the original result is wrong is... something... moving a post... goalpost! That's it. It's moving the goalposts after the ball is kicked.

Or, one could say the completed travel montage is (and very much should be) such a small part of the time spent at the table that it is a true outlier. The odd purple crayon that @Umbran mentions upthread that is not necessary to categorize. Notice it, then move on to the good stuff before people start mucking around on their phones. (Nothing against purple crayons, of course).

I do not care how much table time it takes-- this isn't at all an element of my answers. I'm primarily focused on "does a play loop occur?"

Then again, at the end of the day, I don't really care what label the interstitial descriptions carry. All that matters is that the DM does a good enough job in Step 1 so that when they are done with the environmental description the players have some interesting thing(s) to engage with in Step 2.

Quality is a different discussion, yes. I'm not basing my argument on quality of play. You could have very poor quality play that meets my definition, and excellent quality descriptions that do not.

 

[Faolyn]

Realism, mostly. Using the "search the room" example, if I hide somethine really well in a room - say, in a very-hard-to-detect secret compartment in the floor - and I send 100 different people (or groups) in to search for it, even if they have all day the odds of all 100 groups coming out having found it are negligible. Ideally, if my hiding job is good enough none of them find it; but it's inevitable some will just by fluke and some others will by either skill or deduction or whatever.

This is what I want the game to reflect: that even when there's no pressure you can still blow it; and that even if something's normally beyond one's capability to find sometimes you'll find it anyway by sheer luck. Hence, a roll (ONE roll, no rerolls) determines the best you'll do in this situation, instead of Take-20.

That's not the kind of thing that would allow for a take 20/automatic success, though. Because you've hidden something very well in a specific spot.

If the room was just a mess and the "hidden object" was just sitting there under a piece of debris and the only action needed to find it was to move the debris a few inches--that's something you could allow for an automatic success.

You could even split the difference here: ask the players how long they're going to spend searching. If it's "we spend a minute searching," have them roll. If they spend longer than that, they find it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Something else like what? I really don't know what you're talking about. By all means, give me an example that invalidates my answer.

This is what you did to me. I presented a clear example of "not exploration" which you immediately changed and asked if it was still not exploration. This is moving the goalposts -- you're changing the basis of my answer to demand a different answer. I've been very clear on the criteria -- if a player is declaring actions and the GM is resolving them, we're completing a play loop. The answer to your change to my example has already been provided. Let's not play "oh, let's just change the example and pretend the new answer controls."

 

[Fanaelialae]

This is what you did to me. I presented a clear example of "not exploration" which you immediately changed and asked if it was still not exploration. This is moving the goalposts -- you're changing the basis of my answer to demand a different answer. I've been very clear on the criteria -- if a player is declaring actions and the GM is resolving them, we're completing a play loop. The answer to your change to my example has already been provided. Let's not play "oh, let's just change the example and pretend the new answer controls."

It's not moving goalposts.

It demonstrates that the potential for exploration exists even with such montages. And if the potential for exploration exists, then it's exploration.

If an NPC says, "Hi" to a PC and the player responds with "Bye" then that was still a social encounter. It's simply a social encounter that the player chose not to engage with.

If orcs attack and the PCs run away, that's still a combat encounter, simply one they chose not to engage with.

Similarly, opportunities for exploration (which are quite common) are exploration encounters, whether or not the players engage with them.

The choice not to engage is a choice, whether it is made overtly or tacitly.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Ah. If I describe a sequence of 12 things encountered on a trip, but you can only react to the last one to declare actions, the preceding 11 didn't engage the play loop. They're not exploration.

That would be a very weird table experience, IMO, to disallow action declarations based on things that have been described in the environment. Is that truly your experience? Or, I think maybe you answer this later in that very poor quality play can prove your definition correct.

If, on the other hand, I describe 12 concurrent things and you can react to all of them, and a loop completes, then we could be in exploration (it could be combat or social or multiple pillars, haven't nailed down the things).

Agreed

The interruptions is a change to the example I gave. Changing the example to show the original result is wrong is... something... moving a post... goalpost! That's it. It's moving the goalposts after the ball is kicked.

Got it, so the DM must not be interrupted and will shut down any such interrupting declaration, saying (cue Dustin Hoffman voice or, if you prefer, Cousin Nicky): I'm talkin' here!

I do not care how much table time it takes-- this isn't at all an element of my answers. I'm primarily focused on "does a play loop occur?"

My point was that the DM always ends their environmental description in a way that leads to step 2. What else happens at the end of a travel montage? Or are you trying to say sometimes there's a Step 1 then another Step 1 then we get to Step 2. I say, mush those two Step 1s together - the DM hasn't finished setting the scene, hence Step 1 is not over.

Quality is a different discussion, yes. I'm not basing my argument on quality of play. You could have very poor quality play that meets my definition, and excellent quality descriptions that do not.

I... guess?