D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Mordhau]

I don't think it's so much protection from DMs. I think that's not really the right way to look at it.

It's about granting the players specific permission to do things. Games that do such, tend I have found to be more popular with players. Games that are rules light and adaptable tend to be more appealing to DMs (or experienced players).

It's not just whether the DM is good or not. It's not having to negotiate at all. Rules give you things to leverage.

If I have to negotiate whether or not I can cast some kind of ritual to turn invisibile then I'm not going to think much beyond that point of uncertainty.

If I absolutely know I am capable of becoming invisible, then I can ask myself "given that I can be invisible how can I use this to my advantaage"

Expertise is similar. Given I have Expertise in Stealth and a very high Dex, I can have reasonable confidence that I can be stealthy (this is actually misplaced but D&D gets away with it anyway because we don't tend to understand probabilty intuitively).

The fact that D&D, especially it's magic system and magic items, tend to give explicit permission is, I think, part of it's popularity.

 

[Lanefan]

@Lanefan, can I ask you a question? You don't play 5e, but instead a modified version of 1e, right? Why are you arguing about something that's unique to 5e -- ie, even the idea of pillars of play, much less how 5e works for or against it?

Because the pillars-of-play idea, while originating in 5e, in my view maps really well to all the editions and is thus rather edition-agnostic. As such, I see it as fair game for discussion by an old 1e-banger like me.

And you'll note that my examples are also (usually) edition-agnostic. Searching a room or beating down a door are what they are regardless of edition; and even if some trivial mechanics around those actions change from one edition to another the underlying principles are the same.

 

[Lanefan]

The fact that D&D, especially it's magic system and magic items, tend to give explicit permission is, I think, part of it's popularity.

And that right there is an example of a fascinating turnaround in how D&D's rules have been viewed over the editions.

Time was, the general consensus was a character could try anything unless a rule specifically said you could not. The rules were there more to deny excesses than to give permission, as permission to try was assumed unless a rule or the DM said otherwise.

Somewhere along the way (personally, I blame 3e but it might have started earlier) the consensus slowly changed to a character could not or should not try anything unless a rule specifically said you could - in other words, the rules have been interpreted more as giving explicit permission rather than specific denial, probavbly because they've been written that way.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, since discovery, research and info-gathering are most likely not challenges (they could be, but, most of the time they aren't) and are almost never going to kill/disadvantage you right now, we put those off to the side and not include them in any pillar.

See, to me, when they talk about pillars of the game, the key word in that phrase is game. Which means there has to be some sense of a play loop in order for it to be a game.

I see "the game" as being more than that; including everything that happens during play whether it's part of an active play loop or not.

Role-playing two PCs chatting over the campfire? Part of the game.
Dividing party treasure in town? Part of the game.
Research and info-gathering? Part of the game.
Exposition dump from the DM? Part of the game.

You get the idea.

Research, for example, doesn't really have a play loop. You talk to the sage, go to the library, whatever, and get the information. There might be gradiations in how much information you receive, but, by and large, you are going to get information when you research. And, generally speaking again, there's no actual challenge here.

Although, technically, wouldn't information gathering be mostly part of the social pillar?

Sometimes, if the info is coming from another creature. But it could also be coming from books or divinatory magic or interpreting signs in the stars.

I think the bigger mistake is trying shoehorn everything under the sun into the exploration pillar.

Perhaps, but if everything under the sun has to go somewhere, which other (currently-known) pillar fits it better?

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't think it's so much protection from DMs. I think that's not really the right way to look at it.

It's about granting the players specific permission to do things. Games that do such, tend I have found to be more popular with players. Games that are rules light and adaptable tend to be more appealing to DMs (or experienced players).

It's not just whether the DM is good or not. It's not having to negotiate at all. Rules give you things to leverage.

If I have to negotiate whether or not I can cast some kind of ritual to turn invisibile then I'm not going to think much beyond that point of uncertainty.

If I absolutely know I am capable of becoming invisible, then I can ask myself "given that I can be invisible how can I use this to my advantaage"

Expertise is similar. Given I have Expertise in Stealth and a very high Dex, I can have reasonable confidence that I can be stealthy (this is actually misplaced but D&D gets away with it anyway because we don't tend to understand probabilty intuitively).

The fact that D&D, especially it's magic system and magic items, tend to give explicit permission is, I think, part of it's popularity.

Less "granting the players specific permission to do things", more "granting the players permission to ignore specific things" & that's the problem. It's easy for an inexperienced gm to go overboard with exploration stuff thinking they should, but that doesn't mean that all Ms using exploration stuff will do so. Rather than just not including the rules or tossing them in an optional rule somewhere wotc included them and gave the players numerous ways to trivially prevent ignoring those rules from having any impact o them. As to rules light comment, d&d is very much not rules light.

And that right there is an example of a fascinating turnaround in how D&D's rules have been viewed over the editions.

Time was, the general consensus was a character could try anything unless a rule specifically said you could not. The rules were there more to deny excesses than to give permission, as permission to try was assumed unless a rule or the DM said otherwise.

Somewhere along the way (personally, I blame 3e but it might have started earlier) the consensus slowly changed to a character could not or should not try anything unless a rule specifically said you could - in other words, the rules have been interpreted more as giving explicit permission rather than specific denial, probavbly because they've been written that way.

3.x had a system called DM's best friend & bonus types (both in this post). The players could still try anything & both gm as well as player had an idea of how much impact that a given value of anything might have. That padded crowbar on a door you mentioned earlier simply went from whatever the gm says it does to "can we get a circumstance bonus on being quiet if we pad the crowbar like so?" & "Hey, I've got some holy water, can we use it for a... divine(?) bonus if we soak the padding with holywater so we don't ring the zombie dinner bell while breaking down this door?" with everyone having an idea about the cost/benefit ratio on those kinds of things. I think it was definitely post 3.5 but mostly skipped 4e.

 

[Mordhau]

And that right there is an example of a fascinating turnaround in how D&D's rules have been viewed over the editions.

Time was, the general consensus was a character could try anything unless a rule specifically said you could not. The rules were there more to deny excesses than to give permission, as permission to try was assumed unless a rule or the DM said otherwise.

Somewhere along the way (personally, I blame 3e but it might have started earlier) the consensus slowly changed to a character could not or should not try anything unless a rule specifically said you could - in other words, the rules have been interpreted more as giving explicit permission rather than specific denial, probavbly because they've been written that way.

Hmmm...so how do you reconcile this interpretation of my post with the point I made about invisibility?

I think you need to read the post again. If something's still not clear please feel free to ask?

 

[Mordhau]

Less "granting the players specific permission to do things", more "granting the players permission to ignore specific things" & that's the problem.

It's both those things obviously. I'm not arguing that certain spells and abilities are very poor design, but dude you are never ever anything but negative.

As to rules light comment, d&d is very much not rules light.

Well obviously. I was suggesting that as one of the reason it's a popular game with players. Was that somehow unclear?

 

[Lanefan]

Hmmm...so how do you reconcile this interpretation of my post with the point I made about invisibility?

Tangentially, to some extent.

Invisibility is a spell effect (usually) and spell rules are pretty hard and fast and more or less always have been.

But take lockpicking. Time was, any character could try this and not necessarily auto-fail but a few classes were clearly better at it. Eventually, that morphed into don't even try unless you've got the skill or ability as you'll auto-fail every time.

Same with knowledge. Before 3e codified knowledge into the skill system any character might have some limited knowledge of pretty much anything, based usually on Intelligence and in some cases on class or background. But once that codified system hit, characters without knowledge skills suddenly seemed to know a whole lot less than they used to (as in, often next to nothing) while characters with knowledge skills knew a lot more about a few specific areas.

 

[Lanefan]

3.x had a system called DM's best friend & bonus types (both in this post).

In theory, yes it did. How often did it ever see the light of day, is the question.

The players could still try anything & both gm as well as player had an idea of how much impact that a given value of anything might have. That padded crowbar on a door you mentioned earlier simply went from whatever the gm says it does to "can we get a circumstance bonus on being quiet if we pad the crowbar like so?" & "Hey, I've got some holy water, can we use it for a... divine(?) bonus if we soak the padding with holywater so we don't ring the zombie dinner bell while breaking down this door?" with everyone having an idea about the cost/benefit ratio on those kinds of things. I think it was definitely post 3.5 but mostly skipped 4e.

Which is cool, but that sort of inventiveness wasn't encouraged in the least in the 3e PH (nor the 4e, if memory serves). Contrast this with the advice in both the PH and DMG for 1e, which had much more of a try-anything vibe.

 

[Baron Opal II]

This sort of reads close to a skill challenge. The only part I'm really uncertain about is the captain making a check. It decides a lot about what is going on, and the PCs have no way to do anything about it. I'm also not exactly sure what they are making checks for. Sure, they can grab people washed overboard if there are any, but if you have a crew of trained seamen, they are going to be experts on how to handle the ship, not the party. And repairing the ship is likely going to require tool proficiency, which not everyone can have.

So, while I like the idea on the broad sense, the details are escaping me of the best way to handle it.



While technically true, remember that per the base line rules in 5e, eating a single days worth of food at any point during the 3+con mod day window means that you suffer no ill-effects. So, if you have a days worth of food every 3 days, you are fine.

This is another reason why food is just not an issue in 5e. 3 days of rations is actually good for 9 days if you are willing to push,

The number one thing that impacts the survival of the ship is how well the captain is able to steer the ship along the waves. You want to go into the storm, otherwise the wind and waves will slap into the side and flip the ship over. Especially if you have an empty hold. But, if you cut directly across high waves you cause the keel and hull to flex. This can crack the hull or split the ship. A skilled captain is needed to guide the ship so that it takes the least damage. In a really bad storm you'll probably lose a mast or two.

It would really suck if the captain was washed overboard...

Furthermore, in the larger ships there were specific sails that were used to guide the ship in storms. They were small, but still needed to be adjusted in the rigging. So there were sailors up there adjusting sails, tied off with safety lines to prevent them getting blown off. Most sailors who were on the deck tied themselves to the mast or the railing. A cubic foot of water weighs about 60 pounds, and several cubic yards of water will be crashing over the decks. Being able to minimize the overwash through skillful piloting makes it easier.

Having someone that can go below decks and warp wood back into place, or a floating disk cast just outside a rupture could be critical. The cleric casting resist elements on the crew member steering the ship so they can handle getting washed with freezing cold water could be key. Flying up to the rigging would be an astoundingly bad idea, but having a fly on the thief as a backup in case they slip could be useful. The great strength of the fighter can help steady a line or a boom as the crew unfouls the necessary rigging.

So it comes down to

• The ship is going to take damage, slowly, but perhaps catastrophically.
• If the ship goes down everyone's probably going to die.
• The captain (or who's ever steering) can mitigate, but not eliminate the damage.
• He might not be able to mitigate it enough, regardless.
• The crew can help the captain mitigate the damage.
• Some crew are going to be lost.
• If the PCs stay below decks they will be safe, unless the ship sinks.
• If the PCs help on deck, they are subject to the same hazards as the crew (which are bad).

So then it becomes how can the PCs

• Help the captain steer the ship?
• Replace the captain to steer the ship if he gets washed overboard?
• Help the crew keep the ship responsive to the captain's orders?
• Maintain the endurance of the captain and crew?
• Prevent the captain and crew from getting washed overboard?
• Rescue the captain and crew if they get washed overboard (which will be hard to impossible in a storm)?
• Fix / repair the ship so it doesn't come apart beneath them?