Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8373044" data-attributes="member: 16814">Almost all of those things are exploration things, though.&nbsp; Combat remains non-trivial, and ways to trivialize combat are hard to come by.&nbsp; Same with social challenges -- they do not really become trivial, because easy methods to bypass them have nasty knockon effects (domination wins you the challenge, but not the war, for instance).&nbsp; However, exploration gets more and more ways that are more and more effective and trivializing any exploration challenges, and no new tiers of challenge arise that aren't also trivialized.&nbsp; The problem with 5e exploration is that it's not integrated as a challenge loop like combat or even the much lesser social pillar rules (which most GMs ignore, oddly).&nbsp; There's no established play loop for exploration challenges like there are for combat or social challenges.&nbsp; Look at traps, probably the densest set of rules for exploration -- how do you detect a trap?&nbsp; Up to the GM.&nbsp; What skill should I prioritize if I want to be good at traps?&nbsp; Up to the GM.&nbsp; What happens when I find a trap, what actions am I expected to take to work through a trap?&nbsp; Up to the GM.Exploration is entirely on the back of the GM to figure out how it works with only a few places were some suggestions are made (not counting the volume of advice on worldbuilding because it doesn't show you how to use that worldbuilding, just how to do it).&nbsp; Against this are a myriad of ever expanding player side options that just say &quot;nope, we skip that.&quot;&nbsp; This creates an absolute mess, and it's really only the GM who can put anything resembling sanity together here.&nbsp; I mean, even Iserith's advice, which I find good, is more about leaning into the vague hints and suggestions and treating them as rules for exploration than it is any actual system in 5e.&nbsp; Because 5e is very, very careful to never pronounce any actual approach -- they merely suggest -- and puts everything on the shoulders of the GM.And, for someone very used to this approach in D&amp;D, namely those with extensive experience with pre-3.x editions and those that found 4e objectionable, this is fine because they're used to a game where the GM is required at a design level to make it work.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8373044, member: 16814"] Almost all of those things are exploration things, though. Combat remains non-trivial, and ways to trivialize combat are hard to come by. Same with social challenges -- they do not really become trivial, because easy methods to bypass them have nasty knockon effects (domination wins you the challenge, but not the war, for instance). However, exploration gets more and more ways that are more and more effective and trivializing any exploration challenges, and no new tiers of challenge arise that aren't also trivialized. The problem with 5e exploration is that it's not integrated as a challenge loop like combat or even the much lesser social pillar rules (which most GMs ignore, oddly). There's no established play loop for exploration challenges like there are for combat or social challenges. Look at traps, probably the densest set of rules for exploration -- how do you detect a trap? Up to the GM. What skill should I prioritize if I want to be good at traps? Up to the GM. What happens when I find a trap, what actions am I expected to take to work through a trap? Up to the GM. Exploration is entirely on the back of the GM to figure out how it works with only a few places were some suggestions are made (not counting the volume of advice on worldbuilding because it doesn't show you how to use that worldbuilding, just how to do it). Against this are a myriad of ever expanding player side options that just say "nope, we skip that." This creates an absolute mess, and it's really only the GM who can put anything resembling sanity together here. I mean, even Iserith's advice, which I find good, is more about leaning into the vague hints and suggestions and treating them as rules for exploration than it is any actual system in 5e. Because 5e is very, very careful to never pronounce any actual approach -- they merely suggest -- and puts everything on the shoulders of the GM. And, for someone very used to this approach in D&D, namely those with extensive experience with pre-3.x editions and those that found 4e objectionable, this is fine because they're used to a game where the GM is required at a design level to make it work. [/QUOTE]

Verification