D&D 5E Why I think we don't need rules for exploration, just tools.

[fjw70]

I think what the OP is getting at is that he doesn't want a defined rules procedure for exploration. I haven't looked at the 5e exploration rules that closely but I think they tell everyone to take a specific role and each turn (or whatever the time increment is) they tell everyone to roll for their role (lookout, searcher, or whatever). The 4e skill challenges are being lumped in since it imposes a structure on things like social interactions.

I think the tools he talks about are just individual skills or abilities of the characters, which he is fine with. He just don't want the structures or procedures.

At least that is my understanding of what he was trying to communicate.

 

[Li Shenron]

Why do we need turn based exploration?

What exactly does turned based bring back to the game?

Two things that such a system would help me with:

- group multiple routine checks into a single check per turn: a typical case could be trapfinding, maybe you have 2 traps in the whole dungeon but the players are so paranoid that they roll a check at every floor tile, and when they forget to do so it's of course one of those 2 locations they should have... Especially featureless dungeons (e.g. natural caves) or outdoor locations can be tedious, with the monotonous surroundings giving no clue. A turn-based system could have a task for trapfinding or similar things to avoid players do that, and at the same time avoiding the opposite case of the DM practically having to tell them when to roll.

- forcing characters do one task, leaving other tasks to other characters: in a turn-based system where each PC can do one only thing per turn, maybe there is less risk for one of them to dominate the whole phase. At the same time, and even more importantly, a party with e.g. 2 Rogues or 2 Rangers makes sense again, because the better of the two can't always do everything all the time.

That said, unfortunately the current system has a good framework, but falls very short in the list of tasks covered! I.e., you still have to take those checks one-by-one...

 

[ExploderWizard]

Why do we need turn based exploration?

What exactly does turned based bring back to the game?

Freedom from excessive rule structure and an emphasis on gameplay instead of a series of constructed scenes. The game turn ( 10 minutes in a dungeon and a day in the wilderness) gives the players a very loose framework in which to operate as they see fit. The game turn permitted the players to choose the pace of exploration and really have some measure of control in the strategic sense.

Skill Challenges were turn based exploration.

Umm. No. Skill challenges were a process for turning interesting gameplay into a structured dicefest with a side helping of the minigame of improbable improv. If you can find a way to make your largest modifiers relevant to a particular dicefest then you can win.

There may have been some exploration prior to a skil challenge but once the true nature of the beast is revealed whatever was happening turns into anther episode of modifier madness.

I think what the OP is getting at is that he doesn't want a defined rules procedure for exploration. I haven't looked at the 5e exploration rules that closely but I think they tell everyone to take a specific role and each turn (or whatever the time increment is) they tell everyone to roll for their role (lookout, searcher, or whatever). The 4e skill challenges are being lumped in since it imposes a structure on things like social interactions.

I think the tools he talks about are just individual skills or abilities of the characters, which he is fine with. He just don't want the structures or procedures.

At least that is my understanding of what he was trying to communicate.

Rules procedures for exploration can be important, but none of them need to require the player to choose anything from a pre-defined option menu. Exploration procedures can run very smoothly from the GM's side. Players can do whatever they want to do without needing to announce in order that Bob is hitting the scout button while Dave launches a super-detailed map attack on area X.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I have always hated Diplomacy as a skill. If I had my druthers, people would roleplay appropriate to their Cha score, and the NPC's would respond accordingly.

I have a similar feeling for Search checks. I don't like hearing "I search the room" from my players.

For everything else I can think of, having robust rules for adjudication are helpful and necessary.

EDIT: These two things, in particular, are where my recent 1E play has really facilitated my preferred playstyle more by what it left out than what it threw in.

I have a love/hate relationship with diplomacy. I've seen both ways.

Lets start with: You said later that you throw your hands up say my elf is way smarter then I am... well some people need to do that with there paladin. "My cha 24 paladin knows what to say and is much more likeable then me..."

I have seen players with no ability to talk want to play sorcerers... and one of my big pet peeves is when in one player is the high cha and low combat stat PC and another is an 8 str half orc with super combat stats, but the second player can out talk the 1st...


Since I am in a sales postion, and have a few friends who really are into the talking and presentation side of things, meanwhile some of our players are 'stereotypical players' or low social engineers...


in a perfect world everyone would play all 3 mental stats... but since we don't live in perfect...

 

[LucasC]

I have had too many players who could not or would not roleplay Int/Wis/Cha to agree that people should, in all circumstances, be expected to play these out with mechanical help.

Is it preferred that they do? Absolutely.

Should a players character be disadvantaged because the player doesn't have good social skills? I don't think so.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Ability scores aside, I actually prefer Mouse Guard's conflict resolution rules when it comes to social conflict. Basically, you and the DM secretly write down 3 consecutive strategies(Mouse Guard uses Attack, Defend, Feint and Maneuver) and then compare and role play the results. I'm not sure how exactly to translate that to D&D, but in my mind it works better than a straight binary succeed/fail roll.

 

[SteveC]

Exploration rules are critical for Next, and they're actually one of the things I like about the current edition. It's as if someone on the Wizard's development team played some sessions of The One Ring.

Why? What do you get from them? If you define exploration as one of the pillars of the game, you need rules for it, and characters need to be able to be able to do different things to contribute to exploration, much like combat and social encounters. If there's a character who's specialty is exploration (which many people want the rogue to be) they had better actually be able to do something awesome while exploring. If you define a thing as being a pillar of the game, then let's have some rules to encourage you to do it!

As to how "turn-based minigame-esque" you actually need to be, I think opinions will vary here. I like some structure to exploration, but I'd like to see the options to be as free-form as an individual DM wants to be.

So yes, exploration rules, please.

With that said: I expect that given how Next is progressing, these rules aren't going to make a major showing in the final product, and we'll end up just roleplaying this part of the game, and the classes that are supposed to be good at it since they're not strong in other parts of the game will get ... nothing. I hope I'm wrong, but these rules are definitely not very "old school" feeling, so I suspect they may largely get dropped.

 

[Minigiant]

For negotiations an explorations when I DM, I do a mix of mechanics from 4e skill challenges and basic checks. I determine how many "bad things" could happpen and how many "good things" could be lost in a particular event. Then call for checks naturally with failures meaning either a boon is lost or a complication or penalty is added. It wasn't as rigid as skill chanllenges as each die roll directly tied to a part of the conversation or exploration.

1 check for the location of the dungeon. 1 check for an escort of warriors. 1 check for information about the dungeon. 1 group check to sense a trap to kill the PCs. 1 check to navigate the wilds to get to the dungeon. 1 group check to spot the ambush. 1 group check to climb the cliff to check to the dungeon. A set of checks to survive the freak tornado

Sometimes (often) I penalize PCs who roll too many times in a row (based on Int) as the PC runs out of ideas or eventually brainfarts. Spreads the rolls around.


The key is to make the explorations and conversation rules feel organic. And that is something not taught often. And most mechanically rules pull you out the immersion. It took a long time to learn when to stop the player talking and call for a roll in a natural manner.

The Next rules for exploration feels good. They feel natural. Brother John navigates with Green. Xila writes the map. Slick scouts ahead. Sir Goose watches for ambushes. "John and Green. Roll so I can tell you what you see. Goose and Slick roll too. Just in case. Xila, you are too busy."

 

[Raith5]

I think skill challenges (or the like) perform an interesting role in the RPGs because they provide structure to the use of skills which provides ways of narrating consequences to non-combat situations. I feel RPGs need this if the social and exploration silos are to be taken seriously (and perhaps balanced against combat). But sure, there are sometimes where you would want to ignore them.

But biggest critique against SC in 4th ed was that the template needed to treat exploration and social situations far differently. Exploration in 4th ed skill challenges worked great in my experience - and worked great in conjunction with the right rituals (Endure Elements can come handy) - to set the scene of dramatic environments like deserts etc and set out the importance of having plan about how the PCs were going to address the circumstance. But I think skill challenges in social situations were too random at times and open to the challenge of the PC who speaks bull crap and rolls 19 and the speaker who makes insightful speech and the promptly rolls a 2.

So in terms of exploration I think SC mechanics add quite ad bit and can be ignored if desired.

 

[the Jester]

Umm. No. Skill challenges were a process for turning interesting gameplay into a structured dicefest with a side helping of the minigame of improbable improv. If you can find a way to make your largest modifiers relevant to a particular dicefest then you can win.

There may have been some exploration prior to a skil challenge but once the true nature of the beast is revealed whatever was happening turns into anther episode of modifier madness.

While it is true that many dms ended up using them this way (and most early examples in the books and modules were terrible), a skill challenge can actually be really cool. But you have to dispose of a lot of the clutter surrounding them, starting with the idea that a SC should have a list of skills that are applicable and how you use them. That part is up to the players! What makes a good SC is a dm willing and able to adjudicate that player agency and rule on DCs for their ideas of which skills to use and how.

None of this "I use Stealth to see if I know anything about the carving" stuff, obviously. More like "I know, I'll use Acrobatics to see if I can stabilize the rocking boat!"