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

[NewJeffCT]

4E skill challenges are one of those things that works best when you don't put much effort and enforcement into it. I think people were so used to treating things as strict structures like classic D&D combat rules that they forget that you can have "fuzzy" action going on as well.

In my experience, the best skill challenges are those the PLAYERS come up with, and which the DM adjusts to on the fly, rather than a rigid set of actions and consequences which often will not fit what the players are doing. Setting the DCs for different actions (with adjustment for creativity) and the general "X successes before Y failures" in your head as the DM, but then reacting to the narrative instead of just the rolls, makes for some amazing stuff.

well put. I ran a 2 year long 4e campaign and didn't use many skill challenges of my own creation. One was from a published adventure that went okay, but the one I created on the fly that I remember worked out well - the players were trying to chase a messenger raven through the streets to find its destination, so I had them making perception rolls to keep the raven in sight, athletics or acrobatics checks to avoid people in the streets of the city, streetwise to find a shortcut through an alleyway, insight to guess if it flies straight or turns, and maybe one or two others.

(You fail your acrobatics check - "As you strain your eyes to see the raven and also follow the speedy Elthan (fellow PC with a speed of 7), you plow right into an apple vendor dragging his cart into the street, you fall to the ground, half covered in apples..." and then the PC behind him makes his acrobatics check, "And, you leap gracefully over the cart where the fallen Lucien is getting an earful from the apple vendor.")

But, the other skill challenges were put together by the players, or else I handled diplomacy with a single roll or two, like back in 2e or 3e/3.5e days.

 

[Iosue]

Why do we need turn based exploration?

What exactly does turned based bring back to the game?

I don't know if you need turn-based exploration. If not, cool. The nice thing about 5e is that the exploration module can be lifted out completely and never used if the group has no interest in it.

But for me, I grew up with B/X and BECMI. For me, playing D&D has always been about exploring a dungeon, exploring hexes of wilderness, exploring hexes of wilderness to get to dungeons for more exploration. Through the years people have used D&D for other things, and that's great, too, but in the beginning it was about exploration, and I want that option in D&D.

Now the 5e rules include skill-based things for characters to do, and that's fine if people want that. But what I want is not rules for exploration skills, I want a structure that allows time-keeping, mapping, variable movement rates, and random encounters. I want simple rules for getting lost, encumbrance, and light sources. I want a DM-side system that allows for easy adjudication and time-keeping -- rules as a DM aid, not the medium through which players interact with the game.

Skill Challenges were turn based exploration.

That statement is beyond bizarre. 4e doesn't have turns as a unit of time.

Skill challenges aren't turn-based exploration. They're conflict resolution within a metagame framework. They're pretty much the antithesis of traditional D&D-style exploration. I'm not a huge fan of traditional exploration, and I like skill challenges quite a lot. I don't know what Iosue's view of skill challenges is (if I've read it, Iosue, sorry that I've forgotten) but I can see why - given that he liked it in classic D&D - he would be glad to see turn-based exploration back.

I am cordially disinclined towards Skill Challenges. When I read about them in the 4e rulebooks, I thought, "I can see why some folks would want a system like that, but it's not really for me." But I've never really had a problem with them playing 4e over the last two years or so. Sometimes they were kinda boring, sometimes fun. As you know, I like B/X, and so my preferred style is to let the DM handle the meta-game resources, and let the players operate (as much as possible) "in the fiction". But when in Rome...! Certainly, they can be handled poorly, but B/X exploration can devolve into pixel-bitching if not done right, so I'm not one to throw stones.

 

[the Jester]

Also, if somebody is really uncomfortable with social interaction and prefers to mostly be quiet during role-play and rely on die-rolls, they shouldn't be playing a character with a high Charisma. Because they're undermining the role-play aspects for the entire group at that point. (Exception: if nobody likes the role-play elements, obviously that's something that can be arm waived by group fiat.)

I disagree with this very, very strongly.

What if the shy player likes the idea of playing a bard? You're basically saying that she shouldn't be able to. In essence, you're telling this player, "Sorry, no fun for you". By your argument, a shy player in a 1e game simply doesn't get to play paladins or druids, either. So what happens to this guy in a game where you roll stats in order, and he gets a high Charisma? Does he have special dispensation to rearrange stats from the DM, or is he stuck with a worthless high roll?

I recognize your argument, and it works fine for some groups. In fact, the discussion initially arose way back in the day, before there was a real skill system in D&D. But it certainly doesn't work for every group, and in fact, that is the very reason that D&D grew social skills in the first place - to decouple (to whatever extent) player skill with character skill. Not every group likes this decoupling, and that's fine, but surely you recognize that your stance comes with problems, both for the shy player and for the guys who really invests in diplomatic abilities. The more rp scenes are based strictly on roleplaying and not on the dice, the less any effort you put into making your character good at it matters.

As an example, I played a character who I wanted to be the world's best liar. The dm houseruled skill points (this was 3.x) so that there was no max, you could put them all into one skill if you wanted.

So I was playing this guy with over +100 to Bluff checks. No matter how creative, quick-thinking and disingenuous I am, I personally will NEVER have that good of a liar's face. But my pc sure did!

And yet, somehow, I never convinced anyone of anything that I, personally, the player, couldn't convince someone of with my vastly inferior lying skills.

I found that tremendously dissatisfying, and I say this as a fairly charismatic, talkative, persuasive guy.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I disagree with this very, very strongly.

What if the shy player likes the idea of playing a bard? You're basically saying that she shouldn't be able to. In essence, you're telling this player, "Sorry, no fun for you". By your argument, a shy player in a 1e game simply doesn't get to play paladins or druids, either. So what happens to this guy in a game where you roll stats in order, and he gets a high Charisma? Does he have special dispensation to rearrange stats from the DM, or is he stuck with a worthless high roll?

I recognize your argument, and it works fine for some groups. In fact, the discussion initially arose way back in the day, before there was a real skill system in D&D. But it certainly doesn't work for every group, and in fact, that is the very reason that D&D grew social skills in the first place - to decouple (to whatever extent) player skill with character skill. Not every group likes this decoupling, and that's fine, but surely you recognize that your stance comes with problems, both for the shy player and for the guys who really invests in diplomatic abilities. The more rp scenes are based strictly on roleplaying and not on the dice, the less any effort you put into making your character good at it matters.

As an example, I played a character who I wanted to be the world's best liar. The dm houseruled skill points (this was 3.x) so that there was no max, you could put them all into one skill if you wanted.

So I was playing this guy with over +100 to Bluff checks. No matter how creative, quick-thinking and disingenuous I am, I personally will NEVER have that good of a liar's face. But my pc sure did!

And yet, somehow, I never convinced anyone of anything that I, personally, the player, couldn't convince someone of with my vastly inferior lying skills.

I found that tremendously dissatisfying, and I say this as a fairly charismatic, talkative, persuasive guy.

I'd be upset with that as well. While I can see the DM giving you a failure sometimes, I think it works better if you play to each PC's strengths - give the "social" PC things to overcome in social situations, give the burly tank enough burly bad guys to hack away at, give the wizard something that plays to his or her strengths, etc. And, if the BBEG is smart, then maybe he can give his minions some intentionally false information and have it fed to your lying PC as a way around it.

Back in my 3.5e game, we had a rather quiet, somewhat morose, guy in our group. However, he played a human sorcerer with an 18 Charisma. It was still a memorable character that lasted all the way up until level 18 when the campaign ended and his base Charisma was 22. When it came to social situations, I'd often handle it by having him make a die roll, and sometimes I'd even use his quiet nature to his advantage, "The sorcerer steps into the room, and his presence is so strong that heads turn his way as he strides purposefully through the room..." or something like that. But, if I had denied him that chance because of his personality, the group would have missed out on a memorable PC.