Should there be more Exploration/Interaction Rules?

[Catullus64]

I wanted to discuss a point made by Sparky McDibben in his recent post here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?641352-Predictions-For-Next-Edition) but didn't think that the point I wanted to debate was actually all that germane to that thread itself, which is about making predictions. In particular, I wanted to push against a sentiment expressed by Sparky in this particular instance, but which I feel like I encounter a lot in these parts, to wit:


The other thing I think is going to happen is that WotC is going to run out of mechanics to put in their game. They've really only developed one game structure, and that's combat. But because they've only developed combat, they can really only add things that impact combat. So they've got three options:

1) Add stuff that impacts mostly combat (which will get them panned for power creep)
2) Add stuff that tries to compensate for the lack of social and exploration structures (which will come across as half-assed, since it's just, "Uh, advantage to stuff?")
3) Add game structures for social and exploration play (this is the optimal path, but I don't think it'll happen because I don't think the design team realizes this is a problem)

My personal bet is a combo of options 1 and 2. That's not necessarily bad, but it will make it harder for me to enjoy from the DMs side of the screen.

Interested to hear y'all's takes!

There are a few assertions here that build off each other. The first is that D&D's mechanics for what it calls two of the three pillars of gameplay, Interaction & Exploration, have fewer structures and systems to define their activities than does the third pillar, Combat. The second assertion is that therefore these pillars of the game are undeveloped or underdeveloped. Numbered point 2 suggests that therefore any attempt to provide new content centered around the Interaction & Exploration pillars as they exist now would therefore be "half-assed". And finally, he asserts that the best course of action is to reverse this state of affairs by systematizing Exploration & Interaction to a similar extent as combat, though I doubt he means to say that they should be equally systematized. Sparky, jump in if I've misrepresented anything you said.

It's pretty manifestly true that Exploration & Interaction have fewer formal game systems built around them than combat, though I think this disparity is often exaggerated. There is absolutely formal content in the core books for modeling non-combat adventure scenarios: travel times, wilderness hazards, chases, lighting, mechanical functions for non-weapon adventuring gear, and, you know, all the spells with no immediate combat applicability. But yes, I absolutely agree that these areas of gameplay are not modeled with the same kind of fine detail as the swords-and-lightning-bolts business. I could probably also be persuaded that therefore it's fair to call these other aspects undeveloped.

Where I stiffly disagree is in characterizing this state of affairs as a problem, or in claiming that the game would be much improved by, to use Sparky's words directly "adding game structures for social and exploration play." My position, one I think is (or at least was) shared by the design team, is that for Interaction & Exploration, less is often more. Combat pretty much demands a certain level of systemization: without lots of rules to abstract or arbitrarily simplify, fighting is too chaotic & complex to really handle otherwise. The stakes are high, so clarity is important, and the pace needs to be kept somewhat brisk because of aforementioned complexity.

Exploration & Interaction, by contrast, with their lower moment-to-moment stakes and lesser complexity, give space for players to ask detailed questions and the DM to give or come up with answers; for players to carefully describe activity and the DM to consider what happens in response. The real engine of good roleplay gaming, this back-and-forth storytelling between players and DM, thrives in the space created by the light-touch ruleset. The fundamental non-combat gameplay mechanic of D&D ("describe a scenario, decide what to do, roll some dice if you're not sure what happens next") is beautifully simple.

I've played a goodly number of games that try to give their non-combat spaces the same degree of mechanical detail as their combat, and they always seem to create more problems for themselves than they solve. I keep coming back to D&D 5e, and other games like it, for a reason.

And no, I don't think this is a scenario where "don't use it if you don't like it" really satisfies me. Leaving aside that such can be said of anything in the darn game, putting rules into a game creates the expectation that they will be used. They condition expectations about what a game will be like, and teach people what to expect. And if a DM is dead set on using such a rule, a player who dislikes it has little recourse short of "quit or threaten to quit the game." So I think it's entirely fair to make an argument about whether a particular change would better or worsen the game for you, even if you do have the liberty to ignore it as an individual DM.

Whew, that got long, and this is cut down from what I initially wrote. Anyone who has the patience to read and respond, you have my thanks.

[Psyren]

I think his assertion is built on a faulty premise:


They've really only developed one game structure, and that's combat. But because they've only developed combat, they can really only add things that impact combat.

It's true that Combat is the most developed structure of D&D (by design - the very name of the game emphasizes combat after all), but that's not the same as saying that combat is the only pillar with any development. Yes, the core rules for the other two pillars are contained within a relatively small portion of the DMG (242-245) but there are numerous official rules there and elsewhere if you want to add texture, like Background Proficiencies, Environment design and Honor.

Moreover, it's outright false to say that because Combat is the most developed, they can't add things that impact the other two pillars. Both Xanathar's and Tasha's proved that to be wrong - Xanathar's through things like Downtime rules and expanded tool proficiencies, and Tasha's through expanded Parley, Hazard, Phenomenon and Puzzle rules, as examples. None of these new rules are aimed at the Combat pillar.

[Sorinth]

I tend to agree that the less is more approach is better for a number of reasons. Though the DMG could do a better job of helping DMs understand how to adjudicate situations and how those decisions will likely impact play.

[Sparky McDibben]

There seems to be a misinterpretation here. I'm not advocating for more rules, I am advocating for more structure. The two are distinct. A structure gives context to mechanics, and provides a foundation for the DM to make rulings and decide what happens next.

Further reading on game structures here. (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15126/roleplaying-games/game-structures)

As an example, the old D&D 0e dungeoncrawl structure provided the players a foundation on which to make their decisions. "We think there might be something in this room. But if we search the whole room, it takes 10 minutes, and that triggers a wandering monster check. Is the risk worth the potential reward, or lack thereof?" The dungeoncrawling structure communicates to the players that this place is dangerous, that risk is around every corner, and time in the dungeon is a resource to be rationed wisely.

For the DM, the structure lets them know when and how to introduce wandering monsters (via the wandering monster check, mutual surprise roll, reaction roll, and random distance), why to introduce wandering monsters (to give the dungeon teeth), when the PC's encounter traps and hazards, how long it takes to perform certain actions (10 minutes to move 90 feet through corridors, assuming careful and thorough searching for traps, 1 minute to search specific items and locations; when in doubt, default to 10 minute chunks), etc. The structure, along with the actual dungeon layout, can communicate what happens when the PCs take certain actions (did they ring that gong? Well, the inhabitants of the adjacent rooms probably come out to investigate, and you should probably trigger a wandering monster check). All of that is really useful if you're trying to present the dungeon as a dangerous place with its own rules and logic.

Again, structures aren't mechanics. Mechanics (like an attack roll) help you adjudicate a specific action where the outcome is in doubt. A structure informs the mechanics, provides context to the player's actions, and gives the DM clues as to potential consequences. The D&D 5e combat engine is a structure - there are specific mechanics that hook into it, and every class interacts with that structure in some way. I just want the same thing for social and exploration play.

Now, as to Catullus' point about exploration having generally lower stakes and therefore requiring less precise mechanics. This statement is generally true, although irrelevant to my point (as we discussed above, mechanics are not structures). However, I want to point out something I think is sad: why are we settling for low stakes in exploration? Exploration has very high stakes, both historically and in the literary roots of TTRPGs. Canadian Thanksgiving celebrates one such attempt, and Mitchell's second expedition into the Outback shows what a piss-poor idea it is to go exploring while irritating the folks who live there. Almost the entirety of Lovecraft's corpus involves people going to places they ought not be (Unknown Kadath, anyone?), and Conan is nearly as great an explorer as he is a thief (and indeed, makes little distinction between the two).

Imagine if we had structures for these adventures! How much easier would it be to run exploring an area if you and the players knew how to go about running it? "Describe a scenario, decide what to do, roll some dice if you're not sure what happens next" is beautifully simple, yes...but it requires a lot of making stuff up from the DM. "Less is more" is a great mantra, until you need more. Like, real More, not "just make it up!" more. Also, it kind of murders a lot of the tension:

DM: Make a Survival check.

Player: I got a 12.

DM: Congratulations! You find the hidden city of Xajs'ajtyoeloal'paiowkahdiujaqdf'aksiuhdnthalds, lost for over a thousand years!

Player: ...On a 12? Was no one looking very hard?

I mean, sure, you could raise the DC, but that comes with its own problems, doesn't it? What if they fail? How do you make being lost interesting in 5e? How often do you check for random encounters? Do you have adventure generators set up to handle the wilderness? Did you ask the PCs how much food and water they were carrying? Of course not. The designers didn't think getting lost was fun, so they neglected to include interesting decisions that arise when you're lost. And, naturally, the use of druids, rangers, and backgrounds to pretty much delete resource management as a source of tension means that there are no stakes at all if your PCs get lost. All of which leads to a lot of DMs going, "Screw it, you just get there." And that's fine...if you don't want fun exploration to be a part of your D&D game. As for me, I do want that.

Now imagine if the PCs know what they need to do to find the hidden city of Xajs'ajtyoeloal'paiowkahdiujaqdf'aksiuhdnthalds, and can set about finding those things for themselves. Imagine if their characters had abilities keyed specifically to making overland travel interesting, with multiple decision points for their expedition. Imagine if being lost led to new and different adventures, generated by the DM on the fly with randomized tools informed by the context of a game structure. All of that sounds pretty freaking awesome to me! And it's profitable for WotC, too - it gives them more widgets to introduce into their game, and more neat things for characters to overcome. And more magic items to help with those widgets, and more obstacles and enemies to stat up, and ... you see where I'm going with this.

And we don't have to stop at exploration, either! What if we imagined a game structure for social encounters, built around Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws? How can the PCs discover the burgomeister's hidden Flaw? I mean, I guess right now I could set an Insight check. And then there's one die roll, the PC's figure out the Flaw, say, "yeah, we're using that," and make a Charisma check (DMG, p 245).

Yay. Oh, what a dramatic scene that was. Huzzah.

Or, the PCs could figure out they need X successes trying to figure out the burgomeister's state of mind before the burgomeister gets X successes trying to convince the town to kick out the PCs. Hey! Look at that! We have stakes, context, and consequences. Now the PCs have multiple things to interact with. They can use spells, class abilities, and magic items to both try reading the burgomeister, convincing the townsfolk, and searching for blackmail material. They know what happens if they fail, and they know how they can make progress.

If you want to run with "less is more," that's fine, man. I don't want a social combat system with Mental HP. I don't necessarily need more rules. But I do want to make social encounters fully realized, with context, consequences, and real stakes for failure. All of that relies on a game structure to help me build engaging encounters, with tools baked in to the PCs, the antagonists, and the environments, that enable me to bring the PCs' decision to life and give them weight.

And that's why I think that not having those structures is a huge missed opportunity that substantially narrows the imaginative horizons of D&D.

[Lunali]

The problem isn't a lack of rules for exploration/interaction. The problem is the disparity between massive breadth and depth of the rules for combat and the bare bones rules for exploration/interaction. If the combat were simple, the rest of the rules would be fine. With combat being as complex as it is, other challenges often feel unsatisfying by comparison.

[Tanarii]

5e is hugely lacking in exploration game structures. All WotC D&D is. They stripped them from the game.

It's very noticeable if you try to design your own Mega Dungeon or West Marches style campaign world and do some basic research on Hexcrawls and Dungeoncrawls and open tables. Pretty quickly you'll run into the idea of game structures, and notice (or have called out in what you're reading) that the only one WotC D&D includes is combat. Especially if you go back and compare to older versions of D&D, especially BECMI.

It's even more noticeable if you start reading and running play tests for any number of other TTRPGs. To name a few off the top of my head, Torchbearer, Apocalypse World, and Forbidden Lands. They have radically different core game structures designed for purposes wildly different from each other and WotC D&D.

Edit: Sparky is absolutely correct, and game structures =/= rules. The Alexandrian link referenced is one of the better resources out there to explain it. Alexandrian is great for understanding a lot of core ideas about TTRPGs in general and some of the better ones from pre-WotC D&D (or even pre-TSR-losing-its-soul) specifically.

[Psyren]

DM: Make a Survival check.

Player: I got a 12.

DM: Congratulations! You find the hidden city of Xajs'ajtyoeloal'paiowkahdiujaqdf'aksiuhdnthalds, lost for over a thousand years!

Player: ...On a 12? Was no one looking very hard?


Uh, DCs aren't static in 5e the way they were in prior editions. That 12 for your ranger might be completely impossible to roll for a commoner.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

5e is hugely lacking in exploration game structures. All WotC D&D is. They stripped them from the game.

It's very noticeable if you try to design your own Mega Dungeon or West Marches style campaign world and do some basic research on Hexcrawls and Dungeoncrawls and open tables. Pretty quickly you'll run into the idea of game structures, and notice (or have called out in what you're reading) that the only one WotC D&D includes is combat. Especially if you go back and compare to older versions of D&D, especially BECMI.

It's even more noticeable if you start reading and running play tests for any number of other TTRPGs. To name a few off the top of my head, Torchbearer, Apocalypse World, and Forbidden Lands. They have radically different core game structures designed for purposes wildly different from each other and WotC D&D.

Edit: Sparky is absolutely correct, and game structures =/= rules. The Alexandrian link referenced is one of the better resources out there to explain it. Alexandrian is great for understanding a lot of core ideas about TTRPGs in general and some of the better ones from pre-WotC D&D (or even pre-TSR-losing-its-soul) specifically.

That’s not entirely true.

Overland travel speeds, random encounter rates, random encounter tables for different terrains (or regions), all the stuff for a hex crawl is right there, simply not explicitly interacted with so you don’t notice that you’re ignoring them most of the time.

What’s missing (and has always been missing, indeed that void is what led to proficiencies and skills) are class or race or background specific abilities that interact with them.

Really, only the Ranger and druid classes in older editions had any real hex crawl scar abilities, and they were equally vague.

What might fix this is things like class abilities that reduce the chance of random encounters, increase your overland travel time without erasing it, having animal handling or vehicle proficiencies explicitly include mechanical examples of interactions, etc.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

Aye. I remember coming up with a homebrew argument/debate minigame whole cloth because I didn't feel like a single check or skill challenge really did the scene justice. It was really wonky but hey, I needed something.

[Sparky McDibben]

It's even more noticeable if you start reading and running play tests for any number of other TTRPGs. To name a few off the top of my head, Torchbearer, Apocalypse World, and Forbidden Lands. They have radically different core game structures designed for purposes wildly different from each other and WotC D&D.

Yep! But it doesn't have to stay that way. I mean, the D&D designers are smart people who are good at their jobs. If I can figure this out, they definitely have to be aware of it. I just hope something changes. I can't keep pulling stuff out of my derriere.


Uh, DCs aren't static in 5e the way they were in prior editions. That 12 for your ranger might be completely impossible to roll for a commoner.

I would argue that's irrelevant to my point - whether or not it's possible for a commoner has no bearing on how the game feels to the player. And that interaction feels flatter than what's left of an insurance executive's soul.


That’s not entirely true.

Overland travel speeds, random encounter rates, random encounter tables for different terrains (or regions), all the stuff for a hex crawl is right there, simply not explicitly interacted with so you don’t notice that you’re ignoring them most of the time.

What’s missing (and has always been missing, indeed that void is what led to proficiencies and skills) are class or race or background specific abilities that interact with them.

Really, only the Ranger and druid classes in older editions had any real hex crawl scar abilities, and they were equally vague.

What might fix this is things like class abilities that reduce the chance of random encounters, increase your overland travel time without erasing it, having animal handling or vehicle proficiencies explicitly include mechanical examples of interactions, etc.

And yet, I would argue that's only half the battle. Without a structure for those abilities to plug into (the way most abilities plug into combat), we'll get something that feels half-assed, like the PHB Ranger's Natural Explorer feature. After all, if your DM doesn't worry about overland travel time, doesn't use Animal Handling, or doesn't bother with random encounters, your Ranger options will feel like a waste. Because they are. But if you have a game structure that says, "OK DM, this is when you test for random adventures in the wilderness. This is what a random encounter table should look like for a party of X level, and here are the randomizers for encounters along the way," then suddenly all those options mean something.


Aye. I remember coming up with a homebrew argument/debate minigame whole cloth because I didn't feel like a single check or skill challenge really did the scene justice. It was really wonky but hey, I needed something.

I feel you. I designed an entire campaign around dungeon-delving near Per-Bastet in Midgard (by Kobold Press) and I had to do so freaking much work to build those structures out. It was definitely worth it, but it took forever.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A few things:

* Exploration =/= travel or hex crawls. It's way bigger than that.
* Social =/= isolated social scenes. It's way bigger than that.

For me, the insistence on siloing scenes as one of combat, exploration, or social is the issue. My best scenes have included all three, often multiple at the same time.

I find that "systems" put demands on the campaign. And tend to assume that you're doing mostly that one type of campaign. Which hasn't been the case for me. Sure, I've come up with "minigames" at times...but they've been so fact-dependent that re-using more than the bare skeleton elsewhere wouldn't make sense. And they've been very loose.

So for me, personally, I'd answer the OP's question with "no, I'm happy with what's there."

[Psyren]

I would argue that's irrelevant to my point - whether or not it's possible for a commoner has no bearing on how the game feels to the player. And that interaction feels flatter than what's left of an insurance executive's soul.


If your DM was going to give you the info no matter what you rolled, then calling for a roll was inappropriate. DMG 237 is very clear about this, it's not the book's fault if your DM is misusing it.

[Tanarii]

That’s not entirely true.It is.


Overland travel speeds, random encounter rates, random encounter tables for different terrains (or regions), all the stuff for a hex crawl is right there, simply not explicitly interacted with so you don’t notice that you’re ignoring them most of the time.Those are rules. Game Structures =/= Rules. They're a way for rules to interact with each other in a meaningful and defined way. More importantly, they're also a way for the players to interact with the game in a meaningful way to have their characters do meaningful things.

It takes a lot of hacking to turn those rules into an exploration game structure.

-------

Edit: For those who don't feel like wading through a huge multipart article on game structures, this one provides a synopsis of the rise and fall of archaic game structures.
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15182/roleplaying-games/game-structures-part-9-archaic-game-structures

A short summary applicable from near the end:

What followed next (and this all happened over the course of only a few short years) was almost inevitable: The explicit game structures became vestigial and then, with the advent of universal systems, disappeared from rulebooks entirely. (With the notable exception, of course, of highly structured combat systems.)

But — and this is important to understand! — the game structures didn’t actually disappear from gaming! They are, after all, essential for play. Instead, a handful of the most popular structures became treated as a sort of common knowledge: Everybody “knew them”, so game designers didn’t bother explaining them. (Although, in truth, very few people really thought about them at all.)

In short, the general sense that playing an RPG consisted of nothing more than “the players tell me what they want to do and then we resolve it” settled over the industry. But, as we’ve seen, this is completely false. What happened in actual practice was that GMs would use a random grab-bag of unexamined techniques that they had collected from people they played with, published adventures, and the occasional unique insight. And this, of course, resulted in a lot of frustrating play.

[Sorinth]

As an example, the old D&D 0e dungeoncrawl structure provided the players a foundation on which to make their decisions. "We think there might be something in this room. But if we search the whole room, it takes 10 minutes, and that triggers a wandering monster check. Is the risk worth the potential reward, or lack thereof?" The dungeoncrawling structure communicates to the players that this place is dangerous, that risk is around every corner, and time in the dungeon is a resource to be rationed wisely.

The main problem is that there isn't a one sized fits all approach. So if we take this example that it takes 10 minutes to search a room and doing so triggers a random encounter check. That might work fine for many cases, but there are obvious problems. Shouldn't the size of the room and how much stuff is in it have a big impact on how long it takes to search? Searching a prison cell that has little more then a bed and bucket vs searching a room that belongs to someone from an episodes of Hoarders is obviously going to take a different amount of times, just like what they are looking for will change it. And of course random encounter checks depends not just on time but how busy the place is, and how likely there will be an interaction even if seen so linking it to "actions" can also be a bit nonsensical even if it works for other situations. And then there's the whole what constitutes a room, if I want to search an abandoned wagon we found on the road is that considered a room, what about a bandit camp where there's half a dozen hovels, is that one search action with 1 random encounter check or 6 (Or more if I'm also searching outside the hovels) random encounter checks?


The simple truth is that you should be using a variety of game structures depending on the situation. And that's where I think the DMG could do a better job, helping the DM understand the situations and what they/the players want out of those situations/challenges/encounters. If I'm haggling with a merchant I want a simple structure like a single check, if I'm trying to convince a king to go to war then I want something much more complex then that single Persuasion check. But if I'm haggling with a merchant because I want some fun RP then I might not even care about a check at all.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

It is.

Those are rules. Game Structures =/= Rules. They're a way for rules to interact with each other in a meaningful and defined way. More importantly, they're also a way for the players to interact with the game in a meaningful way to have their characters do meaningful things.

It takes a lot of hacking to turn those rules into an exploration game structure.

-------

Edit: For those who don't feel like wading through a huge multipart article on game structures, this one provides a synopsis of the rise and fall of archaic game structures.
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15182/roleplaying-games/game-structures-part-9-archaic-game-structures

A short summary applicable from near the end:

What followed next (and this all happened over the course of only a few short years) was almost inevitable: The explicit game structures became vestigial and then, with the advent of universal systems, disappeared from rulebooks entirely. (With the notable exception, of course, of highly structured combat systems.)

But — and this is important to understand! — the game structures didn’t actually disappear from gaming! They are, after all, essential for play. Instead, a handful of the most popular structures became treated as a sort of common knowledge: Everybody “knew them”, so game designers didn’t bother explaining them. (Although, in truth, very few people really thought about them at all.)

In short, the general sense that playing an RPG consisted of nothing more than “the players tell me what they want to do and then we resolve it” settled over the industry. But, as we’ve seen, this is completely false. What happened in actual practice was that GMs would use a random grab-bag of unexamined techniques that they had collected from people they played with, published adventures, and the occasional unique insight. And this, of course, resulted in a lot of frustrating play.



Here’s your structure:

When you travel 1 hour, you roll a d20 for a random encounter. If you roll a 20 (or lower in some circumstances that are listed in the DMG or in modules that use the DMG’s rules) you find something.

When you find something, roll for weather and roll for what you encounter. Resolve the encounter using the appropriate systems (skill checks, combat, etc)

That’s play structure. Same as roll initiative, resolve turns, repeat until done. Your DM is simply ignoring it.

I mean, a DM can also ignore initiative and always have the players go first. Too bad bards and any class with initiative boosts.

Many DMs ignore surprise rules. Too bad assassins and any class that relies on surprise conditions.

Some DMs might ignore death saves. Some might ignore Opportunity Attacks.

If a DM ignores a part of the structure, the structure isn’t the problem, it’s the DM.

Not to mention several campaigns like Rime of the Frost Maiden have even more specific structured exploration. Maybe you’re looking in the wrong rule books?

[Catullus64]

Sparky, even though you say that structure =/= rules, the vision of structure detailed in your response does clearly seem to involve appending more rules; I think we should acknowledge that the two are at least closely connected.

And I don't think it shows a lack of regard for the Exploration/Interaction pillars to characterize them as lower-stakes than combat. Extended periods of lower stakes are good for adventures! They give space for characterization, world-building, elaborate creativity, goofing around, or being emotional; and therefore those periods benefit from lesser density of rules (which, as I said, I don't think you can extricate completely from structure).

I am working on a response which engages more thoroughly with your argument, but I wanna allow time to re-read and process it a bit more.

[BoutsofInsanity]

I wanted to discuss a point made by Sparky McDibben in his recent post here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?641352-Predictions-For-Next-Edition) but didn't think that the point I wanted to debate was actually all that germane to that thread itself, which is about making predictions. In particular, I wanted to push against a sentiment expressed by Sparky in this particular instance, but which I feel like I encounter a lot in these parts, to wit:



There are a few assertions here that build off each other. The first is that D&D's mechanics for what it calls two of the three pillars of gameplay, Interaction & Exploration, have fewer structures and systems to define their activities than does the third pillar, Combat. The second assertion is that therefore these pillars of the game are undeveloped or underdeveloped. Numbered point 2 suggests that therefore any attempt to provide new content centered around the Interaction & Exploration pillars as they exist now would therefore be "half-assed". And finally, he asserts that the best course of action is to reverse this state of affairs by systematizing Exploration & Interaction to a similar extent as combat, though I doubt he means to say that they should be equally systematized. Sparky, jump in if I've misrepresented anything you said.

It's pretty manifestly true that Exploration & Interaction have fewer formal game systems built around them than combat, though I think this disparity is often exaggerated. There is absolutely formal content in the core books for modeling non-combat adventure scenarios: travel times, wilderness hazards, chases, lighting, mechanical functions for non-weapon adventuring gear, and, you know, all the spells with no immediate combat applicability. But yes, I absolutely agree that these areas of gameplay are not modeled with the same kind of fine detail as the swords-and-lightning-bolts business. I could probably also be persuaded that therefore it's fair to call these other aspects undeveloped.

Where I stiffly disagree is in characterizing this state of affairs as a problem, or in claiming that the game would be much improved by, to use Sparky's words directly "adding game structures for social and exploration play." My position, one I think is (or at least was) shared by the design team, is that for Interaction & Exploration, less is often more. Combat pretty much demands a certain level of systemization: without lots of rules to abstract or arbitrarily simplify, fighting is too chaotic & complex to really handle otherwise. The stakes are high, so clarity is important, and the pace needs to be kept somewhat brisk because of aforementioned complexity.

Exploration & Interaction, by contrast, with their lower moment-to-moment stakes and lesser complexity, give space for players to ask detailed questions and the DM to give or come up with answers; for players to carefully describe activity and the DM to consider what happens in response. The real engine of good roleplay gaming, this back-and-forth storytelling between players and DM, thrives in the space created by the light-touch ruleset. The fundamental non-combat gameplay mechanic of D&D ("describe a scenario, decide what to do, roll some dice if you're not sure what happens next") is beautifully simple.

I've played a goodly number of games that try to give their non-combat spaces the same degree of mechanical detail as their combat, and they always seem to create more problems for themselves than they solve. I keep coming back to D&D 5e, and other games like it, for a reason.

And no, I don't think this is a scenario where "don't use it if you don't like it" really satisfies me. Leaving aside that such can be said of anything in the darn game, putting rules into a game creates the expectation that they will be used. They condition expectations about what a game will be like, and teach people what to expect. And if a DM is dead set on using such a rule, a player who dislikes it has little recourse short of "quit or threaten to quit the game." So I think it's entirely fair to make an argument about whether a particular change would better or worsen the game for you, even if you do have the liberty to ignore it as an individual DM.

Whew, that got long, and this is cut down from what I initially wrote. Anyone who has the patience to read and respond, you have my thanks.

I've looked at the rules pretty extensively. The 5e team has really actually developed a pretty robust travel mechanic. There is a ton there to use to have a mechanically satisfying travel segment.

The only problem is that it's spread out over three books, on different pages and chapters. They also don't lay out a systemic way of running it for the GM. Which means the GM has to investigate and come up with it on it's own.

All Wizards needs to do, is to compile the rules into a few pages all at once and make sure that it goes into some easy charts with some math conversions and it all works beautifully.

Here are all the rules in the rule books that go into travelling. The problem again, is there is no example on running the travel sections, compilation of the rules, and teaching how to tell an interesting story out of what those mechanics mean and don't mean in an impactful way. Which is unfortunate, because the rules are really robust.


Travel Pace
Carrying capacity
Wagon Carrying capacity
Food consumption
Food consumption for animals
Exhaustion rules
A list of supplies
Encounter distance
Encounter chance
Encounter Tables
Stealth Rules
Ranger's Natural explorer becomes really really good here
Actions taken while travelling - see above with Ranger

[Sorinth]

It is.

Those are rules. Game Structures =/= Rules. They're a way for rules to interact with each other in a meaningful and defined way. More importantly, they're also a way for the players to interact with the game in a meaningful way to have their characters do meaningful things.

It takes a lot of hacking to turn those rules into an exploration game structure.

-------

Edit: For those who don't feel like wading through a huge multipart article on game structures, this one provides a synopsis of the rise and fall of archaic game structures.
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15182/roleplaying-games/game-structures-part-9-archaic-game-structures

A short summary applicable from near the end:

What followed next (and this all happened over the course of only a few short years) was almost inevitable: The explicit game structures became vestigial and then, with the advent of universal systems, disappeared from rulebooks entirely. (With the notable exception, of course, of highly structured combat systems.)

But — and this is important to understand! — the game structures didn’t actually disappear from gaming! They are, after all, essential for play. Instead, a handful of the most popular structures became treated as a sort of common knowledge: Everybody “knew them”, so game designers didn’t bother explaining them. (Although, in truth, very few people really thought about them at all.)

In short, the general sense that playing an RPG consisted of nothing more than “the players tell me what they want to do and then we resolve it” settled over the industry. But, as we’ve seen, this is completely false. What happened in actual practice was that GMs would use a random grab-bag of unexamined techniques that they had collected from people they played with, published adventures, and the occasional unique insight. And this, of course, resulted in a lot of frustrating play.

If the "rules" were you can move 2 hexes a day or 1 hex of difficult terrain a day, and when moving into a hex you roll for a random encounter check would that be considered a game structure in your mind? Because the only difference between this simple hexcrawl and the current 5e rules is how the information is presented on a map.

[Composer99]

I don't know that there need to be more rules, as such. What I would say the game could stand to have is:

(1) Better organisation of existing content. Material about running the game - including encounter building, non-combat encounters (or non-combat content in combat), and making exploration work - should be front and centre in the DMG. It's a DM's most important job after all, and the one all DMs do. Not all DMs, on the other hand, are creating their own game settings.

Edit to add: By way of example of organisation of content, I should like to contrast 5e with OSE (which is basically a re-formatting of B/X) - in particular the section from pages 112 through 127 of the OSE core rulebook (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/279183/OldSchool-Essentials-Classic-Fantasy-Rules-Tome) (called the "Rules Tome"). 5e doesn't really have much more content than OSE does for exploration/travel, OSE organises it in a much more concise and easy-to-digest fashion.

(2) Better guidance for making non-combat encounters/challenges that aren't simply one-and-done ability checks.

(3) Better guidance and organisation with respect to game structures for exploration - dungeon exploration, wilderness exploration (as distinct from travel), and travel. Others have gone into this in more detail, so I won't.

(4) More, and more relevant, content for challenges over longer spans of time and space than combat.

Two examples on that last point:




Slippery ice is difficult terrain. When a creature moves onto slippery ice for the first time on a turn, it must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check or fall prone.

The rule as is is useful in combat situations, and useless outside of them. Difficult terrain can translate to "double how long it takes to cross this area", which is fine, as far as it goes, but that's it. The slippery part basically has no bearing outside of combat.



Here's an exploration challenge from EN Publishing's Level Up! game - what amounts to an "advanced" 5e. It's page 127-128 if anyone owns that game's DMG-equivalent (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/376476/Level-Up-Trials--Treasures-A5E?term=level+up%21), Trials and Treasures.



0th tier (weather)
Challenge 1 (200 XP); DC 13/13 [the first number is for individual checks, the second for group checks]
Area intermediate (3 hours) [an area up to 10 miles across or taking up to 3 hours to traverse at a normal pace]

Heavy snowfall blasts the countryside reducing visibility to just a few feet. Travel through the area is even harder than usual as slips, trips, and falls are difficult to see.
High Winds. Ranged attacks are made with disadvantage, unattended and poorly secured objects fly off in the wind, and flying is nearly impossible (requiring an Acrobatics check to avoid plummeting to the ground).
Intense Cold. At the end of every hour spent traveling through this area, a creature makes a Constitution saving throw (DC 5 + 2 per previous save) or it takes 3 (1d6) cold damage.
Reduced Visibility. The maximum range of any sight-based senses is 10 feet. In addition, Perception checks are made with disadvantage, and all passive scores (including passive Perception) are reduced by 5.

Possible Solutions
A group Survival check allows the party to find or construct shelter and outlast the storm. Alternatively, an Athletics check (or Animal Handling if mounted) can be used to outrun the storm.
[The challenge then includes description of four possible outcomes, scaling up from the party losing both time and "Supply" - an abstraction of food and water, through just losing time, to losing nothing, depending on how well things go.]



The "tier" is a reference to difficulty by means of the tiers of play 1st-4th, 5th-10th, etc. "0th" tier are challenges that aren't especially dangerous even for low-level parties. Also, text earlier in the book introducing these challenges encourages DMs to encourage players to come up with their own solutions.

Now, personally, I think this design has its flaws - the "tier" is hardly necessary, for instance, given there's a challenge rating, the "Reduced Visibility" element mysteriously does not refer to the types of obscurity (that the game, including SRD content as it does, includes), the "Intense Cold" seems odd (one would think one would be making saving throws against exhaustion - or Fatigue, the game's exhaustion-equivalent) and bizarrely doesn't incorporate earlier content about intense cold in the encounter-building chapter - but at any rate, here we have content that actually brings together elements of the game in a way that allows a DM/GM to plug in a common wintertime event that poses difficulties both within and without combat.




[...]

Not to mention several campaigns like Rime of the Frost Maiden have even more specific structured exploration. Maybe you’re looking in the wrong rule books?

I mean, it's one thing for detailed sea travel/underwater rules to be in its own book with basic rules in the DMG, à la Ghosts of Saltmarsh, but you shouldn't need to have books outside of the core three: basic dungeon/wilderness exploration stuff should be in the DMG. And, the point tanarii was making with the quote from The Alexandrian was that the existing structures are vestigial and not particularly useful. Reciting back the very game structure (such as it is) that's just been described as vestigial is... well, I don't see how it's convincing?

The fact that game structures and content for non-combat adventuring in 5e is vestigial (even compared to the relatively content-light material of editions of yore) isn't on individual DMs. It's on the 5e designers.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

I don't know that there need to be more rules, as such. What I would say the game could stand to have is:

(1) Better organisation of existing content. Material about running the game - including encounter building, non-combat encounters (or non-combat content in combat), and making exploration work - should be front and centre in the DMG. It's a DM's most important job after all, and the one all DMs do. Not all DMs, on the other hand, are creating their own game settings.

(2) Better guidance for making non-combat encounters/challenges that aren't simply one-and-done ability checks.

(3) Better guidance and organisation with respect to game structures for exploration - dungeon exploration, wilderness exploration (as distinct from travel), and travel. Others have gone into this in more detail, so I won't.

(4) More, and more relevant, content for challenges over longer spans of time and space than combat.

Two examples on that last point:




The rule as is is useful in combat situations, and useless outside of them. Difficult terrain can translate to "double how long it takes to cross this area", which is fine, as far as it goes, but that's it. The slippery part basically has no bearing outside of combat.



Here's an exploration challenge from EN Publishing's Level Up! game - what amounts to an "advanced" 5e. It's page 127-128 if anyone owns that game's DMG-equivalent, Trials and Treasures.



The "tier" is a reference to difficulty by means of the tiers of play 1st-4th, 5th-10th, etc. "0th" tier are challenges that aren't especially dangerous even for low-level parties. Also, text earlier in the book introducing these challenges encourages DMs to encourage players to come up with their own solutions.

Now, personally, I think this design has its flaws - the "tier" is hardly necessary, for instance, given there's a challenge rating, the "Reduced Visibility" element mysteriously does not refer to the types of obscurity (that the game, including SRD content as it does, includes), the "Intense Cold" seems odd (one would think one would be making saving throws against exhaustion - or Fatigue, the game's exhaustion-equivalent) and bizarrely doesn't incorporate earlier content about intense cold in the encounter-building chapter - but at any rate, here we have content that actually brings together elements of the game in a way that allows a DM/GM to plug in a common wintertime event that poses difficulties both within and without combat.




I mean, it's one thing for detailed sea travel/underwater rules to be in its own book with basic rules in the DMG, à la Ghosts of Saltmarsh, but you shouldn't need to have books outside of the core three: basic dungeon/wilderness exploration stuff should be in the DMG. And, the point tanarii was making with the quote from The Alexandrian was that the existing structures are vestigial and not particularly useful. Reciting back the very game structure (such as it is) that's just been described as vestigial is... well, I don't see how it's convincing?

The fact that game structures and content for non-combat adventuring in 5e is vestigial (even compared to the relatively content-light material of editions of yore) isn't on individual DMs. It's on the 5e designers.

I’m not convinced of that.

OD&D had plenty of systems that weren’t in the core rule books, but are now considered part of the core experience. I mean, the rules for an ENTIRELY separate game are being held up as proof of older editions having robust exploration rules. Ghosts of Saltmarsh and Rime of the Frostmaiden are actual D&D rules, not the rules for Outdoor Survival.

And the structure I described isn’t vestigial: moving distances that take hours of travel are an inherent part of game play, the same way rolling initiative is.

If you want to travel 20 miles, there is a structure you engage with: determine travel speed and pace, adjust according to obstacles (rough terrain, weather, etc) and then roll to determine encounters on the provided tables. That’s a play structure that is defined in the rules. It’s not a vestigial hold over that gets grandparented in (like non existent Suprise Rounds, two weapon fighting mistakes or misunderstandings of Opportunity Attacks that still run rife in play)

And the original complaint of this thread is that 5e didn’t develop the rules for exploration well enough. So how can you complain that rules expansions that develop more robust rules for exploration suddenly don’t count?

Nonsense: it’s clear evidence that WOTC is responding to those complaints and providing the exact structures and rules that people here are simply ignoring and complaining that there are no rules.

There are also no rules for combat if you choose to ignore the rules for combat.

[Composer99]

Uh, DCs aren't static in 5e the way they were in prior editions. That 12 for your ranger might be completely impossible to roll for a commoner.

This is false. The game is formally agnostic on whether DCs are or aren't static - although in practice most DCs given are static, such as Tracking DCs (DMG 244) or the DCs for Conversation Reaction (DMG 245), or the DCs to pick the PHB lock (PHB 152). These DCs do not change based on who is making the check.

The closest that the guidelines get to defining what the difficulty terms mean (in the guidelines on page 238 of the DMG) are:
- "Keep in mind that a character with a 10 in the associated ability and no proficiency will succeed at an easy task around 50 percent of the time." - This establishes a baseline for what "easy" should look like (not very easy, it turns out, for ordinary commoners).
- "A DC 25 task is very hard for low-level characters to accomplish but becomes more reasonable after 10th level or so" - once the characters have higher ability modifiers and proficiency bonuses, not to mention greater access to abilities or spells that boost ability checks.

Although these guidelines don't exactly support static DCs the way the practical examples do, they certainly do not support scaling DCs based on who is making the check (in the form of "[t]hat 12 for your ranger might be completely impossible to roll for a commoner.")

[Psyren]

This is false. The game is formally agnostic on whether DCs are or aren't static - although in practice most DCs given are static, such as Tracking DCs (DMG 244) or the DCs for Conversation Reaction (DMG 245), or the DCs to pick the PHB lock (PHB 152). These DCs do not change based on who is making the check.

The closest that the guidelines get to defining what the difficulty terms mean (in the guidelines on page 238 of the DMG) are:
- "Keep in mind that a character with a 10 in the associated ability and no proficiency will succeed at an easy task around 50 percent of the time." - This establishes a baseline for what "easy" should look like (not very easy, it turns out, for ordinary commoners).
- "A DC 25 task is very hard for low-level characters to accomplish but becomes more reasonable after 10th level or so" - once the characters have higher ability modifiers and proficiency bonuses, not to mention greater access to abilities or spells that boost ability checks.

Although these guidelines don't exactly support static DCs the way the practical examples do, they certainly do not support scaling DCs based on who is making the check (in the form of "[t]hat 12 for your ranger might be completely impossible to roll for a commoner.")

I didn't mean that DCs are entirely dynamic based on the actor. Rather, I was responding to the incredulous "It's only DC 12? Why did no one succeed before now?" by pointing out that everyone who tried before, e.g. NPC merchants, likely didn't even get to roll. For them, the task was impossible, so luck would not have played a factor.

[Tanarii]

I've looked at the rules pretty extensively. The 5e team has really actually developed a pretty robust travel mechanic. There is a ton there to use to have a mechanically satisfying travel segment.

The only problem is that it's spread out over three books, on different pages and chapters. They also don't lay out a systemic way of running it for the GM. Which means the GM has to investigate and come up with it on it's own.

All Wizards needs to do, is to compile the rules into a few pages all at once and make sure that it goes into some easy charts with some math conversions and it all works beautifully.
Good summary. Yes, they have okay rules. They are poorly organized ... and don't plug into any kind game structure for use. Or even game structures, there's no need for some of these rules to be limited to a single game structure.

Easy example, I've had many people try to tell me the traveling rules, including those regarding not being able to use passive perception when taking other actions, only apply when 'traveling'. And not when exploring a dungeon or other adventuring site. Because in their minds, they've had to invent a 'traveling' game structure and separate it from a 'local exploring' game structure, since they don't ecist in the game.

And there's no particular reason those shouldn't be separate game structures of should be seperate game structures. But since it isn't clear, not only is applying specifically defined rules gong to be difficult, the actual flow of running the (extremely common) scenarios at the table is harder.

Which is why you end up with many beginning DMs and adventure writers teleporting players from encounter to encounter, sometimes linearly sometimes not. And while node-base game structures are fine and dandy ... at least DMs and Players should have a choice if that's the kind of game they want to play. Instead of having to try to figure it out themself, usually while totally blind as to the idea of game structures.

[Sorinth]

I don't know that there need to be more rules, as such. What I would say the game could stand to have is:

(1) Better organisation of existing content. Material about running the game - including encounter building, non-combat encounters (or non-combat content in combat), and making exploration work - should be front and centre in the DMG. It's a DM's most important job after all, and the one all DMs do. Not all DMs, on the other hand, are creating their own game settings.

Edit to add: By way of example of organisation of content, I should like to contrast 5e with OSE (which is basically a re-formatting of B/X) - in particular the section from pages 112 through 127 of the OSE core rulebook (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/279183/OldSchool-Essentials-Classic-Fantasy-Rules-Tome) (called the "Rules Tome"). 5e doesn't really have much more content than OSE does for exploration/travel, OSE organises it in a much more concise and easy-to-digest fashion.

(2) Better guidance for making non-combat encounters/challenges that aren't simply one-and-done ability checks.

(3) Better guidance and organisation with respect to game structures for exploration - dungeon exploration, wilderness exploration (as distinct from travel), and travel. Others have gone into this in more detail, so I won't.

(4) More, and more relevant, content for challenges over longer spans of time and space than combat.

Two examples on that last point:




The rule as is is useful in combat situations, and useless outside of them. Difficult terrain can translate to "double how long it takes to cross this area", which is fine, as far as it goes, but that's it. The slippery part basically has no bearing outside of combat.



Here's an exploration challenge from EN Publishing's Level Up! game - what amounts to an "advanced" 5e. It's page 127-128 if anyone owns that game's DMG-equivalent (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/376476/Level-Up-Trials--Treasures-A5E?term=level+up%21), Trials and Treasures.



The "tier" is a reference to difficulty by means of the tiers of play 1st-4th, 5th-10th, etc. "0th" tier are challenges that aren't especially dangerous even for low-level parties. Also, text earlier in the book introducing these challenges encourages DMs to encourage players to come up with their own solutions.

Now, personally, I think this design has its flaws - the "tier" is hardly necessary, for instance, given there's a challenge rating, the "Reduced Visibility" element mysteriously does not refer to the types of obscurity (that the game, including SRD content as it does, includes), the "Intense Cold" seems odd (one would think one would be making saving throws against exhaustion - or Fatigue, the game's exhaustion-equivalent) and bizarrely doesn't incorporate earlier content about intense cold in the encounter-building chapter - but at any rate, here we have content that actually brings together elements of the game in a way that allows a DM/GM to plug in a common wintertime event that poses difficulties both within and without combat.




I mean, it's one thing for detailed sea travel/underwater rules to be in its own book with basic rules in the DMG, à la Ghosts of Saltmarsh, but you shouldn't need to have books outside of the core three: basic dungeon/wilderness exploration stuff should be in the DMG. And, the point tanarii was making with the quote from The Alexandrian was that the existing structures are vestigial and not particularly useful. Reciting back the very game structure (such as it is) that's just been described as vestigial is... well, I don't see how it's convincing?

The fact that game structures and content for non-combat adventuring in 5e is vestigial (even compared to the relatively content-light material of editions of yore) isn't on individual DMs. It's on the 5e designers.

Slippery ice isn't limited to in combat, but like everything you only roll for things if success/failure actually matter. So out of combat and crossing a frozen lake you don't roll to see if you fall because it doesn't matter whether you fall because you just get back up and continue on. But you could just as easily have an area of slippery ice where falling prone would matter such as while mountain climbing. There falling prone means potentially falling off a cliff and you would very much be expected to make the check.

But I do agree with your points that they could've done a much better job of organizing the information and providing better guidance on how to use it.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Good summary. Yes, they have okay rules. They are poorly organized ... and don't plug into any kind game structure for use. Or even game structures, there's no need for some of these rules to be limited to a single game structure.

Easy example, I've had many people try to tell me the traveling rules, including those regarding not being able to use passive perception when taking other actions, only apply when 'traveling'. And not when exploring a dungeon or other adventuring site. Because in their minds, they've had to invent a 'traveling' game structure and separate it from a 'local exploring' game structure, since they don't ecist in the game.

And there's no particular reason those shouldn't be separate game structures of should be seperate game structures. But since it isn't clear, not only is applying specifically defined rules gong to be difficult, the actual flow of running the (extremely common) scenarios at the table is harder.

Which is why you end up with many beginning DMs and adventure writers teleporting players from encounter to encounter, sometimes linearly sometimes not. And while node-base game structures are fine and dandy ... at least DMs and Players should have a choice if that's the kind of game they want to play. Instead of having to try to figure it out themself, usually while totally blind as to the idea of game structures.

What's so frustrating is that there is a totally a structure. It's just, well, hidden behind summary knowledge of the entire system and should have been laid out from the start. You are completely correct in that.

It's one of those things too, where you don't want to lay something out so you don't "poison" the well right? Give someone an example and all of the sudden everyone plays the same way that the example lays out because for some reason people are incapable of deviating from the book. But sometimes, examples are needed to open peoples minds to the possibilities of play. And examples are a great way to showcase that.

And in this instance for Overland Travel, any sort of structure or high level maneuver in the DMG would have been excellent.

[Sparky McDibben]

The main problem is that there isn't a one sized fits all approach.

Of course not, just like there isn't one in combat, either. But there is a base structure for combat, and that informs everything else, which makes the DM's job so much easier.


That might work fine for many cases, but there are obvious problems. Shouldn't the size of the room and how much stuff is in it have a big impact on how long it takes to search?

Yes, they should. And adjudicating those cases are part of your job as a DM. You can poke holes in any game structure. In a combat scenario, how can a beetle (Tiny) grapple a gnome (Small)? The existence of logical incongruities does not negate the game structure - it's not meant to be comprehensive. The Alexandrian covers this, and I highly recommend you read those articles, because they'll change how you look at the game. What structure does is provide a base from which the DM can provide rulings, and a governing foundation for how we can run certain types of scenarios. So in response to your question about "If I search a wagon on the road, does that take as long as searching a room in a dungeon?" I would ask, "Is this abandoned wagon meant to represent a hostile environment full of treasure, monsters, hazards and traps? Because if not, why are you using a structure meant to simulate that environment? And if the wagon is meant to simulate that, see above about 'When in doubt, default to 10 minute chunks'."


The simple truth is that you should be using a variety of game structures depending on the situation. And that's where I think the DMG could do a better job, helping the DM understand the situations and what they/the players want out of those situations/challenges/encounters.

Yes! We can vertically integrate those structures to flow into one another! Overland travel that delivers you to dungeoncrawling that delivers you to social encounters! Or hell, just overland travel that transitions right to combat! That would be fantastic!

My problem is that the DMG doesn't. It gives you rules, but no structure in which to implement them.


That’s play structure. Same as roll initiative, resolve turns, repeat until done. Your DM is simply ignoring it.

No, those are rules. Again, rules are not structure. Secondly, you're conflating exploration with overland travel, and those are not the same things. Finally, do you really run overland travel like this? I don't mean to be rude, but that sounds like a terribly boring session.

"Oh look, more bandits. Guess the DM rolled a 20 on the encounter check. Good thing we didn't have any choices about how to engage with those bandits, or where they hit us, or our route. Oh, what fun we're having."

What I want is a structure where my players can proactively gather information about their options (Agency!), plan their route (Agency!), choose how they use their cool class abilities to avoid or overcome obstacles (Agency!), deal with failure (Stakes!), have interesting complications arise (Stakes!), and then go in a dark hole in the ground in search of sweet, sweet LOOT.


The only problem is that it's spread out over three books, on different pages and chapters. They also don't lay out a systemic way of running it for the GM. Which means the GM has to investigate and come up with it on it's own.

That is a problem, certainly. Layout is a known issue in 5e, but my problem is that the structure is so downplayed it's frequently never used. It's also not a clean resolution procedure and there is no vertical integration except with combat. For example, I want a game structure I can use with overland travel, and to explore highly dangerous environments, and to talk to or fight the folks I come into contact with. D&D (maybe, if you squint really hard) has an overland travel structure. Unfortunately, all this structure is really good for (by design, I would argue) is to deliver the PCs to places where they fight stuff. No choices, no agency, just, "Choo-choo, boys and girls, this train is departing the station!"

It doesn't have a dungeoncrawling structure (despite the fact that this is half the name of the game). It doesn't have a social encounter structure. It has a combat structure - which is usually what DMs default to.


because the rules are really robust.

I'm not sure how you're using this term, because I would argue that "robust" in game design means, "hard to break." That is, it can accommodate the actions of an adventuring party. And the overland travel (which is NOT exploration) mechanics in D&D is not robust in that context - it gets broken by the PCs failing a Survival check to avoid getting lost, it gets broken if they see something shiny in the distance and go to check it out, it gets broken if the ranger is sick and misses a session, etc.


If the "rules" were you can move 2 hexes a day or 1 hex of difficult terrain a day, and when moving into a hex you roll for a random encounter check would that be considered a game structure in your mind? Because the only difference between this simple hexcrawl and the current 5e rules is how the information is presented on a map.

No. What you have described is a movement mechanic. Again, those are rules. Movement mechanics are actually like the third thing you need for any 'crawling structure. You need a map, a key, movement mechanics, and a way to trigger the keyed content. After that you can start adding stuff like timekeeping, random encounters, etc.

[Catullus64]

Took the time to read (quickly) through the Alexandrian article linked and discussed. I'm not going to debate its exact holdings here, but I do at least feel it helped me understand more clearly what people mean by "structure" in this context. But I do still feel that more developed structures for the Exploration and Interaction pillars would be detrimental, so I'm going to shift from talking broadly and bring things down to a concrete example that most people already seem to gravitate towards when discussing these areas of gameplay: overland travel. I'm going to talk about how I handle it within the structures currently in the game, and then argue why a structure like the ones Tanarii and Sparky McDibben seem to be championing isn't compatible with it.

Make no mistake, overland travel is quite possibly my favorite part of running the game. The scenes from The Lord of the Rings describing walking, where they walk, what happens while they walk, and arguing about where they should walk next? Absolutely 100% my jam. I run games in which Natural Explorer is bonkers overpowered, and the food function of Goodberry is banned. All this to say I oppose adding structures for overland travel not because I think it's unimportant, but because it's really important to me.

Overland travel (which tends to also include stretches of over-water travel, but you know) happens because the player characters are in one place and want to get to another. The goal is already defined from the outset. Story considerations add dimension to that goal: the players are operating within a limited time frame, or on limited resources to supply their journey. So I make the map of the region to be traversed with routes of varying trade-offs between swiftness & peril. I start with points A & B, and everything else on the map I create, the placement of mountains, hills, river crossings, settlements, is placed with some respect to how it impacts the journey between those two points (within the limits of geographic sense). What emerges is a modular web of pathways split by decision points; decide whether to take the mountain pass or trek around through the forest road. If you take the forest road, decide whether to take the winding path or try to bushwhack a more direct route. Ok, now you're at one of the towns by a river; do you cross here or follow the river downstream to another crossing? So on and so on. Then, with these various paths to reach the destination established, I plan the encounters of all kinds that are present along those routes. Here there are dragons, there avalanches. Here there are enchanted springs, there giant spiders. Here they charge you a steep toll to cross, there you must ford a swift and powerful river yourself. Here there are storms, there pirates. Generally I place them such that the most direct routes are often the most dangerous; if the player characters want to save time/supplies, they expose themselves to greater dangers. All routes will have encounters with no actual danger or serious consequences, but which give the chance to learn something or flex your roleplay muscles. With the encounters decided, I move on to the process of seeding the encounters. What local characters can share knowledge or aid for these encounters with the PCs? What clues can they pick up while traveling that alert them to the dangers? In fine, how do I communicate the information to the players which they can use to make decisions? How do these interact with the abilities of the particular player characters? All this planning, and specific, personalized decision-making allows for a really rich travel experience, where players have to negotiate difficult decisions, and are pushed to interact closely with the world and its characters in order to make it to their goal; and because the structure, if you like, is invisible to them, having been worked out by me in advance, they are free to approach it like an actual world in which their characters move and live.

I think that a more involved and procedural game structure for determining overland travel, like the one Sparky theorized for finding the lost city of Xajs'ajtyoeloal'paiowkahdiujaqdf'aksiuhdnthalds, is antithetical to this kind of approach. (I also don't think I'm unique or even unusual among Dungeon Masters for having an element of the game onto which I like to lavish this much attention and care; some do it for their tightly-constructed mysteries, their richly characterized NPCs, their devilish dungeons.) I have a structure that works really well for me and for the groups I tend to play with, because the system gave me the freedom to develop it, as well as numerous mechanics to handle the on-the-ground details.

The game providing that structure for me in the form of encounter generation systems and procedural exploration, and presenting those as, by default, how the game is played, is not just different from my structure, but actively hostile to it.

If that sounds alarmist or hyperbolic, think about how much pushback you get when you want to radically alter the structures the game presents for combat, like if you wanted to fundamentally rework something like Hit Points. I'm not using that analogy to suggest that combat should also be de-structured; I've already argued that for combat, highly-structured play is pretty much necessary. But if you try making fundamental alterations to something that is already highly structured, players (and internet strangers that you discuss these things with) feel attacked. They feel like you're encroaching upon their prerogatives as players, taking away something that's theirs, because the game has assured them that that's "their" space, has assured them of how you're "supposed" to run things.

Imagine if player character options had the same density of mechanical interaction & structural knowledge with the Exploration & Interaction pillars as they do with the Combat pillars. Frankly, that sounds like a nightmare for me. Combat takes a while, is the most difficult space in which to maintain immersive roleplay, and feels the most like playing elaborate dice chess rather than the scenario it's supposed to be modeling. That's not really a problem for me, because I have the more structure-light portions of the game to move things at my own pace, play things loose, take player suggestions, give meaning to the dice chess matches, maybe improvise a little if something about the pre-planned content isn't working out. It's a matter of necessity (I think) that combat can feel like pausing the story for a little mini-game, but turning the entire play experience into a succession of mini-games is not what I'd call progress; and that's what the systems proposed for 'structuring' Exploration & Interaction look like to me.

Structure where necessary; freedom to invent your own structures where possible.

It didn't really fit anywhere else in this post, so I'll just say as a footnote that I do agree with the people who have pointed out how scattershot 5e's presentation of its Exploration & Interaction rules is; some more cohesion in how that information gets presented would absolutely be a welcome change.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think that a more involved and procedural game structure for determining overland travel, like the one Sparky theorized for finding the lost city of Xajs'ajtyoeloal'paiowkahdiujaqdf'aksiuhdnthalds, is antithetical to this kind of approach. (I also don't think I'm unique or even unusual among Dungeon Masters for having an element of the game onto which I like to lavish this much attention and care; some do it for their tightly-constructed mysteries, their richly characterized NPCs, their devilish dungeons.) I have a structure that works really well for me and for the groups I tend to play with, because the system gave me the freedom to develop it, as well as numerous mechanics to handle the on-the-ground details.

The game providing that structure for me in the form of encounter generation systems and procedural exploration, and presenting those as, by default, how the game is played, is not just different from my structure, but actively hostile to it.

If that sounds alarmist or hyperbolic, think about how much pushback you get when you want to radically alter the structures the game presents for combat, like if you wanted to fundamentally rework something like Hit Points. I'm not using that analogy to suggest that combat should also be de-structured; I've already argued that for combat, highly-structured play is pretty much necessary. But if you try making fundamental alterations to something that is already highly structured, players (and internet strangers that you discuss these things with) feel attacked. They feel like you're encroaching upon their prerogatives as players, taking away something that's theirs, because the game has assured them that that's "their" space, has assured them of how you're "supposed" to run things.

Imagine if player character options had the same density of mechanical interaction & structural knowledge with the Exploration & Interaction pillars as they do with the Combat pillars. Frankly, that sounds like a nightmare for me. Combat takes a while, is the most difficult space in which to maintain immersive roleplay, and feels the most like playing elaborate dice chess rather than the scenario it's supposed to be modeling. That's not really a problem for me, because I have the more structure-light portions of the game to move things at my own pace, play things loose, take player suggestions, give meaning to the dice chess matches, maybe improvise a little if something about the pre-planned content isn't working out. It's a matter of necessity (I think) that combat can feel like pausing the story for a little mini-game, but turning the entire play experience into a succession of mini-games is not what I'd call progress; and that's what the systems proposed for 'structuring' Exploration & Interaction look like to me.

Structure where necessary; freedom to invent your own structures where possible.


I agree with this. My focus is on worldbuilding and getting players to engage with the world. For me, personally, that means that everything is exploration. Frameworks and structures constrain my ability to make things actually fit the world; my strong desire is that everything grows organically from the world and explains more about the world. In my experience, procedural generation requires a heavy pruning and actually more work than more hand-crafted methods as soon as the world is anything other than a backdrop against which adventurers take the stage. Procedural or externally-structured generation of content provides little value for me.

And the part about not wanting mini-games? I'm totally on board with that. It's one of the reasons I don't like the idea from old D&D that you should switch to domain management at higher levels or that the game should "fundamentally change" as you progress--that's not a single game, it's two (or more) packaged together. And most people and most campaigns only really like one of them. Which means people are unhappy at least half the time.

Honestly, I prefer moving combat away from the high-structure "drop into an alternate mode" minigame where characters are just playing pieces to be deployed tactically and optimally. I want combat, exploration, and social stuff to all happen intertwined, seamlessly. There are limits, of course.

Rules and "structures" are scaffolds. And like construction scaffolds, they're intended to be torn down when the need for them is over. Not made permanent parts of the building. For me, personally, exploration and social structures are places where I don't need permanent scaffolds. I need tools to create scaffolds "on the fly" (ok, in prep time, mostly) for this specific situation. But that scaffold won't work for a different, even somewhat similar situation. Because the underlying building I'm trying to build isn't the same.

I find 5e gives me the tools I need for the games I want to run. Others may disagree; there's certainly lots of scope for more tools or for "pre-packaged scaffolds". But I'd prefer if those are kept where they are, as 3rd-party add-ons mostly. I want the core designers to focus on building tools and libraries (in the software sense[1]), not frameworks. Especially opinionated[2] frameworks.

[1] switching the metaphor here--a library is a piece of code, packaged for re-use by someone else. Effectively a toolbox. Frameworks are systems, skeletons to accomplish tasks, into which you plug your own code. Frameworks are necessary--the 5e core system (base resolution mechanic, underlying philosophy, the idea of class/race/background as your core, etc.) is a framework. But frameworks tend to warp the design around them. Adding more frameworks (or making an existing one more comprehensive and opinionated[2]) tends to produce monocultures. You must do it the framework's way, or else pain and bad experience. That's what I don't want.

[2] opinionated frameworks and libraries have, as the name suggests, strong opinions about how they're used. They force certain interaction paradigms that compel the software to flow in certain ways. The WPF Windows UI framework is a good example--it expects all interaction to be via Commands. Which produces a bunch of boilerplate and (among other reasons) basically compels one particular design methodology, which has its pros and cons. Doing it otherwise is hard and tends to be buggy. Apple's software is another example of an opinionated framework. Do it the Apple Way(tm) or suffer. Not what I want from a game.

[Sorinth]

Of course not, just like there isn't one in combat, either. But there is a base structure for combat, and that informs everything else, which makes the DM's job so much easier.

Yes, they should. And adjudicating those cases are part of your job as a DM. You can poke holes in any game structure. In a combat scenario, how can a beetle (Tiny) grapple a gnome (Small)? The existence of logical incongruities does not negate the game structure - it's not meant to be comprehensive. The Alexandrian covers this, and I highly recommend you read those articles, because they'll change how you look at the game. What structure does is provide a base from which the DM can provide rulings, and a governing foundation for how we can run certain types of scenarios. So in response to your question about "If I search a wagon on the road, does that take as long as searching a room in a dungeon?" I would ask, "Is this abandoned wagon meant to represent a hostile environment full of treasure, monsters, hazards and traps? Because if not, why are you using a structure meant to simulate that environment? And if the wagon is meant to simulate that, see above about 'When in doubt, default to 10 minute chunks'."

If the DM is adjudicating anyways how is that any different then the current system? Because I don't see how when in doubt default to 10min chunks is in any way shape or form a game structure. Your still relying on the DM just adjudicating everything, at best you are giving players the illusion that they maybe the DM isn't just making it up on the fly and at worst you are preventing the DM from actually adjudicating intelligently. I know plenty who would allow the beetle to grapple the gnome because it's RAW.



Yes! We can vertically integrate those structures to flow into one another! Overland travel that delivers you to dungeoncrawling that delivers you to social encounters! Or hell, just overland travel that transitions right to combat! That would be fantastic!

My problem is that the DMG doesn't. It gives you rules, but no structure in which to implement them.

I think our idea of what constitutes a game structure might be different. I think we agree the DMG has a bunch of rules for stuff and not enough guidance. But to me game structure isn't the same as guidance.

Generally speaking is we are breaking things into rules, structure, guidance then rules are the how, structure is the when, and guidance is the why. So if for example we take Random Encounters, the rules are all the stuff about rolling the dice and consulting tables to determine what happens, the structure is all the stuff about when and how often you should roll for an encounter, and the guidance is the why should I use random encounters and what purpose they serve.



No, those are rules. Again, rules are not structure.

"Oh look, more bandits. Guess the DM rolled a 20 on the encounter check. Good thing we didn't have any choices about how to engage with those bandits, or where they hit us, or our route. Oh, what fun we're having."

What I want is a structure where my players can proactively gather information about their options (Agency!), plan their route (Agency!), choose how they use their cool class abilities to avoid or overcome obstacles (Agency!), deal with failure (Stakes!), have interesting complications arise (Stakes!), and then go in a dark hole in the ground in search of sweet, sweet LOOT.

I know this wasn't in response to my post, but if all that stuff is rules not structure, then what constitutes the supposed well defined structure of combat? Because it seems like the whole argument saying those are rules not structure would mean that combat doesn't have much structure just lots of rules.

[Composer99]

I’m not convinced of that.

OD&D had plenty of systems that weren’t in the core rule books, but are now considered part of the core experience. I mean, the rules for an ENTIRElY separate game are being held up as proof of older editions having robust exploration rules. Ghosts of Saltmarsh and Rime of the Frostmaiden are actual D&D rules, not the rules for Outdoor Survival.

And the structure I described isn’t vestigial: moving distances that take hours of travel are an inherent part of game play, the same way rolling initiative is.

If you want to travel 20 miles, there is a structure you engage with: determine travel speed and pace, adjust according to obstacles (rough terrain, weather, etc) and then roll to determine encounters on the provided tables. That’s a play structure that is defined in the rules. It’s not a vestigial hold over that gets grandparented in (like non existent Suprise Rounds, two weapon fighting mistakes or misunderstandings of Opportunity Attacks that still run rife in play)

And the original complaint of this thread is that 5e didn’t develop the rules for exploration well enough. So how can you complain that rules expansions that develop more robust rules for explanation suddenly don’t count?

Nonsense: it’s clear evidence that WOTC is responding to those complaints and providing the exact structures and rules that people here are simply ignoring and complaining that there are no rules.

There are also no rules for combat if you choose to ignore the rules for combat.

(1) You'll notice that the bulk of my post was saying that the DMG needed to be better organised, not that it needed more rules. See, for instance, BoutsofInsanity's post.

(2) Ghosts of Saltmarsh, Rime of the Frostmaiden, Xanathar's, and Tasha's all add optional additional content for out-of-combat material (for instance, the puzzles stuff in Tasha's, the expanded rules for overseas adventures in Saltmarsh, or tidbits like the avalanche content in Frostmaiden). It is simply false to claim that they address the deficiencies of the core rules.

(3) As for the core rules, you are simply mistaken. For all the rules that exist, "moving distances that take hours of travel" is a vestigial part of gameplay, relative to something like rolling initiative. WotC makes this clear based on how most adventures don't include any meaningful stakes for how long it takes to get from place to place, how much time the players choose to spend exploring an area, and the like. Tomb of Annihilation includes such stakes at the largest scale of the adventure, but not really at smaller scales of time or space. Likewise, the core rules of the game provide neither any kind of formalised structure that enables including meaningful stakes for the choices PCs make minute by minute or hour by hour or day by day, nor any guidance for DMs to make their own structures (either alongside or in place of a structure provided by the DMG itself). The problem with this lack might best be summarised by Rich Burlew's old articles describing his homebrew 3.5 Diplomacy (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?172910-Articles-Previously-Appearing-on-GiantITP-com) rule: "In short, I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want."

By way of example, consider Rise of Tiamat: it doesn't matter how much time the PCs spend attending to the missions they might be assigned or the ones they take on for themselves. They can spend 60 days, 90 days, 120 days - or any amount of time whatsoever - and they'll still arrive at the nick of time. The adventure doesn't set a deadline until literally the moment the PCs step into the final boss fight, whereupon they have 10 rounds to disrupt the summoning of Tiamat. There's nothing to be gained from, say, risking losing out on allies or resources in order to storm the temple early, nor anything to be gained by trying to slow down the cult's progress (and no guidance for the DM on how that might be made to happen). There's no built-in risk that you'll take too long and the cult will summon Tiamat uncontested. You, the DM, can add this kind of thing. But IMO the point of having professionals write these adventures is so that you don't have to take such basic things into consideration - and this kind of stake-setting is not so unique to 5e that the earliness of this adventure's publication, relative to when the game came out, can be taken as exculpation for the oversight.


(4) The rules, guidelines, and content that exist are often unhelpfully vague, incomplete, or unhelpfully detailed.
- For an example of unhelpfully detailed, consider thin ice (DMG 111). Including thin ice in your game involves calculating the weight tolerance in pounds in each 10-foot-square area. That's four 5-foot squares on a battlemap. Do you really want to be calculating weight tolerance for, say, a fight on a frozen river, or when the party spends an hour crossing a frozen lake? And what about NPCs or monsters, whose weights often aren't described? Clearly, some kind of abstraction would have been superior - probably a small chance that a character who traverses an area of ice might fall through, with a larger chance for larger creatures, taking into account the difference between crossing a surface of potential thin ice over the short span of a fight, versus crossing a frozen surface over minutes or hours of time.
- For an example of incomplete, consider the rules for foraging (also DMG 111). A simple procedure that accounts for how much time you spend foraging in total, and how much of that time is spent foraging as part of travel or as a distinct activity in and of itself (*), could have been just as easy while also being more comprehensive, as the existing content.

(*) The difference between "while we're traveling today from Point A to B, I'll do some foraging" and "while we're encamped here at Point B, I'll wander around a bit and forage" - the latter clearly does not require reference to setting a travel pace, only how much time you intend to spend doing so.

[Sparky McDibben]

Took the time to read (quickly) through the Alexandrian article linked and discussed.

Very genuinely, thank you.


I'm not going to debate its exact holdings here, but I do at least feel it helped me understand more clearly what people mean by "structure" in this context. But I do still feel that more developed structures for the Exploration and Interaction pillars would be detrimental, so I'm going to shift from talking broadly and bring things down to a concrete example that most people already seem to gravitate towards when discussing these areas of gameplay: overland travel. I'm going to talk about how I handle it within the structures currently in the game, and then argue why a structure like the ones Tanarii and Sparky McDibben seem to be championing isn't compatible with it.

Make no mistake, overland travel is quite possibly my favorite part of running the game. The scenes from The Lord of the Rings describing walking, where they walk, what happens while they walk, and arguing about where they should walk next? Absolutely 100% my jam. I run games in which Natural Explorer is bonkers overpowered, and the food function of Goodberry is banned. All this to say I oppose adding structures for overland travel notbecause I think it's unimportant, but because it's really important to me.

Ooh, I smell an interesting take on OT coming up!


Overland travel (which tends to also include stretches of over-water travel, but you know) happens because the player characters are in one place and want to get to another. The goal is already defined from the outset. Story considerations add dimension to that goal: the players are operating within a limited time frame, or on limited resources to supply their journey. So I make the map of the region to be traversed with routes of varying trade-offs between swiftness & peril. I start with points A & B, and everything else on the map I create, the placement of mountains, hills, river crossings, settlements, is placed with some respect to how it impacts the journey between those two points (within the limits of geographic sense). What emerges is a modular web of pathways split by decision points; decide whether to take the mountain pass or trek around through the forest road. If you take the forest road, decide whether to take the winding path or try to bushwhack a more direct route. Ok, now you're at one of the towns by a river; do you cross here or follow the river downstream to another crossing? So on and so on. Then, with these various paths to reach the destination established, I plan the encounters of all kinds that are present along those routes. Here there are dragons, there avalanches. Here there are enchanted springs, there giant spiders. Here they charge you a steep toll to cross, there you must ford a swift and powerful river yourself. Here there are storms, there pirates. Generally I place them such that the most direct routes are often the most dangerous; if the player characters want to save time/supplies, they expose themselves to greater dangers. All routes will have encounters with no actual danger or serious consequences, but which give the chance to learn something or flex your roleplay muscles. With the encounters decided, I move on to the process of seeding the encounters. What local characters can share knowledge or aid for these encounters with the PCs? What clues can they pick up while traveling that alert them to the dangers? In fine, how do I communicate the information to the players which they can use to make decisions? All this planning, and specific, personalized decision-making allows for a really rich travel experience, where players have to negotiate difficult decisions, and are pushed to interact closely with the world and its characters in order to make it to their goal; and because the structure, if you like, is invisible to them, having been worked out by me in advance, they are free to approach it like an actual world in which their characters move and live.

This sounds like a pointcrawl, which an interesting and solid way to structure overland travel. It sounds like you're prioritizing player agency in how they plan their route, how they have to deal with encounters, etc. It sounds like the sort of campaign I would love to play in, albeit with much lower stakes than I would prefer.


I think that a more involved and procedural game structure for determining overland travel, like the one Sparky theorized for finding the lost city of Xajs'ajtyoeloal'paiowkahdiujaqdf'aksiuhdnthalds,

As an aside, props for going back and linking the complete word salad of a name. Nice. :)


is antithetical to this kind of approach. I have a structure that works really well for me and for the groups I tend to play with, because the system gave me the freedom to develop it, as well as numerous mechanics to handle the on-the-ground details.

That's fair - you have something that works for you, and you don't want to mess with it, because it works. But I would like to call out here that you still are using a structure, and it's one you had to hack together for yourself - D&D didn't provide you with one. That, in my mind, is the mark of a superior DM - you saw an obstacle to running the game you wanted to run, and you solved it. But a rules light structure is still a structure, and I would argue that the main difference between what you describe and what I describe are levels of danger and stakes. But at the end of the day, you're still using a structure. It's not as intense as what I prefer, but you're still using one. So I don't think we're antithetical, so much as using slightly different play styles. I don't think you're alarmist or hyperbolic (I mean, for the Internet!), but just wanting a slightly different experience.


Imagine if player character options had the same density of mechanical interaction & structural knowledge with the Exploration & Interaction pillars as they do with the Combat pillars.

Oh, sweet Christ, no. That's not what I want at all. Right now, because combat is the only game structure we've got, everything WotC designs hooks into it somehow. And you're right - it's exhausting. What I want, is to break that up - to spread the density of character options over three pillars, not just the one. One of the explicit design goals of 5e is to have every character class be able to "pull their own weight" in combat. Why not let them all pull their own weight in the other two pillars, too?


but turning the entire play experience into a succession of mini-games is not what I'd call progress; and that's what the systems proposed for 'structuring' Exploration & Interaction look like to me.

Then I have clearly explained them poorly. I'm not looking to take something away from you, especially if it's working. But I do find it easier to cut out things than to innovate new ones. I want support for me, as a DM, to make decisions grounded in the world and know how and why things are happening. It sounds like you want that, too, just with less in the way of tension and stakes. I don't want a bunch of mini-games, I want three fully supported pillars that bring out a unique, fun, and intense D&D experience.


It didn't really fit anywhere else in this post, so I'll just say as a footnote that I do agree with the people who have pointed out how scattershot 5e's presentation of its Exploration & Interaction rules is; some more cohesion in how that information gets presented would absolutely be a welcome change.

I agree with this sentiment, in general; while I find 5e's overland travel to be weak-sauce disjointed mechanics, a better layout might help highlight the good bits in there. One example of solid layout is the Mothership RPG (I don't know if you've seen it, but you should absolutely check out Pound of Flesh. Blew my mind).

I did have a question about your overland travel structure, Catullus64. How do you avoid wasted prep? Anytime you create a mutually exclusive branch, you've just wasted at least 50% of your prep - how do you get around that? Do you prep the whole thing up front, or do you want to prep until the players tell you their route? How do you handle mid-journey course changes? No pushback on this one, just curious how you do it.

[Catullus64]

I did have a question about your overland travel structure, Catullus64. How do you avoid wasted prep? Anytime you create a mutually exclusive branch, you've just wasted at least 50% of your prep - how do you get around that? Do you prep the whole thing up front, or do you want to prep until the players tell you their route? How do you handle mid-journey course changes? No pushback on this one, just curious how you do it.

To give an example, in a recent mini-campaign (4 sessions, ultimately) where the players were journeying across about 60 miles as the crow flies (so nearly twice that in walking-miles), the web of paths broke down into about sixteen legs with numerous possible configurations & branchings. The players ended up traversing a total of six of them, so that's ten sets of encounters that went unused.

Seems like a lot of wasted design effort, right? But since they never saw or even came anywhere near most of those encounters, I have those unused segments ready made to be used for the next overland travel journey, perhaps with some adjustments made for the particulars of environment or the level range. Indeed, most of the ones that I had planned for this campaign were retro-fitted from the unused encounters in previous campaigns; so it unfolds that for each journey, I only really have to design about a third or so of the possible encounters from scratch. (Also keep in mind that every fork in the road doesn't necessarily cut the possible future pathways in half, since paths tend to converge and criss-cross.)

If the journey is long enough that I have session breaks in the middle of it (which is usually), then I will typically spend a little more time refining and seeding for the encounters that the players' choices are setting them up for. As you pointed out, the first branch they choose to take will often narrow down the subsequent possible encounters, so I typically get a more precise idea of where they're likely to go. And usually, these journeys start with an extended sequence of player characters huddled in an inn or suchlike, poring over maps and discussing their route, so I am privy to a lot of their thinking about what kinds of choices they're likely to make.

Also, if you really want to make sure more of your content gets used, you can always pull out the Caradhras Gambit; make the encounters along one path so oppressively dangerous that the PCs go "screw this, not worth it, we're turning around and going the other way." I don't recommend using it too often, thought.

[Sorinth]

the structure, if you like, is invisible to them, having been worked out by me in advance, they are free to approach it like an actual world in which their characters move and live.

Being able to approach and interact with the world as if it were real is one of the big appeals of the game for me. Having a structure is great but I don't necessarily want to see it as a player. To switch to social pillar for a second, if the DM is using some sort of point system to handle the relationship between me and the various NPCs/Factions I don't want to know what my score is with each NPC/Faction is or how many points I would earn for doing a potential quest (Or rather I do want to know but it's more fun when I don't).


Rules and "structures" are scaffolds. And like construction scaffolds, they're intended to be torn down when the need for them is over. Not made permanent parts of the building. For me, personally, exploration and social structures are places where I don't need permanent scaffolds. I need tools to create scaffolds "on the fly" (ok, in prep time, mostly) for this specific situation. But that scaffold won't work for a different, even somewhat similar situation. Because the underlying building I'm trying to build isn't the same.

I find 5e gives me the tools I need for the games I want to run. Others may disagree; there's certainly lots of scope for more tools or for "pre-packaged scaffolds". But I'd prefer if those are kept where they are, as 3rd-party add-ons mostly. I want the core designers to focus on building tools and libraries (in the software sense[1]), not frameworks. Especially opinionated[2] frameworks.

[1] switching the metaphor here--a library is a piece of code, packaged for re-use by someone else. Effectively a toolbox. Frameworks are systems, skeletons to accomplish tasks, into which you plug your own code. Frameworks are necessary--the 5e core system (base resolution mechanic, underlying philosophy, the idea of class/race/background as your core, etc.) is a framework. But frameworks tend to warp the design around them. Adding more frameworks (or making an existing one more comprehensive and opinionated[2]) tends to produce monocultures. You must do it the framework's way, or else pain and bad experience. That's what I don't want.

[2] opinionated frameworks and libraries have, as the name suggests, strong opinions about how they're used. They force certain interaction paradigms that compel the software to flow in certain ways. The WPF Windows UI framework is a good example--it expects all interaction to be via Commands. Which produces a bunch of boilerplate and (among other reasons) basically compels one particular design methodology, which has its pros and cons. Doing it otherwise is hard and tends to be buggy. Apple's software is another example of an opinionated framework. Do it the Apple Way(tm) or suffer. Not what I want from a game.

Some great metaphors here, though I'm not sure everyone will appreciate the pain/frustration of working with opinionated frameworks.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Being able to approach and interact with the world as if it were real is one of the big appeals of the game for me. Having a structure is great but I don't necessarily want to see it as a player. To switch to social pillar for a second, if the DM is using some sort of point system to handle the relationship between me and the various NPCs/Factions I don't want to know what my score is with each NPC/Faction is or how many points I would earn for doing a potential quest (Or rather I do want to know but it's more fun when I don't).


Very much agreed. When the structures intrude into the conscious layer, it often breaks the flow and focuses attention on gaming the structure, not playing your character. I want rules and systems that are as transparent as possible and fade into the background, to be invoked only when needed (accepting the cost of doing so). Invoking rules and mechanics always carries costs.



Some great metaphors here, though I'm not sure everyone will appreciate the pain/frustration of working with opinionated frameworks.

For me, the idea of "rules as scaffolds" (mainly coming from a teaching/educational perspective) was key to changing how I approach games, game design, and DMing. Realizing that the rules are not the game and do not define the game was a game-changer (pun intended). My day job involves writing apps for Apple and Android...opinionated frameworks are the bane of my existence whenever the business wants something that deviates from the One True Way for that platform. The pressure to conform to the One True Way (which is often rather :sideways_owl:) is real and annoying.

[Kane0]

I've looked at the rules pretty extensively. The 5e team has really actually developed a pretty robust travel mechanic. There is a ton there to use to have a mechanically satisfying travel segment.

The only problem is that it's spread out over three books, on different pages and chapters. They also don't lay out a systemic way of running it for the GM. Which means the GM has to investigate and come up with it on it's own.

All Wizards needs to do, is to compile the rules into a few pages all at once and make sure that it goes into some easy charts with some math conversions and it all works beautifully.

Anyone know if this has already been conveniently compiled somewhere?

[Mjolnirbear]

I appreciate the desire for a rules-light system of travel, exploration, and social. A lot of the people here are ones I respect a great deal. That said, here is my take.

1) having the rules spread among books isn't just an organisation problem; it's an access problem. I have enough money to get any book I like, but I don't have Rime. How am I gonna use that system without buying it? How am I gonna know I *need* to buy it? How is the poor high school student gonna run their community game? Especially when the advice for running a game should be, ideally, in one book called the Dungeon Master's Guide?

2) the random encounters tables can be useful, but they seem to think that combat encounters are the only thing worth rolling for. What about the friendly hermit with a wild tale? What about the half-forgotten dwarven watchtower potentially filled with lore? What about the Mystic Spring of Mystical Magic rumoured to be found inside the Forest of Forgotten Fools? What about the wild night dancing by firelight within a caravan of wagons full of refugees? What about the troll under the bridge and the three goats gruff?

3) Navigating is a skill we don't really have anymore. We give addresses and let the GPS tell us how to get there. No one gives directions anymore like "Follow the river until you come to the old tree that has a knot that looks like a face. Cross the river and locate the mountain with the tallest peak. Head in that direction until you come to the forest, and follow the path you find within." Even maps were something only the rich and powerful actually had, for most of human existence. So we don't actually know how to run the exploration and travel part because we don't know what drives the kind of decisions needed. If you follow the river but don't cross at the old tree with a knot like a face, you might not see the mountain with the highest peak. If you don't see that, you're probably lost, and becoming un-lost in real life would be a process we should also see in the rules besides rolling a die. We need the process for navigating, and the process for becoming un-lost, to inform the systems of how to travel in the wilderness.

4) for social...I'm actually pretty happy with the social rules in general, except that they should have also been in the PHB instead of buried in the DMG Pg 244-245. Each NPC has a starting attitude, you have the potential to change that attitude, and the DCs for the cooperation you're trying to obtain are set by that attitude. Your insight check tells you the merchant is hostile to you, which tells you that getting the merchant to do anything involving even the finest bit of sacrifice is basically impossible, which tells you you need to ask for something they don't care about or figure out how to make them less hostile. It's rich, flexible, potentially rewarding, and useful in game terms. The only other thing missing is the lack of class abilities interacting with this besides skills and spells. For instance, a bard ability might be to change the attitude of the NPC temporarily by spending bardic inspiration. Most importantly, though, virtually nothing references this system (Out of the Abyss is the only campaign I can think of actually referring to changing attitude of NPCs) which means it's almost never used, where it *should* be referenced regularly ("If you find the bandits attacking the merchant's caravans and deal with them, the merchant's attitude improves to Friendly and getting her to part with her family heirloom/macguffin is easier to accomplish".)

5) any efforts in this area are hampered by half-assed ill-thought-out options like Outlander or ranger completely negating parts of exploration as well as the general inclination of the Devs to solve X problem with Y spell (goodberry, PWT, tiny hut, knock, etc) which locks these tools to casters instead of them being accessible to every character. In combat, every character has something to do; in exploration, it's casters or bust.

I've used Giffyglyph's Darkest Dungeons rules for exploration. It solved some problems, because it gives more Actions to do while travelling, tables to roll on while exploring, gives you a resource system to use for this pillar...but it feels very video gamey. It incorporates social encounters and random discoveries into the system, which I love, but is hampered its complexity. It turns options into buttons to press to maximize success instead of ways to tell a story. It also doesn't offer much in the way of creating challenging decisions, like whether to cut cross-country or keep to the safe route. It's still about getting from A to B, not about taking path X vs path Y.

I've used AngryDM's guides too. I like a lot of what he writes. But to be honest, he's allllllll over the place on his website, going from topic to topic like a drunken sailor. I really really value his explanations of why, for instance, you only call for a roll if theres a chance for success, a chance for failure, and a consequence of failure, or why it's important while running the game to understand how you're actually telling a story and need to know the question, the conflict, and the options in order for it to be a good story. But that comes at the cost of thousands of words per article; hardly easy to digest even for voracious readers such as myself.

[Mjolnirbear]

Apologies for the second post but the previous was long and this might otherwise be buried;

For both exploration and social, characters need class features that interact with the base rules.

Every class has features that interact with combat. To know how Extra Attack works, you need to know about the Attack Action. To know how Initiative works, you need to know the Turn Order works. To Sneak Attack when it's not your turn, you need to know about reaction attacks and weapons rules.

The class features almost never actually interact with exploration or social rules. There's no class feature referencing NPC attitudes, and the exploration rules aren't so much interacted with as bypassed (spells like goodberry, Outlander, ranger).

This lack of interconnectedness makes it too easy to leave these rules forgotten in a dusty corner or unexplored entirely.

The bare minimum to fix this is to give martials an overhaul to interact with both rulesets (since casters at least have some spells).

[KorvinStarmast]

Interesting point made in the series of "Structures" articles by Alexandrian.

"This is why you have to playtest"

Yep.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Apologies for the second post but the previous was long and this might otherwise be buried;

For both exploration and social, characters need class features that interact with the base rules.

Every class has features that interact with combat. To know how Extra Attack works, you need to know about the Attack Action. To know how Initiative works, you need to know the Turn Order works. To Sneak Attack when it's not your turn, you need to know about reaction attacks and weapons rules.

The class features almost never actually interact with exploration or social rules. There's no class feature referencing NPC attitudes, and the exploration rules aren't so much interacted with as bypassed (spells like goodberry, Outlander, ranger).

This lack of interconnectedness makes it too easy to leave these rules forgotten in a dusty corner or unexplored entirely.

The bare minimum to fix this is to give martials an overhaul to interact with both rulesets (since casters at least have some spells).

Why does this have to be on a class (rather than system) basis? As I play it, everyone interacts with social and exploration. The idea that you can only interact when you have an appropriately labeled button on your sheet is, I think, the core issue here. And it's antithetical to the kind of game I want to play.

A meta-system that sets the expectation that you primarily interact with the game via specific mechanics (ie by pushing buttons on your character sheet) is, in my opinion, better suited for a video game. The beauty of a TTRPG is that you can use rules as tools, on an as-needed, when-needed basis, but most of the time just directly interact with the fiction layer.

Combat, with its high stakes and high timing demands, requires more granularity. And allows more granularity, because it's basically always the same. Exploration and social events vary so much that any system that enforces it via class features will act as a procrustean bed or highly opinionated framework, telling players exactly how they must interact and DMs how they must structure their campaigns and scenarios (else you'll be causing balance issues by nerfing players and "ignoring their class features").

[pwykersotz]

I've used Giffyglyph's Darkest Dungeons rules for exploration.

I had never heard of Giffyglyph before, so I searched him up. His whole design doc is darned impressive, and it's really fun to read over. Thank you for mentioning this!

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

.

No, those are rules. Again, rules are not structure. Secondly, you're conflating exploration with overland travel, and those are not the same things. Finally, do you really run overland travel like this? I don't mean to be rude, but that sounds like a terribly boring session.

"Oh look, more bandits. Guess the DM rolled a 20 on the encounter check. Good thing we didn't have any choices about how to engage with those bandits, or where they hit us, or our route. Oh, what fun we're having."

What I want is a structure where my players can proactively gather information about their options (Agency!), plan their route (Agency!), choose how they use their cool class abilities to avoid or overcome obstacles (Agency!), deal with failure (Stakes!), have interesting complications arise (Stakes!), and then go in a dark hole in the ground in search of sweet, sweet LOOT.

No, it’s a play structure.

A rule is “I can move 3 miles per hour” or “Strong Winds give disadvantage on ranged weapon attacks and Perception checks relying on hearing. Also extinguished open flames, dispersed fog, and makes no magical flying almost impossible (must land or fall at end of turn). In a desert, gives disadvantage on Perception checks with sight.”

You’re confusing the rules for overland travel with the rules for overland exploration.

The rules for overland exploration are the play structure: you start in Phandalin and you want to go to Waterdeep, because you’ve explored wave echo and now you want to explore Undermountain, because you love exploring.

Now, I suppose we can back this train up further: perhaps you need to investigate rumours? Talk to the many members of caravans described in the published Phandalin, or the many people with contacts in Waterdeep who can tell you about waterdeep (and have this information published in their descriptions and their faction descriptions). So maybe there’s an Intelligence (investigation) or a charisma (investigation) or a charisma (persuasion) or an intelligence (history) or a raw intelligence or raw charisma check to answer your query “What’s there to explore around here?” and/or “Where is Waterdeep?”

(This is also a play structure clearly defined in the core rules: the player queries, the DM either answers or calls for a skill check with an appropriate skill)

So having learned of Waterdeep and Undermountain, and having gotten some directions with a series of skill checks (all of this is RAW and outlined in the PHB and DMG) you now know where Waterdeep is supposed to be and a few routes to get there. Waterdeep is 300 miles away as the crow flies (so thats 13 days if you can fly. Can you fly? Here’s a decision point!)

Now you get to go overland EXPLORING. You make a decision about how you will travel. You can’t fly, because you didn’t choose a race or class with flight, so I guess you’re walking. Having chosen to go to waterdeep and chosen to walk, you now get to choose your route: there are two roads that can get you there, or you can set out into the wilderness and travel off the road.

So you haven’t even left town and there’s a bunch of choices, meaningful choices, you have to make.

You now have to plan your route, account for the season, the weather, the perils of the forest or mountains or the bandits on a certain road. You need to budget for food, can you carry it, do you need a wagon or a mount?

All of this is a play structure. Perhaps it bores you? So forget the fun of planning a trip? Let’s get to the actual trip!

Being a bold explorer, you don’t need no stinkin’ roads: you’re gonna go in as straight a line as you can through the wilderness. Of course that CHOICE means rough terrain, and a higher frequency of encounters.

So now come the dice: day one, 8 hours of travel, 12 miles of rough terrain, 1.5 miles per hour, 18-20 will mean you discover something. Hour 1, nothing (I’ll give you a description of the weather I rolled [rain and fog, which mean things mechanically] and you can roleplay the joy of the open road, hour 2 you discover something! The map says you’re in a forest, I use the forest encounter table, it says it’s a griffin with an arrow in its wing! What do you do?

Of course, we don’t forget about the fog and rain. You’re in a deep, green grove, with thick red woods that stand out clear in the mist, and the rain, while still wet and present, doesn’t pour as relentlessly. Because the fog obscures things (weather mechanics!) before you discover the Griffin, it’s gonna be a perception check to see if you hear it’s whimpers. You fail!

Now we have set the scene: you find your way through a patch of trees and the Griffin is right in front of you, 15 feet down below, as the roots of a large cedar beside you suspend the ground above the clearing in pain and surprised by your approach! (It too failed it’s perception check to hear you) What do you do?

Now I know behind the screen that the encounter has a few skill check DCs and a reward baked in, but we’ve also done something emergent: now we know there are Griffins and Griffin Hunters in these woods.

You’re a nice person, so you don’t attack the Griffin. Instead you try and calm it down and pass your animal handling check and your medicine check, so now it’s able to fly away, but you rolled well and it likes you, so it will stick around and let you ride it for 1d10 days (this is a published encounter, FYI)

Suddenly, perhaps Undermountain can wait. Perhaps your exploration of the woods has spurred you to befriend the Griffin and find it’s hunters.

You and the Griffin head North for an hour, but find nothing (you rolled a 12) Another hour later, you roll an 18 and you find: bandits!

I mean, maybe this is boring. Maybe this isn’t what you mean by exploration.

But this IS exploration and it IS a play structure supported by mechanics in the core rule book and in published modules.

So whatever you’re complaining about, it’s not a missing exploration play structure. The rules for an emergent play structure are right there in the core books.

A series of choices by the the players and rolls on the exploration tables using the published rules have generated a bunch of Griffin hunting bandits in the woods a few hours from Phandalin. That’s about as pure D&D as it gets.



.

No. What you have described is a movement mechanic. Again, those are rules. Movement mechanics are actually like the third thing you need for any 'crawling structure. You need a map, a key, movement mechanics, and a way to trigger the keyed content. After that you can start adding stuff like timekeeping, random encounters, etc.

As I’ve already stated, maps are published and available. Or you can draw your own using the guidelines provided in the DMG.

Those maps have keys. And the way you trigger the content is either: move into it, because it doesnÂ’t require a skill check (I doubt Baldur’s Gate is too hidden) or encounter it (that old D20 mechanic)

So that’s the crawl structure, right there in the published books.

[Composer99]

I can't agree with PhoenixPhyre's characterisation of game structures as scaffolds. That's got them the wrong way 'round.

To my mind they're exactly what the word "structure" implies: the foundations, girders, joists, etc. that keep the game standing while everything else provides it with function and aesthetics.

You can't tear that down or you don't have a game at all.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I can't agree with PhoenixPhyre's characterisation of game structures as scaffolds. That's got them the wrong way 'round.

To my mind they're exactly what the word "structure" implies: the foundations, girders, joists, etc. that keep the game standing while everything else provides it with function and aesthetics.

You can't tear that down or you don't have a game at all.

You can have a game without any formal structures at all. I was engaging in a roleplaying game in those endless hours I spent talking through stories with my brother as a kid. No formal structures, no resolution mechanics, no mechanics at all. Heck, no discussed rules. But it was very much a game, and very much roleplaying.

The formal ruleset does not define the game. In fact, formal rulesets are secondary, and serve to assist the game that already exists. Sure, they're useful. But they're secondary. In an ideal world, we'd be able to interact with the fiction layer directly. And you can, if you've got a good freeform group who are all on the same page. Rulesets exist as crutches for the rest of us. But let's not put them any higher than that. Rulesets and rules structures serve the players, not vice versa. Rulesets are not the game. Rulesets are tools to be used by people while playing the game. Or discarded, set down, and only picked up when they're useful.

And any game that goes rules-first, where every interaction with the fiction must be channeled through a defined rule, is one that should be better played as a video game (because that's all that those can do). TTRPGs' primary advantage is that they can go beyond the ruleset without making formal rules to replace them.

[Mjolnirbear]

Why does this have to be on a class (rather than system) basis? As I play it, everyone interacts with social and exploration. The idea that you can only interact when you have an appropriately labeled button on your sheet is, I think, the core issue here. And it's antithetical to the kind of game I want to play.

A meta-system that sets the expectation that you primarily interact with the game via specific mechanics (ie by pushing buttons on your character sheet) is, in my opinion, better suited for a video game. The beauty of a TTRPG is that you can use rules as tools, on an as-needed, when-needed basis, but most of the time just directly interact with the fiction layer.

Combat, with its high stakes and high timing demands, requires more granularity. And allows more granularity, because it's basically always the same. Exploration and social events vary so much that any system that enforces it via class features will act as a procrustean bed or highly opinionated framework, telling players exactly how they must interact and DMs how they must structure their campaigns and scenarios (else you'll be causing balance issues by nerfing players and "ignoring their class features").

It's not about either class or system but about how they interact. That interaction layers itself and becomes richer and also more useful for evaluating other involved systems.

I'm not saying only class abilities would do this. I'm saying class abilities need to also take advantage of the system. Racial abilities need to take advantage of the system. Right now, class and racial abilities touch social encounters in skills and ability scores and that's it.

So anyone of any class can roll to persuade a merchant to give a discount. Anyone can ask for it, but as it stands at most tables, the DM says yes sure, no, or 'gime a roll' and then decide based on the result. That's it, every social encounter broken down to a single die roll. Most people don't even know about the starting attitude table!

So let's use that table as an example. Same merchant, same ask. First the DM decides the merchant's outlook. The player can work with that, or instead start with trying to change the outlook. So if the merchant is hostile, because he remembers three nights back someone that looked like the rogue sneaking away and the merchant's strongbox missing some coins, then there is a hook. The bard can try to butter up the merchant, or prove the rogue wasn't to blame, or they can ignore it and roll and simply fail. But that one layer, the attitude, suddenly make a social interaction more engaging, and interesting, and not something likely to be simply skimmed over.

That change is both simple, and rich, and already exists in the rules. I am largely happy with it because it is rich and useful and engaging.

So what if charm person didn't give you advantage on social rolls, but improved the attitude? Because advantage on social won't get you that discount from a hostile merchant, but suddenly being neutral might.

What if rogues had the ability to detect initial attitude? Or advantage on such checks (since really anybody should with Insight)? Part of a rogue's class package is about choosing your target wisely. How much more engaging would the world be if your player's rogue could interact with that?

So you say, presumedly, the rogue *can* do that with the rules as written. As I said, it's likely a simple insight check to determine attitude. Anyone can do it. And you'd be right.

But not everyone can cast charm person, a class ability. Where there is room for one class ability, there is room for more. Simply adding attitude to the social pillar gives you something that can be manipulated. When you're in a fight with an Indifferent/ Neutral guard, convincing said guard the fight isn't worth it is now much easier. When the barbarian rudely farts in front of the king while giving the finger, changing the attitude to hostile makes everything that much more challenging and offers concrete consequences for their actions.

What more could you do with attitude if you had class abilities that interacted with it? Detected it? Manipulated it? Used it? What if Acolyte gave you a base starting attitude of Neutral with those of your faith? What if your skill at fighting leads veterans to be less willing to engage in hostilities? What if a GOOlock could confuse a hostile enemy, turning it's attitude neutral for just long enough for his persuasion to work?

I'm currently the sickest I've been since before COVID and there's a lot of cold syrup in my system, so hopefully I've made it clear how a simple codified system need not limit options and could make it easier to engage with them. I don't want the video-game buttons. I don't want it bogged down like combat. I don't want "I press Persuasion" to be how social interactions work, and yet that is how they work in most games I've played in. Something that uses attitude need not fence in your options, but I for one would like to see how different classes engage it in their own way. Classes should, after all, mean more than just combat

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

(1) You'll notice that the bulk of my post was saying that the DMG needed to be better organised, not that it needed more rules. See, for instance, BoutsofInsanity's post.

So this boils down to people having difficulty parsing the existing structures?

Sure, though that complaint wonÂ’t likely stop: there’s no simple presentation because it’s too complex and covers too many scales and possibilities to ever be simply laid out, unless they perhaps released a rule book dedicated solely to those rules with them repeated in several places and contexts.

But of course, there would still be complaints if they released that incredibly not lucurative book idea, based on your next comment:


(2) Ghosts of Saltmarsh, Rime of the Frostmaiden, Xanathar's, and Tasha's all add optional additional content for out-of-combat material (for instance, the puzzles stuff in Tasha's, the expanded rules for overseas adventures in Saltmarsh, or tidbits like the avalanche content in Frostmaiden). It is simply false to claim that they address the deficiencies of the core rules.

So books that released after the core rules that address deficits in the core rules don’t address the deficits because they aren’t the core rules….

That’s a paradox that cannot be solved. Unless you’re proposing a 5.5 DMG that includes those rules as well. Would that address your concern here? Because if it doesn’t, then it can’t be addressed.

Until then, expansions are the only means of addressing empty design space.

And the optional comment is foolish: it’s simply choosing to ignore a solution to the problem. You can’t elect not to use the tools you’re given and complain you don’t have the tools.


(3) As for the core rules, you are simply mistaken. For all the rules that exist, "moving distances that take hours of travel" is a vestigial part of gameplay, relative to something like rolling initiative. WotC makes this clear based on how most adventures don't include any meaningful stakes for how long it takes to get from place to place, how much time the players choose to spend exploring an area, and the like. Tomb of Annihilation includes such stakes at the largest scale of the adventure, but not really at smaller scales of time or space. Likewise, the core rules of the game provide neither any kind of formalised structure that enables including meaningful stakes for the choices PCs make minute by minute or hour by hour or day by day, nor any guidance for DMs to make their own structures (either alongside or in place of a structure provided by the DMG itself). The problem with this lack might best be summarised by Rich Burlew's old articles describing his homebrew 3.5 Diplomacy (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?172910-Articles-Previously-Appearing-on-GiantITP-com) rule: "In short, I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want."

Hold on:

Are you actually arguing that time constraints are what make exploration meaningful.

Oh. No. You do not require a time limit for something to be a core part of your game.

And if you do, I’d recommend looking at the mechanic in Frozen Sick, which imposes exactly what youÂ’re describing to incentivize exploration.

So the officially published rules published by professionals account for this.

Not an issue, you just need to read more.


(4) The rules, guidelines, and content that exist are often unhelpfully vague, incomplete, or unhelpfully detailed.
- For an example of unhelpfully detailed, consider thin ice (DMG 111). Including thin ice in your game involves calculating the weight tolerance in pounds in each 10-foot-square area. That's four 5-foot squares on a battlemap. Do you really want to be calculating weight tolerance for, say, a fight on a frozen river, or when the party spends an hour crossing a frozen lake? And what about NPCs or monsters, whose weights often aren't described? Clearly, some kind of abstraction would have been superior - probably a small chance that a character who traverses an area of ice might fall through, with a larger chance for larger creatures, taking into account the difference between crossing a surface of potential thin ice over the short span of a fight, versus crossing a frozen surface over minutes or hours of time.

1. You understand the maximum weight tolerance is 300 pounds, yeah? And the minimum is 30? The calculations are trivial. Plus why don’t I have the weights of all the PCs readily available. It’s highly unlikely it can hold two at once, so there’s your rule of thumb; two PCs per 10 foot square. Apply to NPCs as well, done and done.

2. Why am I using exploration rules in combat? I’d just rule the strenuous activity breaks the ice. No calculations involved. You can’t fight on thin ice, there!

3. No party of adventurers is getting across a lake made entirely out of thin ice.(why am I putting a lake made entirely out of thin ice in my game? I don’t know. Is there one of these lakes in a published adventure, or is this just a bad DM problem?)

4. You understand this is a hazard?This is meant to be an exceptional moment, not a routine one. Exceptional moments warrant the prep work and calculations. I mean, combat demands the same degree of calculation and that doesn’t present an issue.

Those rules are helpful in designing an encounter that involves thin ice. There are many great moments of tension I can imagine involving PCs avoiding and navigating thin ice. Mazes, chases, Fox/hen puzzles.

You listed some bad designs, but there’s not a single rule in D&D that can’t be used to make a bad design.



- For an example of incomplete, consider the rules for foraging (also DMG 111). A simple procedure that accounts for how much time you spend foraging in total, and how much of that time is spent foraging as part of travel or as a distinct activity in and of itself (*), could have been just as easy while also being more comprehensive, as the existing content.

(*) The difference between "while we're traveling today from Point A to B, I'll do some foraging" and "while we're encamped here at Point B, I'll wander around a bit and forage" - the latter clearly does not require reference to setting a travel pace, only how much time you intend to spend doing so.

You’ve made a mistake: there aren’t two distinct activities. It’s just foraging, whether you’re moving or not. But you can also move while foraging, up to a normal pace.

There’s nothing vague, incomplete or complicated about it. You can forage as an activity, and how much you can forage, and at what DC is presented.

Would it have made more sense if it had read: Characters cannot forage while travelling at a fast pace?

Travel time is not connected to foraging, you simply cannot travel fast AND forage, which indirectly impacts your travel time.

[Sorinth]

It's not about either class or system but about how they interact. That interaction layers itself and becomes richer and also more useful for evaluating other involved systems.

I'm not saying only class abilities would do this. I'm saying class abilities need to also take advantage of the system. Racial abilities need to take advantage of the system. Right now, class and racial abilities touch social encounters in skills and ability scores and that's it.

So anyone of any class can roll to persuade a merchant to give a discount. Anyone can ask for it, but as it stands at most tables, the DM says yes sure, no, or 'gime a roll' and then decide based on the result. That's it, every social encounter broken down to a single die roll. Most people don't even know about the starting attitude table!

So let's use that table as an example. Same merchant, same ask. First the DM decides the merchant's outlook. The player can work with that, or instead start with trying to change the outlook. So if the merchant is hostile, because he remembers three nights back someone that looked like the rogue sneaking away and the merchant's strongbox missing some coins, then there is a hook. The bard can try to butter up the merchant, or prove the rogue wasn't to blame, or they can ignore it and roll and simply fail. But that one layer, the attitude, suddenly make a social interaction more engaging, and interesting, and not something likely to be simply skimmed over.

That change is both simple, and rich, and already exists in the rules. I am largely happy with it because it is rich and useful and engaging.

So what if charm person didn't give you advantage on social rolls, but improved the attitude? Because advantage on social won't get you that discount from a hostile merchant, but suddenly being neutral might.

What if rogues had the ability to detect initial attitude? Or advantage on such checks (since really anybody should with Insight)? Part of a rogue's class package is about choosing your target wisely. How much more engaging would the world be if your player's rogue could interact with that?

So you say, presumedly, the rogue *can* do that with the rules as written. As I said, it's likely a simple insight check to determine attitude. Anyone can do it. And you'd be right.

But not everyone can cast charm person, a class ability. Where there is room for one class ability, there is room for more. Simply adding attitude to the social pillar gives you something that can be manipulated. When you're in a fight with an Indifferent/ Neutral guard, convincing said guard the fight isn't worth it is now much easier. When the barbarian rudely farts in front of the king while giving the finger, changing the attitude to hostile makes everything that much more challenging and offers concrete consequences for their actions.

What more could you do with attitude if you had class abilities that interacted with it? Detected it? Manipulated it? Used it? What if Acolyte gave you a base starting attitude of Neutral with those of your faith? What if your skill at fighting leads veterans to be less willing to engage in hostilities? What if a GOOlock could confuse a hostile enemy, turning it's attitude neutral for just long enough for his persuasion to work?

I'm currently the sickest I've been since before COVID and there's a lot of cold syrup in my system, so hopefully I've made it clear how a simple codified system need not limit options and could make it easier to engage with them. I don't want the video-game buttons. I don't want it bogged down like combat. I don't want "I press Persuasion" to be how social interactions work, and yet that is how they work in most games I've played in. Something that uses attitude need not fence in your options, but I for one would like to see how different classes engage it in their own way. Classes should, after all, mean more than just combat

I guess this is a case of too each their own because I find that using the attitude stuff from the DMG doesn't lead to a richer experience but in fact the complete opposite. And adding features that directly interacted with the attitude would make it even worse. Instead of actually engaging with the merchant as a person, players will engage with them as a mini-game.

[Sorinth]

I can't agree with PhoenixPhyre's characterisation of game structures as scaffolds. That's got them the wrong way 'round.

To my mind they're exactly what the word "structure" implies: the foundations, girders, joists, etc. that keep the game standing while everything else provides it with function and aesthetics.

You can't tear that down or you don't have a game at all.

I think the key part of PhoenixPhyre's metaphor is that they want to create different/unique buildings. If the structure is the foundation, girders, joists, etc... and it's highly defined by the game then all buildings end up looking the same which is a problem. They don't want convincing a king to join a war and getting a discount on your rooms from the innkeeper to look/feel the same. They want convincing the king to be complex and elaborate series of tasks/challenges that takes multiple sessions, and they want the haggling to be simple and short.

Or at least that's my take on what I want.


Now it's true the DMG could do a better job of offering guidance on how to build unique/different things, and adding some more concrete examples would probably be a good thing. For example, it's common in stories for the hero to have to complete some task to prove themselves and only then will a person agree to help. It's type of game structure that can be used for the innkeeper and the task be something like clean the dishes, or kill some rats in the cellar, or it can be used for the king where the task(s) are suitably difficult/heroic. But at the end of the day it's not something that should be part of the "core" game rules because I don't every social encounter to play out like that. If the king's task is to convince a local dragon to also join the war effort I don't want the dragon to also be I'll help you if you perform some task for me.

[Catullus64]

What more could you do with attitude if you had class abilities that interacted with it? Detected it? Manipulated it? Used it? What if Acolyte gave you a base starting attitude of Neutral with those of your faith? What if your skill at fighting leads veterans to be less willing to engage in hostilities? What if a GOOlock could confuse a hostile enemy, turning it's attitude neutral for just long enough for his persuasion to work?


Despite the general objections I've been raising in this thread, gameplay structures to inform stuff like social interaction can be done well, but I think they should be categorically DM-facing structures. The moment players are asked to engage directly with those mechanics, to peer behind the curtain in the way they often do during combat, is when I think you start skirting the territory of mini-game land.

A positive version of what you suggest might involve something like a table of attitude levels, with examples of what each attitude actually looks like in terms of behavior across multiple scenarios; a guide for how the DM can roleplay different attitudes across different types of NPCs.

The negative version is one in which players have the capacity essentially brute-force a roleplaying encounter using their features. Imagine if, while making an entreaty at the court of the king, a player is inarticulate, presumptuous, and rude while making their case, but uses features which are optimal for this kind of scenario. If the DM decides that that the king angrily dismisses them without hearing another word, it's hard to imagine that player not being salty, because it seems like the DM is just ignoring the game rules to arrive at his preferred outcome. If the game rules tell you that you can directly interface with certain structures, it has to follow through on that, which is why I'm not convinced that more intense structure wouldn't have some detriment of roleplaying.

I wish you comfort in your sickness, and a speedy recovery.

[Tanarii]

Despite the general objections I've been raising in this thread, gameplay structures to inform stuff like social interaction can be done well, but I think they should be categorically DM-facing structures. The moment players are asked to engage directly with those mechanics, to peer behind the curtain in the way they often do during combat, is when I think you start skirting the territory of mini-game land.
Conversely, it gives the players a way to determine "what do I do next" in a way that interfaces with their goals.

The simple example is game structures for interacting with an urban adventure. If you have a game structure that works like a dungeon, they're going to have to tell you each street they walk down, with encounter checks and distance traveled per turn being important. If you have one that instead is node-based, they can interact with the nodes by telling you which node they're transiting to next. They don't need to understand the entire structure, but they do need enough visibility into this organization to tell you what's next.

Similarly for a wilderness exploration structure, they may need to inform you of destination node and route, or they may need to tell you direction of travel and general activity within each watch (time frame).

[Mjolnirbear]

I guess this is a case of too each their own because I find that using the attitude stuff from the DMG doesn't lead to a richer experience but in fact the complete opposite. And adding features that directly interacted with the attitude would make it even worse. Instead of actually engaging with the merchant as a person, players will engage with them as a mini-game.

Whereas I see it as a way to reward players for great ideas and awesome roleplaying without having to also ignore their charisma stat.

"Sure. You can try to bribe the guard. You argument is strong and your approach is super convincing. You've offered more gold than they will ever see in their natural life. The guard is now Indifferent, now let's see how your your 8 charisma does. Roll persuasion. DC is now 10 instead of 20."

[Sorinth]

Whereas I see it as a way to reward players for great ideas and awesome roleplaying without having to also ignore their charisma stat.

"Sure. You can try to bribe the guard. You argument is strong and your approach is super convincing. You've offered more gold than they will ever see in their natural life. The guard is now Indifferent, now let's see how your your 8 charisma does. Roll persuasion. DC is now 10 instead of 20."

To be clear I don't actually use the attitude stuff from the DMG. But your example seems to lack context. Why is there even a roll, if you've offered more gold then they will ever see in their life and made a strong argument/approach then it should be an auto-success without a roll. That's the rules for skill checks.

Now if this guard is actually honorable and it's only those great arguments/approach/bribe size that is even giving the player a chance of success, then why wouldn't the 8 charisma impact the chance of success?


Also I would point out you've proposed that there are features on the player side to directly impact the attitude which doesn't actually solve your problem because if they don't have the feature they are in the same situation. Now you might say that's a player choice, they chose not to be good an bribes, which I get, but it's also irrelevant. The problem was that despite coming up with a strong argument, a super convincing approach and a huge bribe they have got little for it. And that's true regardless of whether a feature out there could've done something, because the end result is you are telling the player it doesn't matter whether they come up and execute a great plan it's still a question of whether you have the button on your character sheet, so don't even bother coming up with a good plan just grab the feature on next level up and then you don't even need a good plan you just use your feature.

[Sorinth]

Conversely, it gives the players a way to determine "what do I do next" in a way that interfaces with their goals.

The simple example is game structures for interacting with an urban adventure. If you have a game structure that works like a dungeon, they're going to have to tell you each street they walk down, with encounter checks and distance traveled per turn being important. If you have one that instead is node-based, they can interact with the nodes by telling you which node they're transiting to next. They don't need to understand the entire structure, but they do need enough visibility into this organization to tell you what's next.

Similarly for a wilderness exploration structure, they may need to inform you of destination node and route, or they may need to tell you direction of travel and general activity within each watch (time frame).

If the game is telling the players what they should be doing next then it will likely reduce player creativity. When faced with a challenge instead of brainstorming a solution they will consult the rules which tells them what they have to do to overcome the challenge and they'll be much more likely to just do that instead of trying to come up with an out of the box solution (And depending on the rules there's a decent chance the out of the box solution will be punished in someway. See PhoenixPhyre's post about opinionated frameworks).

Now I'm not saying one type of play is better then the other, and I completely understand how not knowing what to do next because you can do anything you want can be frustrating/intimidating. But I prefer the game to encourage creativity, as a DM I like it when I create a challenge with several solutions and the players come up with something I never thought of. And as a player I like trying to come up with solutions where anything and everything is on the table. There's no perfect game that will suit everybody's tastes which is why a key part of D&D is homebrew where every table takes what they like and ignores what they don't like. And the test of a good system is that you can take out or plugin what you want and the end result actually works reasonably well.

[Pex]

I think his assertion is built on a faulty premise:



It's true that Combat is the most developed structure of D&D (by design - the very name of the game emphasizes combat after all), but that's not the same as saying that combat is the only pillar with any development. Yes, the core rules for the other two pillars are contained within a relatively small portion of the DMG (242-245) but there are numerous official rules there and elsewhere if you want to add texture, like Background Proficiencies, Environment design and Honor.

Moreover, it's outright false to say that because Combat is the most developed, they can't add things that impact the other two pillars. Both Xanathar's and Tasha's proved that to be wrong - Xanathar's through things like Downtime rules and expanded tool proficiencies, and Tasha's through expanded Parley, Hazard, Phenomenon and Puzzle rules, as examples. None of these new rules are aimed at the Combat pillar.

There's also my favorite idea of adding example DC tables for skill use to help DMs understand what can be done with them. When the DM has to make it up some will default to everything hard because otherwise there's no challenge or otherwise feel a player doing something just because he wants to is too powerful. The game does tell the DM that's what should happen if the DM says the situations warrants it. However, without examples of those situations the DM just decides no situation ever warrants it. Even when a die roll is warranted, the learning DM needs to know the comparison of difficulties because different DMs have different opinions on the difficulties of tasks.

There already exists tables for object hardness and NPC reactions to social skill use, so 5E is not diametrically opposed to DC tables for skill use as an atrocity to gaming as some people think, facetiously speaking. This was before the Xanathar book, in the DMG. The problem is they are hard to find it's likely many players and DMs don't even know they exist. They should be moved to the PHB skills section or where ever they publish the DC tables if they ever do this.

In essence having more interaction rules already exists if you know where to look. There's room for a bit more rules on exploration and interaction without burying the learning DM in complex gobbledygook.

[Sorinth]

There's also my favorite idea of adding example DC tables for skill use to help DMs understand what can be done with them. When the DM has to make it up some will default to everything hard because otherwise there's no challenge or otherwise feel a player doing something just because he wants to is too powerful. The game does tell the DM that's what should happen if the DM says the situations warrants it. However, without examples of those situations the DM just decides no situation ever warrants it. Even when a die roll is warranted, the learning DM needs to know the comparison of difficulties because different DMs have different opinions on the difficulties of tasks.

There already exists tables for object hardness and NPC reactions to social skill use, so 5E is not diametrically opposed to DC tables for skill use as an atrocity to gaming as some people think, facetiously speaking. This was before the Xanathar book, in the DMG. The problem is they are hard to find it's likely many players and DMs don't even know they exist. They should be moved to the PHB skills section or where ever they publish the DC tables if they ever do this.

In essence having more interaction rules already exists if you know where to look. There's room for a bit more rules on exploration and interaction without burying the learning DM in complex gobbledygook.

Wouldn't a better solution be a chapter/section in the DMG that offers guidance on how the different DC values will impact play? What if it talked about what happens when you set DCs too high, too low, or call for a series of checks any which causes failure and how to create fun/interesting challenges that require more then just rolling well. Wouldn't that be a better then a bunch of tables that give example DCs?

[Pex]

Wouldn't a better solution be a chapter/section in the DMG that offers guidance on how the different DC values will impact play? What if it talked about what happens when you set DCs too high, too low, or call for a series of checks any which causes failure and how to create fun/interesting challenges that require more then just rolling well. Wouldn't that be a better then a bunch of tables that give example DCs?

No because the DM still has to make it up. It will be more confusing worrying about the pitfalls of being too high or too low. A DM can overreact and have one DC for everything. What is too high? What is too low? The learning DM may be afraid to make anything 25 or even 20 when that is the correct value, and there's nothing lower than autosuccess so autosuccess never happens because of worry about being too low. Maybe there's no DC at all. If the player rolls a high number, success. If the player rolls a low number, fail. If in the middle then add in modifiers. If a high value, success. If still middle, fail. Might as well have flipped a coin. With DC tables learning DMs have something to compare when something inevitably happens that's not specifically listed on the table. There's confidence in referencing a listed thing that's close enough to what is happening and use that number.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

No because the DM still has to make it up. It will be more confusing worrying about the pitfalls of being too high or too low. A DM can overreact and have one DC for everything. What is too high? What is too low? The learning DM may be afraid to make anything 25 or even 20 when that is the correct value, and there's nothing lower than autosuccess so autosuccess never happens because of worry about being too low. Maybe there's no DC at all. If the player rolls a high number, success. If the player rolls a low number, fail. If in the middle then add in modifiers. If a high value, success. If still middle, fail. Might as well have flipped a coin. With DC tables learning DMs have something to compare when something inevitably happens that's not specifically listed on the table. There's confidence in referencing a listed thing that's close enough to what is happening and use that number.

Spot on. Example DCs are far more valuable than any discussion about how to set a DC.

What the DMG could use are more examples of extended skill challenges in different scales (the combat 6 second scale, the dungeon 1-10 minute scale, the wilderness 1 hour-8 hour scale)

I think such examples would provide more clarity for people having difficulty with the rules as written in this thread.

[Tanarii]

If the game is telling the players what they should be doing next then it will likely reduce player creativity. When faced with a challenge instead of brainstorming a solution they will consult the rules which tells them what they have to do to overcome the challenge and they'll be much more likely to just do that instead of trying to come up with an out of the box solution (And depending on the rules there's a decent chance the out of the box solution will be punished in someway. See PhoenixPhyre's post about opinionated frameworks).

Now I'm not saying one type of play is better then the other, and I completely understand how not knowing what to do next because you can do anything you want can be frustrating/intimidating. But I prefer the game to encourage creativity, as a DM I like it when I create a challenge with several solutions and the players come up with something I never thought of. And as a player I like trying to come up with solutions where anything and everything is on the table. There's no perfect game that will suit everybody's tastes which is why a key part of D&D is homebrew where every table takes what they like and ignores what they don't like. And the test of a good system is that you can take out or plugin what you want and the end result actually works reasonably well.No game can be completely open ended. But if you'll note my explanation, the benefit of a game structure is more "how do I communicate my next goal to the DM properly so they can resolve it" than just "what is my next goal". But it also has the added benefit that it gives new players direction on how to play the game.

Because throwing a bunch of rules without game structures at a new player and saying "okay now go play" is a way to lose new players.

Why do you think the most common root-level scenario DMs run are linear adventure scenarios?

It's also why Starter kits always include a basic adventure. Sadly since In Search of the Unknown and Keep on the Borderlands, the starting rules don't provide necessary game structures, and the starting module doesn't explain how to design around them. That's what made those two modules works of art. They created DMs that understood underlying principles.

[Sparky McDibben]

No game can be completely open ended. But if you'll note my explanation, the benefit of a game structure is more "how do I communicate my next goal to the DM properly so they can resolve it" than just "what is my next goal". But it also has the added benefit that it gives new players direction on how to play the game.

Because throwing a bunch of rules without game structures at a new player and saying "okay now go play" is a way to lose new players.

Why do you think the most common root-level scenario DMs run are linear adventure scenarios?

It's also why Starter kits always include a basic adventure. Sadly since In Search of the Unknown and Keep on the Borderlands, the starting rules don't provide necessary game structures, and the starting module doesn't explain how to design around them. That's what made those two modules works of art. They created DMs that understood underlying principles.

This. Just...so much this. The Caves of Chaos has problems, don't get me wrong, but it does a damn fine job of explaining to the DM, "This is how we resolve conflict in this game; this is how we communicate information to players, and what information to communicate."

[Sorinth]

No game can be completely open ended. But if you'll note my explanation, the benefit of a game structure is more "how do I communicate my next goal to the DM properly so they can resolve it" than just "what is my next goal". But it also has the added benefit that it gives new players direction on how to play the game.

Because throwing a bunch of rules without game structures at a new player and saying "okay now go play" is a way to lose new players.

Why do you think the most common root-level scenario DMs run are linear adventure scenarios?

It's also why Starter kits always include a basic adventure. Sadly since In Search of the Unknown and Keep on the Borderlands, the starting rules don't provide necessary game structures, and the starting module doesn't explain how to design around them. That's what made those two modules works of art. They created DMs that understood underlying principles.

I'm not sure I quite buy into the "I don't know how do I communicate my next goal to the DM properly" because it's still very much a game where you can straight up ask the DM "how can I go about trying to do X". Hell you can even ask for hints if your stuck and have no idea what to do next.

I actually agree that the aim should be to help the DM understand the underlying principles. And a big reason for that is because you'll want to switch between structures, so in your urban adventure sometimes you'll want to be doing something street by street, sometimes you'll want nodes, somethings you'll just want high level goals/plans all in the same city same adventure. Just like you might have a hexcrawl but at times you'll want to skip over that and just narrate a journey from one place to another.

[Psyren]

No because the DM still has to make it up. It will be more confusing worrying about the pitfalls of being too high or too low. A DM can overreact and have one DC for everything. What is too high? What is too low? The learning DM may be afraid to make anything 25 or even 20 when that is the correct value, and there's nothing lower than autosuccess so autosuccess never happens because of worry about being too low. Maybe there's no DC at all. If the player rolls a high number, success. If the player rolls a low number, fail. If in the middle then add in modifiers. If a high value, success. If still middle, fail. Might as well have flipped a coin. With DC tables learning DMs have something to compare when something inevitably happens that's not specifically listed on the table. There's confidence in referencing a listed thing that's close enough to what is happening and use that number.

My rule of thumb is to define "hard" by tier: 15 at Tiers 1 and 2, 20 at Tier 3, 25 at Tier 4. What is considered a hard task for characters changes as they advance through those tiers.

Concerning autosuccess, I think that never calling for a roll just because the PC will blow it out of the water is a mistake. You don't want to overdo it, but the occasional "roll {thing} that I already know you're super special awesome at" makes the player feel powerful and brilliant.

[Tanarii]

I actually agree that the aim should be to help the DM understand the underlying principles. And a big reason for that is because you'll want to switch between structures, so in your urban adventure sometimes you'll want to be doing something street by street, sometimes you'll want nodes, somethings you'll just want high level goals/plans all in the same city same adventure. Just like you might have a hexcrawl but at times you'll want to skip over that and just narrate a journey from one place to another.
I do agree that one game structure doesn't fit all sizes. Specifically, that's why a lot of "ancient game structures" were dropped. They weren't the only way to run a roleplaying game where the idea was to be very inclusive with what kinds of things the players could do, and how they could do it.

An easy example of that is how wilderness crawls evolved to point crawls, and then the points for journeys became destinations, in effect skipping over to narration. Having one and only one game structure can be limiting. But the problem is right now, for exploration (urban, wilderness, dungeon) there are no game structures at all. DMs and Players have to either invent them, or more commonly kind of bumble along.

I'll note this is a very common complaint in running/playing the Underdark and Storm Kings Thunder modules. Whereas the Chult module is generally praised for something as simple as adding a hex map, even if possible structures for using it aren't all that clear.

[Pex]

My rule of thumb is to define "hard" by tier: 15 at Tiers 1 and 2, 20 at Tier 3, 25 at Tier 4. What is considered a hard task for characters changes as they advance through those tiers.

Concerning autosuccess, I think that never calling for a roll just because the PC will blow it out of the water is a mistake. You don't want to overdo it, but the occasional "roll {thing} that I already know you're super special awesome at" makes the player feel powerful and brilliant.

Is it hard because the task is hard or is it hard based on the level of PC doing it. For example let's say you declare climbing a tree is hard. A level 1 character wants to climb a tree. DC 15. Shenanigans later the now level 18 character wants to climb a tree. Is the DC 15 or 25? It appears you would keep the DC at 15, but I'd like to be sure. Still, if the character has 10 ST and no proficiency in Athletics, at DC 15 it remains hard for him at level 1 and level 18. That's fine, but if you're saying it shouldn't be hard for him anymore does that make it an autosuccess then? At what level would the DC change? If you do change the DC then you're basing the DC on the level of the character doing it and not the difficulty of the task, though in this case you're changing it in the PC's favor.

[Sorinth]

I do agree that one game structure doesn't fit all sizes. Specifically, that's why a lot of "ancient game structures" were dropped. They weren't the only way to run a roleplaying game where the idea was to be very inclusive with what kinds of things the players could do, and how they could do it.

An easy example of that is how wilderness crawls evolved to point crawls, and then the points for journeys became destinations, in effect skipping over to narration. Having one and only one game structure can be limiting. But the problem is right now, for exploration (urban, wilderness, dungeon) there are no game structures at all. DMs and Players have to either invent them, or more commonly kind of bumble along.

I'll note this is a very common complaint in running/playing the Underdark and Storm Kings Thunder modules. Whereas the Chult module is generally praised for something as simple as adding a hex map, even if possible structures for using it aren't all that clear.

I think it's important that the rules are mostly agnostic and support a variety of structures. But certainly the DMG could've had a section where they showed you how to make/run a hexcrawl, point crawl, etc... so long as they didn't say this one is the default and these others are optional variants.

[Sigreid]

Is it hard because the task is hard or is it hard based on the level of PC doing it. For example let's say you declare climbing a tree is hard. A level 1 character wants to climb a tree. DC 15. Shenanigans later the now level 18 character wants to climb a tree. Is the DC 15 or 25? It appears you would keep the DC at 15, but I'd like to be sure. Still, if the character has 10 ST and no proficiency in Athletics, at DC 15 it remains hard for him at level 1 and level 18. That's fine, but if you're saying it shouldn't be hard for him anymore does that make it an autosuccess then? At what level would the DC change? If you do change the DC then you're basing the DC on the level of the character doing it and not the difficulty of the task, though in this case you're changing it in the PC's favor.

DCs for a particular task should not change based on level. That just gets into the race between skill points and DM DC's to "make it a challenge" that we had in 3.x.

That doesn't mean that all trees should be the same. The tree that was DC 15 should always be DC 15 (and that seems high for tree climbing to me, but I'm not your DM). That doesn't mean that there isn't a tree that's DC 20 to climb without the right equipment out there. But that DC20 tree may be somewhat difficult to climb for the higher level PC, but all but impossible for the lower level one. Regardless, the DC shouldn't change to fit the current party. The DC should just be the DC for that. Same applies to lockpicking. The locks on the goblin encampments may have a lower DC than the locks used by the Queen of the Drow, but that's because by comparison the goblins are using crappy locks.

Edit to clarify: If the trees have been DC 15 and all of a sudden you need to climb one and it's DC 20, the DM absolutely should, when describing it make sure to say "this tree looks more difficult to climb because....".

[Tanarii]

I think it's important that the rules are mostly agnostic and support a variety of structures. But certainly the DMG could've had a section where they showed you how to make/run a hexcrawl, point crawl, etc... so long as they didn't say this one is the default and these others are optional variants.
I'd have no problems with game structures being DM facing in the DMG, with instructions on which pieces of them to recommend as player facing, and good times to use them. It'd be better than the way the DMG sections on dungeons and wilderness and urban adventures right now.

[Sparky McDibben]

I think it's important that the rules are mostly agnostic and support a variety of structures. But certainly the DMG could've had a section where they showed you how to make/run a hexcrawl, point crawl, etc... so long as they didn't say this one is the default and these others are optional variants.

I agree that not every campaign needs the same prep method, but some baseline structure would be nice, just to base stuff off of. Albeit, it would have to work with both hexcrawls, pointcrawls, etc.

The other thing to point out here is that you can nest structures inside of each other. It's entirely possible to transition from a hexcrawl (exploring a region) to pointcrawl (exploring a smaller area of the map where the hex abstraction doesn't matter) to a dungeoncrawl (when you actually get to the dungeon) to combat (when you trigger something to fight), all in a single session. That's an extreme example (because the DM is a loony who's prepped multiple points of interest per hex), but I hope you understand my point. It's not that any one structure is superior (they're all good at different things), but rather that not having them available and called out for DMs can lead to a lot of extra work and frustration.

Just wanted to say that some of y'all have been making some excellent points on this thread - kudos to Catullus for starting this conversation!

[Pex]

Found it.

DMG page 245, a DC table for NPC conversation reactions. It takes into account the NPC's attitude towards the PC - friendly, indifferent, hostile.

[Psyren]

Is it hard because the task is hard or is it hard based on the level of PC doing it. For example let's say you declare climbing a tree is hard. A level 1 character wants to climb a tree. DC 15. Shenanigans later the now level 18 character wants to climb a tree. Is the DC 15 or 25? It appears you would keep the DC at 15, but I'd like to be sure. Still, if the character has 10 ST and no proficiency in Athletics, at DC 15 it remains hard for him at level 1 and level 18. That's fine, but if you're saying it shouldn't be hard for him anymore does that make it an autosuccess then? At what level would the DC change? If you do change the DC then you're basing the DC on the level of the character doing it and not the difficulty of the task, though in this case you're changing it in the PC's favor.

"Climb a tree" is not a hard challenge for any level of character, even children are capable of climbing trees. I'd say DC 10 in Tiers 1-2 unless there are other factors happening (e.g the tree is slick with rain), then no roll needed later. External factors would be needed to make it "hard", like trying to bring an unconscious ally up into the tree with you so they're not left on the ground, and even then you could mitigate that with rope etc.

Instead, a hard climbing challenge for Tier 1 might be closer to scaling a wall or building. DC 15 for that, probably stays static for the next tier or so, by the time you hit Tier 3 or 4 either it doesn't need a roll, or the character likely has a better way up there that bypasses the wall entirely.

A better example of a DC that would use the scaling I mentioned more straightforwardly might be something like "persuade a hostile enemy to hear you out before immediately launching into combat." At Tier 1 that enemy might be a bandit leader. At Tiers 2-3 that enemy might be an adult dragon or a vampire. At Tier 4 that enemy might be a marut or a lich. What is "hard" changes as the subject does, but the nature of the contest is fairly similar. If you roll particularly well you might avoid a confrontation entirely, or you might buy yourselves a surprise or the ability for a particularly sneaky party member like a Rogue or Ranger to hide before the fight starts while the creature is otherwise occupied with the face.

[Pex]

"Climb a tree" is not a hard challenge for any level of character, even children are capable of climbing trees. I'd say DC 10 in Tiers 1-2 unless there are other factors happening (e.g the tree is slick with rain), then no roll needed later. External factors would be needed to make it "hard", like trying to bring an unconscious ally up into the tree with you so they're not left on the ground, and even then you could mitigate that with rope etc.

Instead, a hard climbing challenge for Tier 1 might be closer to scaling a wall or building. DC 15 for that, probably stays static for the next tier or so, by the time you hit Tier 3 or 4 either it doesn't need a roll, or the character likely has a better way up there that bypasses the wall entirely.

A better example of a DC that would use the scaling I mentioned more straightforwardly might be something like "persuade a hostile enemy to hear you out before immediately launching into combat." At Tier 1 that enemy might be a bandit leader. At Tiers 2-3 that enemy might be an adult dragon or a vampire. At Tier 4 that enemy might be a marut or a lich. What is "hard" changes as the subject does, but the nature of the contest is fairly similar. If you roll particularly well you might avoid a confrontation entirely, or you might buy yourselves a surprise or the ability for a particularly sneaky party member like a Rogue or Ranger to hide before the fight starts while the creature is otherwise occupied with the face.

You're missing the forest for the tree. It's not about literally climbing a tree. This is hypothetical. Just assume you made the DC 15 for climbing a tree for a level 1 character. What is the DC for climbing that tree when it's an 18th level character who wants to climb it?

[Psyren]

You're missing the forest for the tree. It's not about literally climbing a tree. This is hypothetical. Just assume you made the DC 15 for climbing a tree for a level 1 character. What is the DC for climbing that tree when it's an 18th level character who wants to climb it?

...I answered that. Such a task most likely wouldn't require a roll at all at 18th level.

Have you read DMG 237?

[Sigreid]

You're missing the forest for the tree. It's not about literally climbing a tree. This is hypothetical. Just assume you made the DC 15 for climbing a tree for a level 1 character. What is the DC for climbing that tree when it's an 18th level character who wants to climb it?

The DC for that one particular DC 15 tree would be DC 15 at 18th level should there be a circumstance where it added anything for you to have to roll at all. Such as you're being chased by a demon lord after having already suffered damage beating down his entourage and you have seconds to climb that tree and escape (under duress and success or failure is interesting).

[huttj509]

The DC for that one particular DC 15 tree would be DC 15 at 18th level should there be a circumstance where it added anything for you to have to roll at all. Such as you're being chased by a demon lord after having already suffered damage beating down his entourage and you have seconds to climb that tree and escape (under duress and success or failure is interesting).

To bring in a literary example, IMO climbing a tree in Mirkwood to try to find if they're lost would be no roll. They're not hurried (though they're tired), they can find a good tree to climb, no worries.

Chased by goblins and wargs (Fifteen birds in five fir-trees)? NOW there's rolls involved to reflect the pressure and uncertainty involved. Rolls depending on an estimate of the general difficulty of climbing those trees, with a possible nod to factors that might give disadvantage or something.

I wouldn't consider the level at all. Level comes into play on the side of roll modifier, no need to double count it.

[Tanarii]

The DC for that one particular DC 15 tree would be DC 15 at 18th level should there be a circumstance where it added anything for you to have to roll at all. Such as you're being chased by a demon lord after having already suffered damage beating down his entourage and you have seconds to climb that tree and escape (under duress and success or failure is interesting).
Agreed, DCs for a particular task under particular circumstances for a particular character shouldn't change based on that characters level.

The task being different or the circumstances being different might change the DC.

Changing based on the specific character is more dicey. If a character doesn't have the knowledge, they shouldn't get to roll. If the character shouldn't be able to fail due to specific knowledge and/or years of specific training for this particular task and difficulty, they shouldn't need to roll. But generally speaking, if a character is better suited or worse suited in the tables judgement, IMO it's probably better for the DM to just give them advantage or disadvantage. A DM going down the path of variable DCs for different characters has its pitfalls that risk irritating players. And let's not even get into the proficient only checks house rule.

[Pex]

Agreed, DCs for a particular task under particular circumstances for a particular character shouldn't change based on that characters level.

The task being different or the circumstances being different might change the DC.

Changing based on the specific character is more dicey. If a character doesn't have the knowledge, they shouldn't get to roll. If the character shouldn't be able to fail due to specific knowledge and/or years of specific training for this particular task and difficulty, they shouldn't need to roll. But generally speaking, if a character is better suited or worse suited in the tables judgement, IMO it's probably better for the DM to just give them advantage or disadvantage. A DM going down the path of variable DCs for different characters has its pitfalls that risk irritating players. And let's not even get into the proficient only checks house rule.

Hey, we agree about something on skill use!

:smallsmile:

[Tanarii]

Hey, we agree about something on skill use!

:smallsmile:
Pretty sure we also agree that DMs tend to set DCs too high. :smallamused:

In my case, I believe that all the DMG name categories should be reduced by 5, with a Medium check being DC 10. Or possibly to DC 7 for Easy and DC 3 for Very Easy. The 5e mod 05R: Into the Unknown does that, and I think it's a good idea.

[Psyren]

A 10 means someone with neither any training (proficiency) nor any talent (average ability score) still has a 50/50 shot of success. I would definitely consider that to be an easy task rather than medium personally.

[Hytheter]

I disagree. If a normal person would fail 50% of the time then the task is clearly not easy. "Easy" implies something that anybody could do, you know, easily.

[Psyren]

I disagree. If a normal person would fail 50% of the time then the task is clearly not easy. "Easy" implies something that anybody could do, you know, easily.

I was quoting the designer intent behind that word directly from DMG 238.

[Hytheter]

I was quoting the designer intent behind that word directly from DMG 238.

The fact that the designers have a poor definition of 'easy' is where this conversation began.

[Tanarii]

The fact that the designers have a poor definition of 'easy' is where this conversation began.
Yup. A 50/50 shot for the majority of checks a character can try is not Easy by any stretch of the imagination. The typical level 5 character will have +6 to four ability (skill) , and maybe +3 on 2-3 more from their highest raw ability score (that they didn't also stack prof on top of), and +2 to Con checks. The rest are probably -1 to +1. And those remain at that level for a characters entire career.

Setting the bar at DC 15 Medium and saying that DC 5 checks often shouldn't even be called for at all (per the DMG) is just setting up the potential for an eventual slapstick comedy of errors game, even if you try to stick to only calling fo checks when failure should have meaningful consequences and be possible at all.

Of course, the DM can avoid this by always only having the highest bonus in the party roll for everything. A One Check To Rule Them All approach. But that takes away both the ability to have consequences for individual player choices, and the ability for things to happen to the PCs individually. Let alone group checks, which are far more often appropriate anyway.

But we digress. How did this game structures thread turn into yet another skills and DCs thread anyway? :smallamused:

[Catullus64]

Yup. A 50/50 shot for the majority of checks a character can try is not Easy by any stretch of the imagination. The typical level 5 character will have +6 to four ability (skill) , and maybe +3 on 2-3 more from their highest raw ability score (that they didn't also stack prof on top of), and +2 to Con checks. The rest are probably -1 to +1. And those remain at that level for a characters entire career.

Setting the bar at DC 15 Medium and saying that DC 5 checks often shouldn't even be called for at all (per the DMG) is just setting up the potential for an eventual slapstick comedy of errors game, even if you try to stick to only calling fo checks when failure should have meaningful consequences and be possible at all.

Of course, the DM can avoid this by always only having the highest bonus in the party roll for everything. A One Check To Rule Them All approach. But that takes away both the ability to have consequences for individual player choices, and the ability for things to happen to the PCs individually. Let alone group checks, which are far more often appropriate anyway.

But we digress. How did this game structures thread turn into yet another skills and DCs thread anyway? :smallamused:

Yeah, One Check To Rule Them All is a tendency for which I would appreciate some game structures to counteract it. As it is, I feel like players will default towards it, with the consequences that you mention. Or at least, players in the mid-range of experience with the game will do this. Inexperienced or highly experienced players are more likely to jump in to attempt something even when they're not the most qualified, or let others attempt it even when they have a higher bonus. But the majority of players have something of an optimizer's mindset, which is understandable but not always healthy for the game.

There are also games that make a very high failure rate work (most of the Warhammer RPGs are known for this) without it necessarily becoming comical, but it does tend to encourage a great deal of specialization.

[Tanarii]

Right. What's reasonable for Medium depends on if you assume the system is designed for "everyone only makes checks for things on their primary ability score and proficient" (possibly becoming primary or proficient at high levels), or "people make checks on all ability scores and regardless of proficiency".

I prefer to assume the latter was the intent based on how open the ability check system is to use, and they screwed up the numbers. But it's possible they went with the former is the intent.

[Psyren]

The fact that the designers have a poor definition of 'easy' is where this conversation began.

They're approaching it from the stance of an adventurer (who is unlikely to have a 10 and lack proficiency in something they'd be the ones rolling for), not from a commoner. What you're thinking of as "easy" would be closer to DC 5, which they have labeled as "very easy."

[Pex]

But we digress. How did this game structures thread turn into yet another skills and DCs thread anyway? :smallamused:

Raises hand.
:smallbiggrin:

I also dislike One Check To Rule Them All. As DM I have the player who made the inquiry to require a check to make the check. I will occasionally prompt the party to make a check and then I'll allow whoever has the highest modifier to roll, but my policy is "You said it. You roll it."

[Sigreid]

Back on topic, an argument could be made that more social structures could encourage more roll playing than role playing in those situations.

[Catullus64]

Back on topic, an argument could be made that more social structures could encourage more roll playing than role playing in those situations.

And I would probably make such an argument. It would probably start by pointing out that social roleplay has the least need for structure, since it mostly covers an activity closest to what the players are actually doing (talking). It involves the least degree of abstraction about what's happening.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And I would probably make such an argument. It would probably start by pointing out that social roleplay has the least need for structure, since it mostly covers an activity closest to what the players are actually doing (talking). It involves the least degree of abstraction about what's happening.

And is also highly fact sensitive, both to the words spoken as well as to the relationships between the participants, their internal *state* (motivations, personality, etc), and other cues. To the point that two "similar" situations may have entirely opposite reactions (ranging from "you get what you want" to "the other party declares eternal hatred") for the same conversational gambit. Which makes blanket structures substantially likely to produce narrative-unfriendly outcomes unless highly filtered. And if you have to highly filter your structure's outcomes, there's little to no use in having a structure in the first place due to the inherent costs.

[Pex]

Back on topic, an argument could be made that more social structures could encourage more roll playing than role playing in those situations.

But then what of the player who lacks elocution? Must he be forever barred from playing a bard (pun intended) because he, the real person sitting at the table, doesn't have the appearance, vocabulary, savois faire the bard represents? You don't even need to be a bard to play the smooth talker. The con-man, the ladies' man, the inspiring leader. They all use the social graces, and having game mechanics to reflect such use enables players to play such a character. Do you want the player to physically drop kick the DM before he can play a monk?

[Sigreid]

But then what of the player who lacks elocution? Must he be forever barred from playing a bard (pun intended) because he, the real person sitting at the table, doesn't have the appearance, vocabulary, savois faire the bard represents? You don't even need to be a bard to play the smooth talker. The con-man, the ladies' man, the inspiring leader. They all use the social graces, and having game mechanics to reflect such use enables players to play such a character. Do you want the player to physically drop kick the DM before he can play a monk?

Then I just fall back on the easy, medium, hard etc. difficulty. Taking a personal poke at what it should be.

[Hytheter]

They're approaching it from the stance of an adventurer (who is unlikely to have a 10 and lack proficiency in something they'd be the ones rolling for), not from a commoner. What you're thinking of as "easy" would be closer to DC 5, which they have labeled as "very easy."

A task that a trained professional can fail 25% of the time shouldn't be called easy either.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A task that a trained professional can fail 25% of the time shouldn't be called easy either.

Two opinions:

1. I wouldn't call someone with a +4 a "trained professional".
2. Even so, I'd say that that's as easy as I'd expect someone like that to have to roll for.

Because that's what those labels really mean--they're not Easy/etc compared to all possible tasks, but only out of the spectrum that you should even consider asking for a check for. If it's easier than that, the chances are that the chance of failure isn't worth the time spent.

Personally (and YMMV), I don't do DC 5 checks except in extremely rare circumstances. 50/50 for a +0 is as low as I'm willing to go for. I try to err on the side of letting people do cool things without asking for checks, ie "competent is baseline; checks are already for exceptional things."

[Psyren]

A task that a trained professional can fail 25% of the time shouldn't be called easy either.

1) You're not a "trained professional" with a 10 and no proficiency :smallconfused:
2) You know you don't have to call for a roll, right? Seriously, DMG 237 :smallconfused:

[Hytheter]

1) You're not a "trained professional" with a 10 and no proficiency :smallconfused:


That's 50%. 25% is the "adventurer (who is unlikely to have a 10 and lack proficiency in something they'd be the ones rolling for)" of which you speak. A character with proficiency and a decent stat modifier will still fail 'easy' tasks a significant proportion of the time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1) You're not a "trained professional" with a 10 and no proficiency :smallconfused:
2) You know you don't have to call for a roll, right? Seriously, DMG 237 :smallconfused:

That's the point. Before I set a dc at all, I've already filtered out the cases that fail too infrequently to matter. So easy isn't easy out of all tasks, it's easy out of tasks that require checks. Which are already in the upper range of all tasks. The others are all dc 0.

[Psyren]

That's 50%. 25% is the "adventurer (who is unlikely to have a 10 and lack proficiency in something they'd be the ones rolling for)" of which you speak.

If they don't have +0/+0, where are you getting 25% on a DC 5 from? That clearly means 10 stat (0) and no proficiency (0).

[PhoenixPhyre]

If they don't have +0/+0, where are you getting 25% on a DC 5 from? That clearly means 10 stat (0) and no proficiency (0).

Personally, I think I misunderstood something. I was thinking the discussion was about DC 10 (ie Easy, not Very Easy) and a +4 total modifier (which puts it at 25% failure). Hence my comment about +4 not being "trained professional", which I don't see until significantly higher, at least for meaningful adventuring tasks, which is what the ability check system is for.

Personally, if I'd be tempted to assign a DC below 10, I'll just let them auto succeed instead unless the consequences for failure are really compelling and interesting. So my personal bar for what DC 10 means is pretty high--you can do a lot before you get there. Almost every "normal" task someone would do in every day life is in that "no roll needed" category for me.

[Hytheter]

If they don't have +0/+0, where are you getting 25% on a DC 5 from? That clearly means 10 stat (0) and no proficiency (0).

What? I'm still talking about dc10, the so-called 'easy' difficulty.

[Tanarii]

[SUB]
Personally (and YMMV), I don't do DC 5 checks except in extremely rare circumstances. 50/50 for a +0 is as low as I'm willing to go for. I try to err on the side of letting people do cool things without asking for checks, ie "competent is baseline; checks are already for exceptional things."In other words, if I have to make off-stat checks non-proficient checks*, the best case scenario is a crap shoot, and the 'medium' and more likely case is a 25% chance of success?

Doesn't that make your players gun shy at trying to do entire categories of things that might fall within those ability scores, in case there is a check? Or do you call for checks so very infrequently they just don't care and accept they are likely to fail when they come up? Or do you use One Roll To Rule Them All, highest in party rolls, for most checks?

Because that's my experience from using the standard DCs, with DC 15 as Medium and DC 10 as Easy. It makes players gun-shy about checks.

*keeping in mind that's usually 1/2 the typical adventurers ability score for their entire career.


--------------

In relationship to structures: If a game structure is going to involve any significant number of checks, the DCs shouldn't be too hard, certainly not at best 50/50 for off-ability checks. For example, 4e skill challenges, which they had to significantly modify the math for in that edition for exactly that reason. I've replicated in 5e periodically, because they are an incredibly useful game structure, provided they're not player facing. That has probably significantly reinforced my view that DCs are too high. OTOH my home brewed versions don't assume One Roll To Rule Them All, which was a common way to design them in the 4e era.

[Sigreid]

I personally sometimes do stages of success or failure. For example, that 15 DC tree from earlier would possibly be 15 to climb a distance in 1 round. A 10 doesn't mean you don't climb the tree, it means it takes you 2 rounds to get to the same point.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In other words, if I have to make off-stat checks non-proficient checks*, the best case scenario is a crap shoot, and the 'medium' and more likely case is a 25% chance of success?

Doesn't that make your players gun shy at trying to do entire categories of things that might fall within those ability scores, in case there is a check? Or do you call for checks so very infrequently they just don't care and accept they are likely to fail when they come up? Or do you use One Roll To Rule Them All, highest in party rolls, for most checks?

Because that's my experience from using the standard DCs, with DC 15 as Medium and DC 10 as Easy. It makes players gun-shy about checks.


Probably 7/10 times I call for a check, it's some form of degrees of success[1]. The rest of the time, I'm asking the "expert" to make the check. I don't generally allow group checks (that aren't actually group checks, ie requiring 50% of the group to pass). And the players know that if I'm actually calling for a check (as opposed to just narrating what happens), it's fairly exceptional already. Or enemy action. Most of the time, they just succeed. Because I can't find meaningful, interesting consequences for failure. I hate "and nothing happens" as a result.

Thus, my "DC 10" tends to sit nearer most other DM's (from what I can tell) DC 15. And I never (or only incredibly rarely, for pre-planned things I've already decided are (nearly) off-limits) go above DC 20. If I'm making up a DC on the fly (ie 99.99% of the time), it's either 10, 15, or 20. And mostly 10 or 15. And mostly 10.

I also don't generally have mechanically-oriented players who focus on the numbers. They're really good about thinking in character and doing what the character would do in a situation, without worrying about mechanical probabilities.

[1] especially "knowledge" checks. You'll almost always know something; your result determines how much and how relevant the information is. The other category here is "how long will it take", usually for things like picking a lock.

[Psyren]

What? I'm still talking about dc10, the so-called 'easy' difficulty.

75% chance of success is fine for an easy roll. Any easier than that and you shouldn't be calling for a roll in the first place.