Exploration and social - the two pillars that have no mechanics

[Aimeryan]

I find this a remarkably bad take.
Firstly, the DMG has a dense section on adjusting Attitudes, so the game does have tables that handle the social sphere.

Have those that say 5e lacks X rule, even read the DMG? Are you reading the Overland travel section of the PHB, or like most people did you skip over it?

Ultimately, these matters reduce down to a matter of taste. Those that do not like the Ability Check Resolution system inherent to 5e seemingly are the same ones that want more Social/Exploration rules.

I'm sure third party products have exactly what you want, barring that Mongoose's Traveller version has all the rules you would ever want, give it a try.

I'm not commenting on whether 5e has rules, I am commenting on whether rules should exist. As the rules are ignorable, yet are extremely relevant for those who use them, the answer is always going to be yes - especially because you are literally paying money for that exact purpose. Now, I could see that people buy the modules for ideas and the story, so rules don't have to exist in those. Likewise, I could see an MM with pictures and descriptions of exotic creatures for the purpose of sparking the imagination - here be dragons. However, a Player's Handbook should have rules.

[Snowbluff]

I think I generally agree, I find gamified social aspects overbearing to the point it affects roleplay (PbtA to me feels like this), or easily exploitable as it become a numbers game (DnD 3.5). I much rather be thinking what it is my character is wanting rather than what score it is being targeted by a social attack. A lot of my favorite roleplay has been off of the cuff rather than something entirely dictated by game rules.


I do think that not everyone agrees with this, but at the same time there would be a lot of complaints if the default was a super gamey system as well. Having optional guidelines to set a standard for certain tables can be a good thing, in my opinion. I think a big problem is when an inexperienced group doesn't understand how an abstraction or improvisation works engaging with systems that are based on that.


A lot of the exploration pillar ends up coming from how the adventures and modules are run. I don't remember there being a lot for how to make some yourself, but there is a lot of variety in prewritten material.

[Mastikator]

I'm not commenting on whether 5e has rules, I am commenting on whether rules should exist. As the rules are ignorable, yet are extremely relevant for those who use them, the answer is always going to be yes - especially because you are literally paying money for that exact purpose. Now, I could see that people buy the modules for ideas and the story, so rules don't have to exist in those. Likewise, I could see an MM with pictures and descriptions of exotic creatures for the purpose of sparking the imagination - here be dragons. However, a Player's Handbook should have rules.

Yeah but whether rules for social and exploration should exist is not what the thread is about. The TLDR section you replied to is " is it a good thing that exploration and social encounters have not been gamified in D&D 5e?"

As in, is it a good or bad thing that the rules for social and exploration in D&D 5e are as sparse and open as they are. It's not whether even what little rules there are should be exist. Their existence as a bare minimum is not called into question in this thread, you're defending a hill that is not under attack.

In combat you have highly regimented rules for action, bonus action, reaction and move, tons of class features that interact with combat rules in very precise ways. Combat presents you with a control board with buttons, and lets you add buttons. It finally has a button that says "improv" and so improvised actions are legit 100% RAW. But nobody ever seems to use it even though it gives absolute freedom.

Exploration and social operates mostly under the same improv rules. It may seem like a player can't figure out what to do without a strict framework telling them what they can do, but I think this is gamer-brain syndrome. Every time you step out of the front door and every time you talk to a person you are engaging in this exact improv.
It's not about "what can you do". To quote the shadows "What do you want?"

[Aimeryan]

Yeah but whether rules for social and exploration should exist is not what the thread is about. The TLDR section you replied to is " is it a good thing that exploration and social encounters have not been gamified in D&D 5e?"

As in, is it a good or bad thing that the rules for social and exploration in D&D 5e are as sparse and open as they are. It's not whether even what little rules there are should be exist. Their existence as a bare minimum is not called into question in this thread, you're defending a hill that is not under attack.

In combat you have highly regimented rules for action, bonus action, reaction and move, tons of class features that interact with combat rules in very precise ways. Combat presents you with a control board with buttons, and lets you add buttons. It finally has a button that says "improv" and so improvised actions are legit 100% RAW. But nobody ever seems to use it even though it gives absolute freedom.

Exploration and social operates mostly under the same improv rules. It may seem like a player can't figure out what to do without a strict framework telling them what they can do, but I think this is gamer-brain syndrome. Every time you step out of the front door and every time you talk to a person you are engaging in this exact improv.
It's not about "what can you do". To quote the shadows "What do you want?"

Fewer rules are generally disfavourable. If you wish to ignore rules, well unless Crawford is standing behind you with a shotgun, you can ignore them. I promise.
Meanwhile, those that like to play with rules as scaffolding on which to climb ever higher in their expansive creations do need rules to do that.
Lastly, the point of paying someone to provide you with rules is to... get rules. Like, you don't have to pay someone to not use rules.
So, 'should the ruleset you paying for present you with [more than just nominal] rules'? Yes... yes it should.

[GloatingSwine]

Finding berries is just a matter of time and the availability if berries. You don't need to even roll dice, let alone have a complicated resolution formula to resolve it.

You find berries if berries are to be found.

Finding berries is also a matter of knowing which ones are nutritious and which ones are poisonous. Same with other foodstuffs, you have to know which ones you can eat and players need to be able to predict how good their character is going to be at that in advance, same with knowing where to find clean water. There is play milage in different characters and groups of characters being differently good at that and having to make different decisions because of it.

By mapping in the way they do now is exactly where you ended the point where a 3-ft tall gnome is somehow more intimidating than an 8 ft half orc with a bloody axe.

Someone needs to watch some more Joe Pesci movies :P

(Intimidation doesn't even need to be immediate threat of physical harm, just a true threat of consequences if the target doesn't follow through on a demand. Blackmail is just as much intimidation as "You tall folk often forget how much you rely on your knees, want to experience a life without them?")

A lot of the problems identifiable with proficiencies in the social pillar is that there's only one social attribute and it has to pull all the weight by itself because the rules and official guidance don't also say "Charisma is the default for this but you could use other attributes for the check if you think it's appropriate for what your player told you they're trying to do and the situation".

For example a wizard browbeating a conclave of other wizards with his obviously superior arcane knowledge instead of making a persuasive argument about the thing he wants them to believe could be an Intimidate check with Int as its attribute. But the books are silent on that matter.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

A lot of the problems identifiable with proficiencies in the social pillar is that there's only one social attribute and it has to pull all the weight by itself because the rules and official guidance don't also say "Charisma is the default for this but you could use other attributes for the check if you think it's appropriate for what your player told you they're trying to do and the situation".

For example a wizard browbeating a conclave of other wizards with his obviously superior arcane knowledge instead of making a persuasive argument about the thing he wants them to believe could be an Intimidate check with Int as its attribute. But the books are silent on that matter.

I'm not sure what you meant by this. The DMG does give guidance on this, though I suppose not too much:

Skills

As described in the Player's Handbook, a skill proficiency represents a character's focus on one aspect of an ability. Among all the things a character's Dexterity score describes, the character might be particularly skilled at sneaking around, reflected in proficiency in the Stealth skill. When that skill is used for an ability check, it is usually used with Dexterity.

Under certain circumstances, you can decide a character's proficiency in a skill can be applied to a different ability check. For example, you might decide that a character forced to swim from an island to the mainland must succeed on a Constitution check (as opposed to a Strength check) because of the distance involved. The character is proficient in the Athletics skill, which covers swimming, so you allow the character's proficiency bonus to apply to this ability check. In effect, you're asking for a Constitution (Athletics) check, instead of a Strength (Athletics) check.

Often, players ask whether they can apply a skill proficiency to an ability check. If a player can provide a good justification for why a character's training and aptitude in a skill should apply to the check, go ahead and allow it, rewarding the player's creative thinking.

You can make the case that this is quite brief and easily missed, but then again it might have been seen as an exercise in pedantry had they devoted a whole section to examples of alternate ability/skill combinations.

[Pex]

Rules are needed. How complex, how they work are ripe for discussion, but that they should exist at all is necessary. Without them then everything becomes stroke the DM's ego. If the DM likes it you can do it. If the DM doesn't like it you can't do it. That is not a game. The rules existing does not take away DM adjudication. At the extremes the DM is right to tell you the king will not give you his throne because you asked and rolled a 20 at the same time the DM won't be asking when your character needs to use the little adventurer's room. The DM does not get to tell players what they do or how they do it. That's the players' agency. That is them playing the game. Dice are used as the neutral arbiter for success, failure, and degree of progress depending on the situation.

In the more cynical level of extremes, rules are needed so that the socially awkward player can play the bard to wow the audience, and the 100 lb lanky player can play the buff He-Man and lift the fallen small boulder off his party member. In the talky talky bits, rules are needed to determine when a PC succeeds or not in influencing an NPC in some matter rather than how impressed the DM is by the player's real life eloquence of verbiage. The PC needs to convince the NPC, not the player needing to convince the DM. In exploration players can only perceive the world as the DM tells them. Without rules the players are characters in the DM's novel. Rules are needed so that players can manipulate their environment as their characters can.

The rules are the game. It's not all of the game in a roleplaying game, but they are integral. What they are, their complexity, the mathematics, the definitions, are as varied as there are different game systems and the imaginations of people. Which ones people like are a matter of personal taste.

[Sorinth]

Someone needs to watch some more Joe Pesci movies :P

(Intimidation doesn't even need to be immediate threat of physical harm, just a true threat of consequences if the target doesn't follow through on a demand. Blackmail is just as much intimidation as "You tall folk often forget how much you rely on your knees, want to experience a life without them?")

A lot of the problems identifiable with proficiencies in the social pillar is that there's only one social attribute and it has to pull all the weight by itself because the rules and official guidance don't also say "Charisma is the default for this but you could use other attributes for the check if you think it's appropriate for what your player told you they're trying to do and the situation".

For example a wizard browbeating a conclave of other wizards with his obviously superior arcane knowledge instead of making a persuasive argument about the thing he wants them to believe could be an Intimidate check with Int as its attribute. But the books are silent on that matter.

The books aren't silent on the matter. They explicitly mention it as a variant rule on page 175 on the PHB and again on pg 239 of the DMG.

And I'd argue if Insight and Investigation isn't "pulling weight" in your social pillar then that's a choice the DM has made (Intentionally or not) and not something the rules actually push on the game.

[Schwann145]

I think the answer to the question, "is D&D a good system to use to run a totally combat-free game" is rather telling to the overall topic at hand.

I would say the answer to the question is decidedly, "no."
I'd be interested to hear from those who would say, "yes."

[Sorinth]

I think the answer to the question, "is D&D a good system to use to run a totally combat-free game" is rather telling to the overall topic at hand.

I would say the answer to the question is decidedly, "no."
I'd be interested to hear from those who would say, "yes."

I would say yes D&D is a good but not great system to run a non-combat game. And that goes for most styles of games, D&D isn't the best at any one style but does most of them good enough. So if you want variety D&D ends up as the best system overall even though for every style there's probably a better system. It's the jack of all trades but master of none situation.

So for example, if my gaming group wanted to spend a game night doing a murder mystery (And needing to learn a new systems wasn't an issue) then no I wouldn't choose D&D, but if during a regular campaign I wanted to throw together 1 or 2 session no or low combat murder mystery then D&D works fine and it will be an enjoyable game.

[Skrum]

I would say yes D&D is a good but not great system to run a non-combat game. And that goes for most styles of games, D&D isn't the best at any one style but does most of them good enough. So if you want variety D&D ends up as the best system overall even though for every style there's probably a better system. It's the jack of all trades but master of none situation.

So for example, if my gaming group wanted to spend a game night doing a murder mystery (And needing to learn a new systems wasn't an issue) then no I wouldn't choose D&D, but if during a regular campaign I wanted to throw together 1 or 2 session no or low combat murder mystery then D&D works fine and it will be an enjoyable game.

What system would you recommend for a powergaming, kick in the door tactical combat-fest? I've heard good things about PF2 in this regard, but I've heard very little in terms of other options.

I agree about DND being the jack of all trades game - as intended, as far as I can tell. It wants to be all things to all people.

[NichG]

I think the answer to the question, "is D&D a good system to use to run a totally combat-free game" is rather telling to the overall topic at hand.

I would say the answer to the question is decidedly, "no."
I'd be interested to hear from those who would say, "yes."

I'd say AD&D, 2e, and 3.5e are at least acceptable for an exploration focused game, or things like settlement building/frontier development/etc. Not because of any core mechanic, but because there's a lot of diversity within the materials that exist to pull from for inspiration both on the DM side and on the player side. Even doing like a pure tricks and traps game can be interesting within that context but more so with older editions - Tomb of Horrors with strictly Lv1 characters is an interesting exercise in AD&D but it doesn't work in the 3.5e rewrite, for example. I think they're decent if you wanted to do an investigative or mystery campaign as well, though in that case keeping it to at most Lv5 is probably advisable. The more modern the edition, the more strongly I'd tell players 'you want to be a caster for this campaign'.

Add homebrew and these go from acceptable to 'actually pretty good'. I generally homebrew significantly for any campaign I run no matter what, so 'how well does it take to homebrew' is a factor here even if the system as-is wouldn't be great for a certain thing. D&D (at least 3.5e) has lots of contact points where you can add new things, lots of stuff for things to hook into and influence, etc, so this is actually a point in its favor.

5e for these things, well, its hard for me to say. It still shares a lot with 3.5e, but I sort of feel like it moved a bit in a direction that makes it less good for that kind of thing - but probably not so much as to make it pointless. Homebrew could easily reverse those trends though, except perhaps that bounded accuracy and rulings-not-rules as the expectation for setting DCs makes some things harder that I'd want to do in pure non-combat game.

For a social/intrigue focused game, I don't think I'd use D&D, but I probably wouldn't use anything with social 'resolution' mechanics at all - instead I'd be looking for a system and setting that have a lot of depth in how the politics, power structures, organizations, etc are all described and how they intertwine. Something like 7th Sea or perhaps L5R, again not because of the mechanics, but because the context around which intrigue exists. I wouldn't personally use World of Darkness and its setting here even if its a popular game for that sort of thing, just because I find it a bit too stagnant due to trying hard to reinforce the genre conventions and mythological associations.

[Mastikator]

I think the answer to the question, "is D&D a good system to use to run a totally combat-free game" is rather telling to the overall topic at hand.

I would say the answer to the question is decidedly, "no."
I'd be interested to hear from those who would say, "yes."

Can't speak for "totally combat free game", never seen an RPG like that either mechanically or at a table. A single combat free session is the closest approximation I've seen.

That said, Brennan Lee Mulligan specifically chose D&D 5e for a narrative and social heavy campaign precisely because D&D 5e has such sparse rules on narrative and social encounters. I've posted a quote and linked an article in the OP.

[Schwann145]

That said, Brennan Lee Mulligan specifically chose D&D 5e for a narrative and social heavy campaign precisely because D&D 5e has such sparse rules on narrative and social encounters. I've posted a quote and linked an article in the OP.

I love Brennan Lee Mulligan, he's one of my favorite people, I'd kill to play at his table...
But he's a professional improv actor/comedian that doesn't need *any* ruleset to roleplay. I have to take his opinion on the topic with various grains of salt.

[Kurald Galain]

I think the answer to the question, "is D&D a good system to use to run a totally combat-free game"

No, it's really not. 5E is at the same time too rules-heavy (with its long lists of classes and feats and spells) and too rules-sparse for dealing with non-combat situations (relying too much on "roll a skill and make something up). Frankly this applies to other versions of D&D as well; I'd say almost every non-D&D system does combat-free better than D&D does. I'd suggest World of Darkness, or maybe Call of Chthulhu (which has combat, but it is so lethal that PCs will try really hard to avoid it!)

What system would you recommend for a powergaming, kick in the door tactical combat-fest? I've heard good things about PF2 in this regard, but I've heard very little in terms of other options.

I'm surprised to hear that; PF2 isn't very tactical, doesn't do kick-in-the-door all that well because of how vulnerable characters are, and doesn't really allow for powergaming since its math is so tight.

I'd say 3E (at low-to-mid level) and 4E are a good fit for kick-in-the-door tactics; or if you want to go outside of D&D, something like HeroQuest or Descent: Journeys In The Dark.

[Vahnavoi]

If you are capable of handcrafting two pillars of the game without the rules, then you can probably do the same for another pillar - in which case, why are you buying the books?

I posit there is no good reason to think that ability for crafting one pillar well leads to the ability to craft any other pillar well. As a corollary, I posit that contemporary D&D is lacking in two-out-of-three pillars because the designers aren't as good at crafting those pillars. As a second corollary, I posit contemporary D&D has most value for people who are sort of bad at crafting a tactical combat game, and least value for people who are good at crafting tactical combat games but are bad at crafting social or exploration-based games.

To criticize your argument from another angle: you are pretty solidly assuming that bad rules cannot have any detrimental effects over having no rules. This is, shall we say, a naive assumption. At minimum, such assumptions should always be examined through empirical cross-examination between systems that have rules for a thing, and systems that do not have rules for a thing.

[Aimeryan]

I posit there is no good reason to think that ability for crafting one pillar well leads to the ability to craft any other pillar well. As a corollary, I posit that contemporary D&D is lacking in two-out-of-three pillars because the designers aren't as good at crafting those pillars. As a second corollary, I posit contemporary D&D has most value for people who are sort of bad at crafting a tactical combat game, and least value for people who are good at crafting tactical combat games but are bad at crafting social or exploration-based games.

To criticize your argument from another angle: you are pretty solidly assuming that bad rules cannot have any detrimental effects over having no rules. This is, shall we say, a naive assumption. At minimum, such assumptions should always be examined through empirical cross-examination between systems that have rules for a thing, and systems that do not have rules for a thing.

On your first paragraph, I would say there is a very good reason - however, I will concede a point by saying that it is entirely possible that you could be better than the professional outfit with the time and resources thereby associated at coming up with rulings than they do at coming up with rules in two of the pillars, and yet fall so completely flat at another pillar that you need the rules from that outfit. I don't think its likely, but it is possible.

That said, perhaps the books could be sold separately with rules for each pillar - in which case you buy the ones you want. They would presumably each be at a lower price than one book that is supposedly doing all three, naturally.

On your second paragraph, bad rules are subjective. If you subjectively feel the rule is bad, then you can objectively ignore it and do your own thing (which presumably you will be able to do since you know the rule is bad). You could even choose to not buy a product again from that source if you feel it is rife with such rules. However, if the rule does not exist in the first place then we have literally no choice but to do our thing, no matter if we desire such a thing, when we paid to not do that. This is not a boon.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

I love Brennan Lee Mulligan, he's one of my favorite people, I'd kill to play at his table...
But he's a professional improv actor/comedian that doesn't need *any* ruleset to roleplay. I have to take his opinion on the topic with various grains of salt.

You don't need to be a master of improvisation or acting to roleplay. You know how to play pretend intuitively. It just requires some knowledge of the overall concept you're trying to imitate, and logic to fill in the rest. Especially in a group, you're not going to be always "on the spot", so there's more than enough time to think about what your character might say or do before they do it. Forum roleplays (play-by-post or chat RP) capitalize on this pretty well.

There's a reason people play TTRPGs instead of just war games or board games. I heard it described somewhere that roleplayers are essentially chasing that high of being fully immersed into their characters, and I think that encapsulates things well. The fun doesn't really come from rolling dice (okay maybe sometimes dice are fun) or using skill checks or analyzing tables or maps - the fun comes from being someone else, someone new, from diving straight into this unique and strange world. A system isn't even required, it just fills in the gaps.

[Skrum]

There's a reason people play TTRPGs instead of just war games or board games. I heard it described somewhere that roleplayers are essentially chasing that high of being fully immersed into their characters, and I think that encapsulates things well. The fun doesn't really come from rolling dice (okay maybe sometimes dice are fun) or using skill checks or analyzing tables or maps - the fun comes from being someone else, someone new, from diving straight into this unique and strange world. A system isn't even required, it just fills in the gaps.

I disagree somewhat. If I was just interested in inhabiting a character, I would be better served by joining an improv group or writing short stories. But that's not all I'm after; I also want to play a game. And that means rules, objectives, and even "winning."

When I think of the best DND has to offer me as a player, I think of these elements:
1) create a character concept
2) build that concept
3) play that character in an immersive world full of believable NPCs and interesting stakes
4) live out the fantasy of the character concept via combat and other challenges
5) possibly win the day, but dying a glorious death can also be great

2, 4, and 5 can't really happen in satisfying ways without rules. I could make up a character concept of The Most Interesting Guy in the World and then make up all kinds of crazy things he's done that show he's The Most Interesting Guy in the World, but that's just sketch comedy. That's not a game.

One can nitpick 5e combat if they choose, but on the whole it's a great system that does A LOT of things right. There's tons of variance, tons of tactics, it can be simple, it can be complex, and there's a way to resolve almost any situation in satisfying ways. For that kind of system to be put along side the social pillar's "make it up and possibly make a single roll," it's just jarring and disappointing.

[Snowbluff]

I'm surprised to hear that; PF2 isn't very tactical, doesn't do kick-in-the-door all that well because of how vulnerable characters are, and doesn't really allow for powergaming since its math is so tight.

I'd say 3E (at low-to-mid level) and 4E are a good fit for kick-in-the-door tactics; or if you want to go outside of D&D, something like HeroQuest or Descent: Journeys In The Dark.

Very much this. PF2 is tactically pretty shallow. It tries to work through what 4e had going on through a PF1 lens, but the result is pretty lacking as mechanics are pulled taut in the two very different direction. I really wish it didn't demand so much effort and attention in character building and then basically discard that work when it came to combat.


Of course, I don't think we should be surprised that people consider it tactical. Compared to 5e it's more obviously or apparently tactical because it spells out the options as discrete actions, rather than relying on default actions and rider type effects. A lot of people who argue the merits of PF2 seem to do so solely from the perspective of 5e, but I think a lot of the points made apply more truthfully and flatteringly to 3.5, 4e, and PF1.

[Sorinth]

What system would you recommend for a powergaming, kick in the door tactical combat-fest? I've heard good things about PF2 in this regard, but I've heard very little in terms of other options.

I agree about DND being the jack of all trades game - as intended, as far as I can tell. It wants to be all things to all people.

I'm far from an expert on the other systems as I've only played a few and not for very long. I'm sure others can provide better recommendations.

[Skrum]

Very much this. PF2 is tactically pretty shallow. It tries to work through what 4e had going on through a PF1 lens, but the result is pretty lacking as mechanics are pulled taut in the two very different direction. I really wish it didn't demand so much effort and attention in character building and then basically discard that work when it came to combat.

I haven't actually played PF2 myself. I actually don't even know anyone who has. It's just little bits and references made to it, I assumed it was the technical, tactical game (compared to 5e).

Of course, I don't think we should be surprised that people consider it tactical. Compared to 5e it's more obviously or apparently tactical because it spells out the options as discrete actions, rather than relying on default actions and rider type effects. A lot of people who argue the merits of PF2 seem to do so solely from the perspective of 5e, but I think a lot of the points made apply more truthfully and flatteringly to 3.5, 4e, and PF1.

In my heart of hearts I wish I was still playing 3e. What a beautiful disaster that game is.

Ideally, 3e's character building options does the fusion dance with 5e's turn structure and action econ and we have the Perfect Game.

[schm0]

Chiming in here to point out that there are indeed mechanics for social and exploration, it's just that most people are unaware, forget they exist, or choose to ignore them. And to be fair, some of these sections are less heavy on the rules and mechanics side, and lean more on the guidance side.

We have social mechanics:

• Alignment (PHB 122)
• Traits, Flaws, Bonds, and Ideals (PHB 123-4)
• Social Interaction Rules (PHB 185-6, DMG 244-6)
• Factions and Organizations (DMG 21-22)
• Renown and Piety (DMG 22-23)
• Intrigue and Influence (DMG 78)
• Moral Quandries (DMG 79)
• Loyalty (DMG 93)
• Contacts and Patrons (DMG 93-4)
• Various Downtime Activities (DMG 128-131, XG 125-134)
• Roleplaying (DMG 245-6)
• Madness (258-9)
• Honor and Sanity (DMG 264-5)
• Fear and Horror (DMG 266)
• Morale (DMG 273)
• Rivals (XG 123-5)
• Group Patrons (TCE 83-103)
• Sidekicks (TCE 142-147)
• Parleying with Monsters (148-9)
• Fear and Stress (VRGtR 195-6)
• Survivors (VRGtR 198-200)

Notably this is the least rules-heavy of the three pillars, and for good reason: social interaction is often fluid and improvisational in nature. Too much structure can be seen as limiting.

(There are more social options found in Treasury of Dragons and Glory of the Giants for dealing specifically with those creatures, having them act as patrons or guidance on how to roleplay them. Similarly, there is setting-specific guidance found for all manner of NPCs, organizations patrons that can be found in books like Guildmasters' Guide to Ravnica, Mythic Odyssey of Theros, Strixhaven and adventures like Waterdeep: Dragon Heist. There are likely more I have neglected to include as well.)

We also have exploration mechanics:

• Dungeons (DMG p. 99)
• Random Dungeons (DMG p. 290)
• Wilderness (DMG p. 106)
• Settlements (DMG p. 112)
• Unusual Environments (DMG p. 116)
• Underwater (DMG p. 116)
• The Sea (DMG p. 117)
• The Sky (DMG p. 119)
• Airborne and Waterborne Vehicles (DMG p. 119)
• Airship (example) (SKT p.132)
• Airship Travel (SKT p.68)
• Underdark Travel (OotA p. 18-21)
  
  • Travel Pace
  • Encounter Setup
  • Noticing Threats
  • Navigating
  • Mapping
  • Foraging
  • Time-Keeping
  • Faerzress
• Of Ships and the Sea (GoS p. 186-228)
  
  • Ships
  • Officers and Crew
  • Superior Ship Upgrades
  • Ships in Combat
  • Travel at Sea
  • Hazards
  • Crew Conflicts
  • Fire
  • Fog
  • Infestation
  • Storm
  • Ocean Environs
  • Mysterious Islands
  • Underwater Locations
• Exploration (DMG p. 242)
  
  • Using a Map
  • Special Travel Pace
  • Visibility Outdoors
  • Noticing Other Creatures
  • Tracking
• Activity While Traveling (PHB p. 182)
  
  • Marching Order
  • Stealth
  • Noticing Threats
  • Other Activities
• Adventuring Gear (PHB p. 148)
• Tools (PHB p. 154)
• Tool Components, Skills and Special Uses (XG p. 79-85)
• Mounts and Vehicles (PHB p. 155)
• Time (PHB p. 181)
• Movement (PHB p. 181)
• Falling/Suffocating (PHB p. 183)
• Falling (XG p. 77)
• Vision and Light (PHB p. 183)
• Food and Water (PHB p. 185)
• Resting (PHB p. 186)
• Sleep (XG p. 77-8)
  
  • Waking Someone
  • Sleeping in Armor
  • Going Without a Long Rest
• Tying Knots (XG p. 78)
• Creating Encounters (DMG p. 81)
• Urban Encounters (DMG p. 114)
• Encounter Building (XG p. 88)
• Random Encounters (DMG p. 85)
• Mapping a Dungeon (DMG p. 102)
• Mapping a Wilderness (DMG p.108)
• Wilderness Features (DMG p. 108)
• Wilderness Survival (DMG p. 109)
• Weather (DMG p. 109)
• Wilderness Hazards (DMG p. 110)
• Foraging (DMG p. 111)
  
  • Foraging DCs
  • Food and Water Needs
• Becoming Lost (DMG p. 111)
• Traps (DMG p. 120)
• Traps Revisited (XG p. 113-23)

(I have omitted all the various encounter tables found in various source books and adventures, as well, which easily number in the dozens. There are additional mechanics that can be found in various adventures that are setting specific, such as exploring Chult in Tomb of Annihilation, or exploring the Nine Hells in Descent into Avernus, which could arguably be adapted to any campaign.)

The bottom line is that rules, mechanics and guidance for these pillars do exist. Whether you choose to use them/care to enjoy them or not is another matter altogether.

I say pick and choose as you see fit, create or alter what you feel is lacking, but don't lament their absence.

[Pex]

You don't need to be a master of improvisation or acting to roleplay. You know how to play pretend intuitively. It just requires some knowledge of the overall concept you're trying to imitate, and logic to fill in the rest. Especially in a group, you're not going to be always "on the spot", so there's more than enough time to think about what your character might say or do before they do it. Forum roleplays (play-by-post or chat RP) capitalize on this pretty well.

There's a reason people play TTRPGs instead of just war games or board games. I heard it described somewhere that roleplayers are essentially chasing that high of being fully immersed into their characters, and I think that encapsulates things well. The fun doesn't really come from rolling dice (okay maybe sometimes dice are fun) or using skill checks or analyzing tables or maps - the fun comes from being someone else, someone new, from diving straight into this unique and strange world. A system isn't even required, it just fills in the gaps.

No. Everything is roleplaying. The talky talky, the looky looky, and the stabby stabby. Individual players may prefer one over the others. Some people enjoying talking in character, saying "I" instead of character name, with or without speaking in a different accent, engaging in conversations with NPCs. Other people want to see what's over the next hill. They want to find out more about the game world. They care about geography, history, and politics. Still more want to play glorified chess. They're excited about terrain features, tactical placement of miniatures, line of site, the mathematics of dice and probabilities.

If everyone in the gaming group prefers the same thing, great. That game can emphasize that thing. However, the more usual case is you get a mix. Some players like two of three. Some players like all three. Different players can prefer a different one thing. The successful game will encompass all three, not necessarily in one session. BBEG combats tend to be the whole session. The aftermath next session tend to be all social interaction. Exploration sessions are when you arrive in a new area, maybe a skirmish fight with mooks. When most sessions have all three all players are happy.

[Skrum]

Chiming in here to point out that there are indeed mechanics for social and exploration, it's just that most people are unaware, forget they exist, or choose to ignore them. And to be fair, some of these sections are less heavy on the rules and mechanics side, and lean more on the guidance side.

We have social mechanics:

• Alignment (PHB 122)
• Traits, Flaws, Bonds, and Ideals (PHB 123-4)
• Social Interaction Rules (PHB 185-6, DMG 244-6)
• Factions and Organizations (DMG 21-22)
• Renown and Piety (DMG 22-23)
• Intrigue and Influence (DMG 78)
• Moral Quandries (DMG 79)
• Loyalty (DMG 93)
• Contacts and Patrons (DMG 93-4)
• Various Downtime Activities (DMG 128-131, XG 125-134)
• Roleplaying (DMG 245-6)
• Madness (258-9)
• Honor and Sanity (DMG 264-5)
• Fear and Horror (DMG 266)
• Morale (DMG 273)
• Rivals (XG 123-5)
• Group Patrons (TCE 83-103)
• Sidekicks (TCE 142-147)
• Parleying with Monsters (148-9)
• Fear and Stress (VRGtR 195-6)
• Survivors (VRGtR 198-200)

Notably this is the least rules-heavy of the three pillars, and for good reason: social interaction is often fluid and improvisational in nature. Too much structure can be seen as limiting.

(There are more social options found in Treasury of Dragons and Glory of the Giants for dealing specifically with those creatures, having them act as patrons or guidance on how to roleplay them. Similarly, there is setting-specific guidance found for all manner of NPCs, organizations patrons that can be found in books like Guildmasters' Guide to Ravnica, Mythic Odyssey of Theros, Strixhaven and adventures like Waterdeep: Dragon Heist. There are likely more I have neglected to include as well.)

We also have exploration mechanics:

• Dungeons (DMG p. 99)
• Random Dungeons (DMG p. 290)
• Wilderness (DMG p. 106)
• Settlements (DMG p. 112)
• Unusual Environments (DMG p. 116)
• Underwater (DMG p. 116)
• The Sea (DMG p. 117)
• The Sky (DMG p. 119)
• Airborne and Waterborne Vehicles (DMG p. 119)
• Airship (example) (SKT p.132)
• Airship Travel (SKT p.68)
• Underdark Travel (OotA p. 18-21)
  
  • Travel Pace
  • Encounter Setup
  • Noticing Threats
  • Navigating
  • Mapping
  • Foraging
  • Time-Keeping
  • Faerzress
• Of Ships and the Sea (GoS p. 186-228)
  
  • Ships
  • Officers and Crew
  • Superior Ship Upgrades
  • Ships in Combat
  • Travel at Sea
  • Hazards
  • Crew Conflicts
  • Fire
  • Fog
  • Infestation
  • Storm
  • Ocean Environs
  • Mysterious Islands
  • Underwater Locations
• Exploration (DMG p. 242)
  
  • Using a Map
  • Special Travel Pace
  • Visibility Outdoors
  • Noticing Other Creatures
  • Tracking
• Activity While Traveling (PHB p. 182)
  
  • Marching Order
  • Stealth
  • Noticing Threats
  • Other Activities
• Adventuring Gear (PHB p. 148)
• Tools (PHB p. 154)
• Tool Components, Skills and Special Uses (XG p. 79-85)
• Mounts and Vehicles (PHB p. 155)
• Time (PHB p. 181)
• Movement (PHB p. 181)
• Falling/Suffocating (PHB p. 183)
• Falling (XG p. 77)
• Vision and Light (PHB p. 183)
• Food and Water (PHB p. 185)
• Resting (PHB p. 186)
• Sleep (XG p. 77-8)
  
  • Waking Someone
  • Sleeping in Armor
  • Going Without a Long Rest
• Tying Knots (XG p. 78)
• Creating Encounters (DMG p. 81)
• Urban Encounters (DMG p. 114)
• Encounter Building (XG p. 88)
• Random Encounters (DMG p. 85)
• Mapping a Dungeon (DMG p. 102)
• Mapping a Wilderness (DMG p.108)
• Wilderness Features (DMG p. 108)
• Wilderness Survival (DMG p. 109)
• Weather (DMG p. 109)
• Wilderness Hazards (DMG p. 110)
• Foraging (DMG p. 111)
  
  • Foraging DCs
  • Food and Water Needs
• Becoming Lost (DMG p. 111)
• Traps (DMG p. 120)
• Traps Revisited (XG p. 113-23)

(I have omitted all the various encounter tables found in various source books and adventures, as well, which easily number in the dozens. There are additional mechanics that can be found in various adventures that are setting specific, such as exploring Chult in Tomb of Annihilation, or exploring the Nine Hells in Descent into Avernus, which could arguably be adapted to any campaign.)

The bottom line is that rules, mechanics and guidance for these pillars do exist. Whether you choose to use them/care to enjoy them or not is another matter altogether.

I say pick and choose as you see fit, create or alter what you feel is lacking, but don't lament their absence.

Yeah, I'm gonna pick on it anyway. Badly presented rules are almost as bad as none; the user is still left piecing things together and filling in a lot of blanks.

Take this for instance, from the intro paragraph on ability checks -
The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.

A reoccurring complaint about ability checks is the influence the d20 has on the roll. While a 20 in a stat is highly coveted and implies extreme levels of talent, gifts, whatever, the associated +5 isn't that much better than +0 or +1, when it comes to likelihood of success. This leads to weird outcomes where a druid doesn't know relatively basic information about local wildlife, or a rogue fails a stealth check while the armored paladin somehow slips by.

Well, one could argue that the system's answer for this is contained in that first paragraph: The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. Maybe the implication is the druid shouldn't even be asked to make a roll at all. Maybe the slim chance that the paladin can succeed (despite their armor and presumed lack of stealth training) implies that the highly skilled rogue shouldn't even roll. But we don't know! Because while there's that two sentence description of what ability checks are and when to use them, there's no examples, no guidance, and no further explanation on what it means.

This largely defines 5e's approach to skills and ability checks (and by extension exploration and social interactions). Here's an absolutely bare-bones d20 + 1-2 modifiers resolution system, and here's a list of vague, incomplete ideas about ways to use that roll...spread across a ton of pages and books, in no particular order.

If this many players are missing that these rules exist...it's not the players who are at fault.

[Mastikator]

Yeah, I'm gonna pick on it anyway. Badly presented rules are almost as bad as none; the user is still left piecing things together and filling in a lot of blanks.

Take this for instance, from the intro paragraph on ability checks -
The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.

A reoccurring complaint about ability checks is the influence the d20 has on the roll. While a 20 in a stat is highly coveted and implies extreme levels of talent, gifts, whatever, the associated +5 isn't that much better than +0 or +1, when it comes to likelihood of success. This leads to weird outcomes where a druid doesn't know relatively basic information about local wildlife, or a rogue fails a stealth check while the armored paladin somehow slips by.

Well, one could argue that the system's answer for this is contained in that first paragraph: The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. Maybe the implication is the druid shouldn't even be asked to make a roll at all. Maybe the slim chance that the paladin can succeed (despite their armor and presumed lack of stealth training) implies that the highly skilled rogue shouldn't even roll. But we don't know! Because while there's that two sentence description of what ability checks are and when to use them, there's no examples, no guidance, and no further explanation on what it means.

This largely defines 5e's approach to skills and ability checks (and by extension exploration and social interactions). Here's an absolutely bare-bones d20 + 1-2 modifiers resolution system, and here's a list of vague, incomplete ideas about ways to use that roll...spread across a ton of pages and books, in no particular order.

If this many players are missing that these rules exist...it's not the players who are at fault.

Rolling a d20 is not an exploration or social encounter rule.

Here's an actual exploration rule: heavy snowfall imposes disadvantage on wisdom (perception) checks that rely on sight. Is that a bad rule? Do you just not like rolling dice to determine outcomes?

Here's another exploration rule: you can forage for food and water if you travel at a slow or medium pace, you need to make a wisdom (survival) check. The DC depends on the scarcity. Is that a bad rule?

I suspect (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that what you want is levers to pull as far as exploration is concerned. Gamified rules that are within the ballpark of how combat works. The problem here is for that to be possible the environment needs to be as stated out as the monster you fight. Do we really need 5 different statblocks for forests, jungles, swamps, marshlands, bogs, plains, grasslands, deserts, tundra, boreal forests, mountains, hills, cliffs, shores, beaches, etc etc etc, each? We have several books for monsters, do we really want a book for terrain exploration? Or is it enough that a module contains the information about the terrain in the module?

If you want that for social encounters then I suggest you look at Burning Wheel and discover why it's a bad idea. A rock paper scissor minigame for talking to people? Oh god please no.

[Skrum]

Rolling a d20 is not an exploration or social encounter rule.

Here's an actual exploration rule: heavy snowfall imposes disadvantage on wisdom (perception) checks that rely on sight. Is that a bad rule? Do you just not like rolling dice to determine outcomes?

Here's another exploration rule: you can forage for food and water if you travel at a slow or medium pace, you need to make a wisdom (survival) check. The DC depends on the scarcity. Is that a bad rule?

I suspect (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that what you want is levers to pull as far as exploration is concerned. Gamified rules that are within the ballpark of how combat works. The problem here is for that to be possible the environment needs to be as stated out as the monster you fight. Do we really need 5 different statblocks for forests, jungles, swamps, marshlands, bogs, plains, grasslands, deserts, tundra, boreal forests, mountains, hills, cliffs, shores, beaches, etc etc etc, each? We have several books for monsters, do we really want a book for terrain exploration? Or is it enough that a module contains the information about the terrain in the module?

If you want that for social encounters then I suggest you look at Burning Wheel and discover why it's a bad idea. A rock paper scissor minigame for talking to people? Oh god please no.

I've run several hexcrawl-style games, which take place on a hexmap with each hex representing a few square miles of wilderness. I made up the following rules (for context, each of these games centered around the players following a trail of somesort).

1) Each day, the players may make 2 travel rolls, with each roll moving the party one hex. This takes 2 forms
1) a) following the trail. If the characters are aware of the trail, they may follow it to the adjacent hex with a Survival roll vs DC 9 + 1d6. Success, you the party moves to the adjacent hex and keeps the trail
1) b) cardinal direction. The party may pick a direction and move to the adjacent hex by making a Survival roll vs DC 12. Using this method moves the party, but they must re-find the trail

Failing the Survival roll for navigation cause the party to move to a random adjacent hex and lose the trail

The party may opt to make a 3rd navigation roll, but doing so incurs a DC 10 Constitution check or everyone gains a level of exhaustion

Many hexes have encounters in them of one sort or another. If the party entered a hex intentionally (that is, succeeded on their Survival roll to get there), they will have forewarning of the encounter and may opt to immediately navigate out of the hex to avoid the encounter. If they wandered into the hex, they do not get a chance to avoid the encounter.

Once per day per hex, the party may search for the trial by making a Survival, Perception, or Investigation check vs DC 9 + 1d6. Failure may be because they rolled too low or because the hex does not contain the trail (I do not specify which).

2) At the end of each day (after the party has made 2 travel rolls and an optional 3rd), they must look for shelter. This may be done by making a Survival, Perception, or Investigation check vs DC 10+1d6. Succeed, and the party finds a suitable encampment and may short rest. Fail, and the party is exposed to the elements, taking 5d8 damage distributed as they want and do no get a rest.

---------

This is the kind of rules I wish the game had more of. Yes there's disparate list of modifiers, conditions, and special circumstances (spread across many locations I might add). But there's no core framework for what wilderness travel looks like. "Make a survival check" is not a framework. Some absolutely basic questions like

- DC's for navigating various types of terrain (like, lush forest = DC 8. Dense jungle = DC 17. Artic tundra = DC 15. Or, just split it up by difficulty - easy terrain = 5, moderate = 8, hard = 11, very hard = 14. Something!!)
- Getting lost
- Getting unlost
- Finding food (with a similar list of DCs like navigation does)

[schm0]

But we don't know! Because while there's that two sentence description of what ability checks are and when to use them, there's no examples, no guidance, and no further explanation on what it means.

I'm not quite sure I'm reading this correctly. You don't actually expect the game to provide a list of infinite, potentially contextual answers for the DM to reference, do you? That seems like an unfair expectation, to say the least.

The steps of the game are quite clear: the DM describes the environment, the players describe what they want to do, and the DM narrates the results of those actions (sometimes calling for a roll). Those outcomes are entirely circumstantial and, in many cases, entirely improvised. Regardless, the character either succeeds or fails at the attempted action. How they do so is up to the DM and the context of the situation.

To expect the rules to provide the DM with the answer of "how" seems entirely impractical and restrictive.

....here's a list of vague, incomplete ideas about ways to use that roll...spread across a ton of pages and books, in no particular order.

If this many players are missing that these rules exist...it's not the players who are at fault.

While I agree better organization would be helpful (and is a stated design goal of the 1D&D PHB/DMG), to say that there are no mechanics is unfair. That was the point of my post.

But there's no core framework for what wilderness travel looks like. "Make a survival check" is not a framework. Some absolutely basic questions like

- DC's for navigating various types of terrain (like, lush forest = DC 8. Dense jungle = DC 17. Artic tundra = DC 15. Or, just split it up by difficulty - easy terrain = 5, moderate = 8, hard = 11, very hard = 14. Something!!)
- Getting lost
- Getting unlost
- Finding food (with a similar list of DCs like navigation does)

There are more robust rules for wilderness travel, but they were released in the form of the Into the Wild UA, and later as part of an official ruleset in the wilderness kit.

There are also bare-bones rules and guidelines for running hexcrawls in the DMG (on page 14, and again on page 108 and 242) and within adventures that contain an actual hex crawl (see Tomb of Annihilation, page 38.)

[Xervous]

That whole stove analogy is a cute little setup for the false dichotomy. 5e is not unavoidably a game of tactical combat, nor is it unavoidably a game of narrative structures. The detailed answer is that 5e is a SpongeBob imagination box that puts in only so much effort as to kindle nostalgia without alienating potential customers by defining things too rigidly. Its design reflects an awareness of D&D’s value as the market leader, the name often being synonymous with TTRPG for many people. It promises to be something for everyone, and its main strength is in its ubiquity.

Gloomhaven is unavoidably a game of tactical combat, FATE and burning wheel are unavoidably games built on narrative drives. Ten sessions of no combat in D&D easily remains D&D that’s progressing all fine and happy. Ten sessions of no narrative queries being forced or addressed also sees D&D remaining D&D.

[NichG]

The problem here is for that to be possible the environment needs to be as stated out as the monster you fight. Do we really need 5 different statblocks for forests, jungles, swamps, marshlands, bogs, plains, grasslands, deserts, tundra, boreal forests, mountains, hills, cliffs, shores, beaches, etc etc etc, each? We have several books for monsters, do we really want a book for terrain exploration? Or is it enough that a module contains the information about the terrain in the module?

This just seems to be an odd thing to resist, like, why is it better to have 5 books of monsters and no books describing things like exotic fantasy and sci-fi environments, versus 4 books of monsters and a book of environments?

I mean like, IRL I hike and snowshoe as a hobby. And yeah every time I go out the door there are unknowns, but I roughly know that I can hike 8 miles on flat ground without it being a problem at all, and that it will take me about 3-4 hours to do so, and that if I'm going beyond that point I'll start to slow down significantly and get fatigued. And if I'm doing the same thing with hills no steeper than 300 ft vertical per mile, it'll be more like 4-5 hours and I'll be feeling it after 4 miles and need to take breaks. And if I'm snowshoeing, its twice as exhausting. And if I'm going in terrain I should have snowshoes for but I'm just going in boots, make that four times as exhausting. So like, in the middle of the winter if there's some hike to a hotspring and back that's an 8 mile round trip in the mountains with the possibility of deep snow, I'm going to look at that and say 'no, that's not a reasonable thing for me to try to execute'. And being able to make that judgment is a huge part of actually being able to tackle longer hikes that push the boundary without getting myself injured or killed. It's not like someone told me 'this is the math of these things' - I discovered that by measuring my own condition over a few dozen hikes - but for a character in a fantasy world who does this kind of thing for a living, surely they'd know their limits and abilities to at least the same degree as someone who hikes once a month as a hobby.

Especially if they're going to do some bigger venture, like say the equivalent of a Lewis and Clarke expedition, or an expedition to the south pole, or heck even 'I'm going to walk the Pacific Crest Trail' or something where you need to synchronize mountains and deserts with the seasons so you're not trying to make it past Mt. Adams in the winter or trying to cross a desert in California in the summer.

That sort of rule of thumb obviously doesn't cover if, e.g., there happens to be a landslide or if the trail conditions are different than I expected or whatever. But its a context in which those sorts of deviations can be interpreted to make and adjust plans and think strategically.

Why is having those sorts of things be predictable a bad thing? Why is having examples of those sorts of factors less important than knowing the stats of a Flumph?