The danger of the Three Pillars of D&D

[RHGreen]

It would help if they made the social part more like combat.

If you had an NPC that had Vulnerable Intimidate 5, or something of that nature, the DM would play him as a coward. A bully would pick up on the cowardice and take the forefront in the social encounter. The sorcerer could then come up and play good cop. Perhaps getting a bonus to his social based rolls.

Benefits: 2 competely different types of social character both getting something out of a social encounter. Working together in the way combat works rather than as single entities more or less ignoring each other. The personality of the NPC (and the personality of the PCs) is supported by the mechanics to give it substance rather than a teddy bear tea party.

 

[pemerton]

I'm talking about "balance" as in making sure that "everybody can contribute to any situation equally." That locks playstyle down as much or more than imbalance.

I don't see why - unless by "equally" you mean "identically".

Making sure that your choices as a player are irrelevant (or fluff only) and that all characters will be equally competent in all pillars is just a waste of time and effort. It lends to a very "boardgamey" feel without a lot of differentiation between classes other than fluff.

I'm not sure what you mean here by "fluff". The fact that a thief can help in combat by backstabbing, and a fighter by facing the foes on the front line, is in some sense a difference only of fluff ie different story elements - especially in a system like Basic or some approaches to AD&D which don't use maps/minis.

If different PCs have different social capacities - scary, friendly, subtle, overt, polite, rude, local, foreign, etc - then I don't see that choices will be irrelevant.

 

[Harlekin]

The emphasis in 5e does seem to be on making the game familiar, rather than making it good.

That sentence nails it!

 

[Mercule]

That sentence nails it!

And, as someone who just wants to sit around with the friends I've gamed with for 20ish years, but have slightly cleaner mechanics, I'm fine with that.

Edit: I don't fault anyone who disagrees, though.

 

[Mattachine]

As others said, I think it is best to balance classes within each of these areas of game play ("the pillars"), rather than using the pillars as balancing factors themselves.

If a player wants a character to only be capable in combat, or exploration, or social interaction, so be it--just don't make the rules so that is the default.

 

[Ratskinner]

I don't see why - unless by "equally" you mean "identically".

Because, if every PC is equally effective in all three pillars, you lose the opportunity for that one guy to shine in his one spot. I've seen it plenty in indie games were basically any skill or trait can do anything so long as you've got a good narrative to go with it. No matter what the situation, all the players want their crack at it. And yes, that is what the strongest proponents of balance seem to be saying.

Now that may not seem like a big thing, but it certainly is a different playstyle from the "roving spotlight" model of earlier D&D. Hence, it locks it down just as much as extreme imbalance.

I think we're both for a middle ground, but we're just on different sides of dead center (whatever that might be.)

 

[Miyagi]

This still worries me. I could actually have fun either way - the game where everyone has something good to do in each of the three 'pillars' is my ideal game; the game where individual players can sacrifice strength in one pillar for ability in another would be fine, too, though I wouldn't like it as much.

I don't see that as the real choice, though, because it has never been that way. 3E and 4E came closest to creating what I like as an ideal, but failed; editions before that were balanced by either having almost no rules at all in areas of the game outside combat, or by having so few options at any particular time that balance was relatively easy to achieve.

The real choice, in practical terms, is between classes relatively balanced in all three pillars, but not equally flexible or powerful, and classes in which one area is strong to the detriment of others. This latter option really looks ugly in most games thus far, though - 3E's fighter was good in combat for a while, and terrible at everything else that wasn't simply made up without rules, whereas 3E's druid was as good in combat as the fighter, and spectacularly better at everything else. Heck, even a rogue in 3E could be as strong a fighter as the fighter, and still have a whole bag of tricks.

Nevermind character classes that could just do everything. As far back as 2E, we could see how the wizard made the thief basically irrelevant after level 7. A system that made characters such that players could trade strength in one area for strength in another would need to start with roughly equal capacity in all areas, or an equal number of strengths and weaknesses.

Even then, the way D&D is often played, combat takes most of the spotlight, so characters with better combat capability are going to spend more time in that spotlight. That's part of why I think there should be more rules in the other areas - more rule attention and more things to do equal a greater sharing of spotlight, and more variance of character types and approaches.

 

[hanez]

I'm talking about "balance" as in making sure that "everybody can contribute to any situation equally." That locks playstyle down as much or more than imbalance. Also, I don't see most of the problems you cite as balance issues so much as lame rules that don't reflect the rest of the fantasy genre well. (D&D always seems to have plenty of those lying around.)



That's why I prefer flexibility, rather than imposed balance. The players should be able to adapt their characters as they advance. If the campaign is all about dungeon crawling, with social interaction handwaved, then pick the options that address that. If the campaign is all about subtle politics, pick options that address that. I feel that good options for both should exist in all classes.

Making sure that your choices as a player are irrelevant (or fluff only) and that all characters will be equally competent in all pillars is just a waste of time and effort. It lends to a very "boardgamey" feel without a lot of differentiation between classes other than fluff. There's plenty of other games I've tried that do that already. Flexibility is far more important than an arbitrarily defined balance.

Completely agree with this post.

 

[Grydan]

I'm talking about "balance" as in making sure that "everybody can contribute to any situation equally." That locks playstyle down as much or more than imbalance. Also, I don't see most of the problems you cite as balance issues so much as lame rules that don't reflect the rest of the fantasy genre well. (D&D always seems to have plenty of those lying around.)

When I talk about wanting balance, and I think this holds true for many others on these boards, I'm not saying I want "everybody can contribute to any situation equally". I'm saying I want "everybody can contribute to any situation meaningfully".

Should bards have advantages over fighters in a social situation, and fighters have advantages over bards in combat? Sure. That's perfectly fine by me.

As long as in both cases, the less advantaged character isn't expected to sit quietly in the corner and wait for the game to move on to the part they're good at.

I want the Bard to be competent in combat. I want the Fighter to be competent in social situations.

Furthermore, there can and probably should be circumstances where, even in the other's area of expertise, the less advantaged class has an advantage.

If you're negotiating a deal with the local lord, the bard is probably more persuasive than the fighter... but if the lord needs details of your plan of battle to be convinced, you probably want the fighter to do the talking. When fighting creatures pacified by music, the bard should obviously have an edge over the fighter.

 

[Ratskinner]

Should bards have advantages over fighters in a social situation, and fighters have advantages over bards in combat? Sure. That's perfectly fine by me.

As long as in both cases, the less advantaged character isn't expected to sit quietly in the corner and wait for the game to move on to the part they're good at.

I want the Bard to be competent in combat. I want the Fighter to be competent in social situations.

I understand. The difference (I think) is that I want characters to have the option to be bad at something. I also want the classes to have a lot of different options (in the advanced rules, anyway) so you could have a fighter who specialized in diplomacy or investigation. However, I feel that sort of thing should be up to the player developing the character (with the GM) and not up to the game designers (in the advanced rules anyway). I think the weakness help a bit toward to team cohesion .

Also, PCs (at least mine) are quite willing to jump into non-combat situations where they are totally useless, just to let the hilarious results roll. Low stats can be as fun to play as high stats, sometimes. I'd hate to see that disappear.