D&D 5E Only three pillars?

[cwallach]

Back in the days of OD&D and AD&D there were riddles and puzzles to solve.

 

[Reynard]

Back in the days of OD&D and AD&D there were riddles and puzzles to solve.

That's generally exploration.

 

[soviet]

The only important pillar is Purchasing

 

[overgeeked]

I like "Downtime" as the 4th pillar, including everything from domain management and war to raising your family and establishing your business. It isn't as common a pillar for today, which is too bad, because it adds something to the "end game" that higher CR monsters don't.

I get what people are reaching for with "downtime" but it seems like an odd catch all rather than a distinct category. It's also an odd framing as it implies that combat, exploration, and social would be the opposite of downtime, so "uptime." But what would uptime be, actively playing your character? Most of the listed downtime activities involve actively playing your character. Is downtime then "not out adventuring"? But depending on how involved the systems and subsystems and how invested in those activities, they would be the uptime of certain campaigns while the fighting of monsters and delving of dungeons would be the less emphasized and therefore downtime activities.

I think “pillars” is a weird way to categorize D&D gameplay, and “combat, exploration, and social interaction” are a weird set of activities to identify as said “pillars.” I think a better framework would be modes of play; as in, activities that are governed by different rules systems.

I get where you're going, but I'm not sure that they have to be governed by different subsystems to be distinct. Combat is clearly a separate minigame, but exploration and social are basically skill checks, so governed by the same subsystem. But exploration and social interaction are clearly different activities.

Further, imagine everything you could do in the game was handled by the combat rules. That wouldn't make exploration and social interaction into combat, they'd simply share a subsystem. Or go the other way and imagine combat handled by simple skill checks without the extra rules. That wouldn't suddenly make combat into exploration or social. Maybe it's a fiction-first vs mechanics-first distinction.

I think under that framework, the major modes of play would be combat, exploration, travel, and downtime. Note that hexcrawling would fall under travel, not exploration. There may be better names for these modes of play, but point is, there’s the mode of play governed by initiative and turns and action/bonus action/movement economy, there’s the mode of play governed by the conversation of play, typically involving hidden information and describing actions to try to uncover that hidden information, there’s the mode of play governed by movement pace and ongoing tasks, and there’s the mode of play governed by reoccurring expenses and periodic activities. This would be where domain management would fall, in editions where that was a thing.

Social interaction, in my opinion, is a thing that can occur during any of those modes of play, and is therefore misplaced in being identified as a “pillar” of play. I think this misidentification may also be part of why the latter two modes of play are much more anemic this edition.

Pillars or modes, I don't think the name matters that much. It's the idea behind it. Broad categories of play that are typical for the game.

I'm not convinced that breakdown works. I'm not saying pillars is better. Just that how the player interacts with the fiction isn't really the place I'd think to mark the differences. For example, all modes of play are governed by the conversation between the player and referee. That's literally the basis of the game. You can't really play a traditional RPG without that.

That's generally exploration.

And that does show the question of granularity. How granular should the distinctions be? If puzzles and riddles are their own thing, separate from exploration, then shouldn't wilderness travel, dungeon delving, and urban exploration be separated too?

 

[Charlaquin]

When we would use War Machine to resolve mass combat, it usually dominated a session, which is why I feel like it is probably its own pillar (assuming it shows up at all in a given campaign).

Well, yeah, in such a case it would absolutely be its own mode of play, because it’s a separate system. I’m just saying, I think you could fold Mass combat into a downtime system, if you were of a mind to.

 

[cwallach]

That's generally exploration.

In theory, yes. However in my 5e experience riddles and puzzles are virtually non-existent.

 

[Reynard]

In theory, yes. However in my 5e experience riddles and puzzles are virtually non-existent.

Sure but I don't think they need to be a separate mode of play or "pillar."

The more I think about it I am in agreement with @Charlaquin on the idea that "pillar" doesn't quite do the job and "mode" is better.

 

[Charlaquin]

I get where you're going, but I'm not sure that they have to be governed by different subsystems to be distinct. Combat is clearly a separate minigame, but exploration and social are basically skill checks, so governed by the same subsystem.

Well yeah, I don’t think social ought to be considered its own mode of play. It’s an in-fiction activity that can occur in any mode of play.

But exploration and social interaction are clearly different activities.

Social interaction can occur during exploration play. It can also occur outside of exploration play.

Further, imagine everything you could do in the game was handled by the combat rules. That wouldn't make exploration and social interaction into combat, they'd simply share a subsystem. Or go the other way and imagine combat handled by simple skill checks without the extra rules. That wouldn't suddenly make combat into exploration or social. Maybe it's a fiction-first vs mechanics-first distinction.

I think a game designed in such a way would have only one mode of play.

I'm not convinced that breakdown works. I'm not saying pillars is better. Just that how the player interacts with the fiction isn't really the place I'd think to mark the differences.

Nor do I. I think how the player interacts with the rules is the place to mark the differences.

For example, all modes of play are governed by the conversation between the player and referee. That's literally the basis of the game. You can't really play a traditional RPG without that.

Well, yeah, that’s the underlying rules supersystem within which the various modes of play exist.

0And that does show the question of granularity. How granular should the distinctions be? If puzzles and riddles are their own thing, separate from exploration, then shouldn't wilderness travel, dungeon delving, and urban exploration be separated too?

I’d file puzzles and riddles along with social interaction in the category of “activities that can occur during any mode of play.” I do think that puzzles and riddles most typically occur during exploration, but what is a complex setpiece encounter if not a combat puzzle?

 

[overgeeked]

I think how the player interacts with the rules is the place to mark the differences.

Well, yeah, that’s the underlying rules supersystem within which the various modes of play exist.

Then by that criteria traditional RPGs only have one mode of play. If you mark the difference between modes of play as how the players interact with the rules, and there's only one way to interact with the rules, i.e. through the referee, then there's only one mode of play...the players interacting with the referee.

 

[Lanefan]

Mass combat is something of a cross between downtime and combat though. Not sure where I'd put it. Probably downtime.

I'd put it squarely under combat if any PCs are involved, even peripherially.