The danger of the Three Pillars of D&D

[Crazy Jerome]

There is nothing inherent in a cleaned up BECMI style of game that says it can't be fast and relatively balanced across all three pillars, and within them too. It's true that you can't satisfy the full range that people want with forced balance. However, it is also true that the ability to consciously have balance in any or all of the pillars if you want, is not the same thing as forced balance.

We play chess. I'm rated around 1900. You are rated around 2000. We are imbalanced, but the imbalance is known. You can give me a pawn or knight or some such minor edge, at the start of the game. We are back to balanced again. Or we can choose not to do that, and go with it as it is. Same way with golf.

As long as fighters can pick some stuff at 5th level that affects their combat ability or social ability or exploration ability about as well as the stuff that wizards can pick at 5th level that affects their combat ability or social ability or exploration ability, then it doesn't matter that in a particular game, the fighter has chosen to enhance combat at the expense of the other pillars, and vice versa. That's choice. Nothing inherent says those choices have to be as complicated to manage, or take as long to use, as 3E/4E in order to work.

Of course, it's also true that some of the stuff that people advocating for a more 3E style base game are insisiting is absolutely critical is critical to them because it is forced imbalance (or rather, confirms to their personal vision of verismilitude, and balance and everyone else can go hang). To the extent that they are satisfied, no one else will be. But let's not throw out the possibility of satisfying the more reasonable calls for simplicity and a wider range of character concepts over a few bits of nonsense.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Actually, you have brought out some gnome artificer who was /completely inept/ in social situations, and either sits them out or comically/dramatically has the 'fun of failure' in them, as an example of the kind of thing you want.

I've consistently indicated that excluding the "always succeeds" and "always fails" extremes is what I want. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. The fact that I like to play characters with telling weaknesses doesn't mean they always fail -- simply means that they are more likely to fail. I can still get a lucky roll or interact with the scene to get a circimstance bonus with my Aspergaficer.

All leaders, pacifist cleric included, /can/ contribute damage. In fact, via buffing and action-economy manipulation, they can indirectly contribute almost like strikers.

I said that they're not expected to. That's key. They can do whatever they want, but they aren't exected to do anything aside from fill their role. A striker isn't expected to contribute defense (even though they might have a good AC). A controller isn't expected to contribute healing (even though they might have good buffs).

Now, a very strong analogy would be: just as characters contribute meaningfully, but differently in accord with their roles, in combat, they should contribute meaningfully, but differently, out of combat (be that independintely in each of the two non-combat 'pillars' or in a single non-combat amalgam, if the other pillars aren't individually equal in importance to combat).

Again, no character should be excluded. That doesn't mean that all characters should be equally skilled.

Let me type that again so that you don't miss this central point.

No character should be excluded. That doesn't mean that all characters should be equally skilled.

Don't misunderstand me.

Going forward with that knowledge, you can see how different characters can contribute to the adventure in different ways, while being very good at some contributions and less good at other contributions.

A striker class is expected to contribute damage to a combat (they can do other things, but damage is their main function). A combat class should be expected to contribute combat successes to an adventure (they can do other things, but combat is their main function).

In the same way that a striker may be horrible at contributing healing (they can heal themselves a little bit), a combat class may be horrible at contributing social successes (they can roll a Charisma check). Not incapable, just not very good. Not as good as the social class.

4e, in combat, hit upon a balance in which each role contributes differently, each class aproaches it's role differently, and each character contributes meaningfully.

This discussion really should be about how we can bring the same balance to the non-combat realm.

It's easy.

You stop worrying about microbalance within an encouter and start considering the fun people have over the course of a typical 4-hour session. You stop trying to enforce the parity of each roll and instead see partiy as existing over the course of an entire session's rolls. If a player typically makes, say, 10 die rolls in a given game session, you don't worry about each of those rolls having a 50% chance of success, you worry about a roll having a 10% chance of success, and another roll having a 90% chance of success (and 20 and 80 and 30 and 70 and whatever else you want, depending on how swingy you want it).

As long as fighters can pick some stuff at 5th level that affects their combat ability or social ability or exploration ability about as well as the stuff that wizards can pick at 5th level that affects their combat ability or social ability or exploration ability, then it doesn't matter that in a particular game, the fighter has chosen to enhance combat at the expense of the other pillars, and vice versa. That's choice.

It's also choice if they can pick between a Fighter (good Combat, average Exploration, poor Interaction) and a Paladin (good Interaction, average Combat, poor Exploration) and a Ranger (good Exploration, average Combat, poor Interaction) and an Assassin (good Interaction, average Exploration, poor Combat).

The choice doesn't need to be within the class. It can be a choice between classes. Especially if you factor in customization elements like Feats, Backgrounds, and Themes that can further shore up or modify what a character is good and bad at.

 

[I'm A Banana]

KM, your example of combat has every PC contributing (although some via defence or healing rather than damage, or via lazy builds which trigger other PCs' actions). But then you go on to describe a state of affairs in which the fighter doesn't contribute so much to a social situation. And you emphasise the time consumed by that situation.

So just to be clear - are you envisaging a pulling back from the 4e approach of everyone can contribute to every situation? But with this being counterbalanced by a change in the time required to resolve an encounter?

You're on the right track. For a few years now, I've been posting about how for me as a player and a DM, the individual combat or conversation or exploration is largely irrelevant, that it is the context in which this encounter occurs that interests and engages me. The encounter only has meaning in the broader scope of the adventure. Or, to put it in dungeon-crawling terms: the trap only has meaning in the broader scope of the dungeon. I don't play D&D to have encounters, I play D&D to have adventures. Encounters are a necessary but insufficient condition for that adventure.

Thus, I want a game in which the individual encounter is not an end in and of itself, but rather part of a greater whole (which I call the "adventure.")

In that context, it is fine to have a character who doesn't contribute much socially (just as it is fine to have a character who doesn't heal much). There are other encounters, and there are other times to shine. This accurately reflects archetype and genre, and it makes gameplay more varied and dynamic, so I consider it a strong design plus. It's OK to have a trap that goes off and does damage, or a brief skirmish with a few minions, or an assassin who can kill in a single attack roll, or a petrify spell, or a save-or-die effect, or whatever, because it's fine for a party member to be unncessary for a given encounter -- they are still necessary for the overall adventure. This causes the encounters to be briefer: they're individually less important, less complex, and less carefully balanced, so that overall the adventure can be more important, more complex, and more carefully balanced.

As a consequence of that change in focus, each encounter must be a smaller part of a bigger event individually. Not every combat should take an hour. Encounters can be of varying size and threat level, because they are not self-contained, but rather part of the adventure as a whole. So fast encounters aren't so much a goal as they are a useful consequence of the different focus.

I get that you don't prefer minor encounters yourself, but for me, I see the game gaining so much in moving to that model, that I find it hard to advocate for the alternative. You can still have big, significant encounters, but they no longer have to all be big, singificant encounters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Again, no character should be excluded. That doesn't mean that all characters should be equally skilled.

It seems like we're both trying to snatch the middle here, and arguing between straw men.

If you don't want characters to be non-contributing, and I don't want them to be identical, we're prettymuch on the same side, or we're only off by a shading of degree.

And, I hasten to add, neither of us should be content with D&D as it has existed to date. Characters have been excluded entirely from 'pillars,' players left twiddling their thumbs while the specialist character does his thing for an extended period.

I've been posting about how for me as a player and a DM, the individual combat or conversation or exploration is largely irrelevant, that it is the context in which this encounter occurs that interests and engages me. The encounter only has meaning in the broader scope of the adventure.

OK, that's a valid play style. You have many minor challenges over a session or adventure or campaign, and if a player sits out some of them, it's no big deal, the 'big picture' balance is what matters.

However, it's not the only valid play style. Big 'set piece' challenges that consume a single shorter session almost entirely are also a perfectly good way to play. And letting a player sit one out is not acceptable.

Reasonable parity (again, not everyone being identical, just everyone contributing) within every challenge (pillar) provides balance in both play styles. 'Big picture' balance only works for one.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It's also choice if they can pick between a Fighter (good Combat, average Exploration, poor Interaction) and a Paladin (good Interaction, average Combat, poor Exploration) and a Ranger (good Exploration, average Combat, poor Interaction) and an Assassin (good Interaction, average Exploration, poor Combat).

The choice doesn't need to be within the class. It can be a choice between classes. Especially if you factor in customization elements like Feats, Backgrounds, and Themes that can further shore up or modify what a character is good and bad at.

There can be some of that, and also some "keep everything short so that we don't spend too much time on the area where you don't do much". But I think of some of the resistance to the idea is that prior versions have placed a little too much stock in those as ways to keep things fun.

You also have to consider people with a character the evolves over time. Taking one level of fighter now and getting good combat, average exploration, and poor interaction might be ok. Being forced to multiclass in--let's face it--often shoddy multiclassing rules merely to tweak your focus a bit, is a bit misguided.

Worse, I don't have a lot of confidence in that the design built on those principles can avoid a lot of fiddly little bits to satisfy various desires that boil down to, "you started as a fighter; you'll stay poor in interaction, and you'll like it."

 

[I'm A Banana]

There can be some of that, and also some "keep everything short so that we don't spend too much time on the area where you don't do much". But I think of some of the resistance to the idea is that prior versions have placed a little too much stock in those as ways to keep things fun.

You also have to consider people with a character the evolves over time. Taking one level of fighter now and getting good combat, average exploration, and poor interaction might be ok. Being forced to multiclass in--let's face it--often shoddy multiclassing rules merely to tweak your focus a bit, is a bit misguided.

Worse, I don't have a lot of confidence in that the design built on those principles can avoid a lot of fiddly little bits to satisfy various desires that boil down to, "you started as a fighter; you'll stay poor in interaction, and you'll like it."

Yeah, I'd agree basically with this. These are key things to keep in mind. Excluding the "always fails" and "always wins" extremes, and letting character options like multiclassing, feats, backgrounds, themes, etc. affect the measures is important to having a flexible baseline. I think those are things to keep in mind, rather than reasons it shouldn't be done, however. Retraining, for example, could help a fighter whose player wants more interaction ability.

 

[Ratskinner]

I guess it might depend on what you mean by balance, but the way I see it, balance enables a broader range of playstyles to work together. Imbalance is what yanks a game into one specific style or another. D&D has always had significant balance problems around encounters and resources, leading to the very un-genre '5 minute workday' for instance. You can avoid it, but the impetus is always there, and the things you do to avoid it (like constantly aplying time preasrue as the DM) also put you in a stylistic rut.

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.)

The same is true, here. If each class is viable in each 'pillar' the DM does not have to slave his playstyle to the demands of balancing among the pillars, and the players are free to explore the pillars they want without balance issues (either among them if there's some who didn't specialize in the 'right' pillar, or between them and the challenges they face if they're a hyper-specialized party).

It would be very nice, as a DM, to be able to emphasize a 'pillar' in a campaign without having to mod the rules, ban whole classes (or at least warn players away from them), and/or face overpowered campaign-buster specialist characters.

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.

 

[Ratskinner]

This is essentially my view on the matter as well. Rethinking social and exploration encounters such that every class can contribute will be a challenge for both GMs and the designers. But a worthwhile challenge I believe.

I'm not sure its so tough, from a design point of view. I'm leaning towards the idea that themes can be expanded to handle a lot of this. The idea of a poly-classed system has been suggested before (where you choose a combat class, a parley class, and perhaps an explorer class). However, I don't think (within the context of D&D) that full classes are appropriate for non-combat roles.

Themes as sort of a "subclass" that you can bolt on make a lot of sense to me here. So, if you take the "Woodsman" theme, you get tracking and some other bits of outdoorsy lore, it doesn't matter if you're a fighter, rogue, or wizard. Worried about talking to kings and the like? Take an "Aristrocrat" or "Diplomat" theme and get some bonuses to holding out your pinky correctly while drinking and talking real fancylike.

The party can select an appropriate hodgepodge of themes to cover all the bases they are worried about. Making each character useful in different types of non-combat encounters in a way they want to be that is also (almost) totally independent of their combat class/role.

The big drawback here is that this would be a big change for some classes. As you might note in my example above "Woodsman" shaves a bit off of Ranger or maybe Druid. "Burglar" might shave a bit off thieves or rogues. "Curmudgeon" or "Brute" might intrude on Barbarian. However, I think that the flexibility gained would be more than worth it.

 

[Ratskinner]

KM, your example of combat has every PC contributing (although some via defence or healing rather than damage, or via lazy builds which trigger other PCs' actions). But then you go on to describe a state of affairs in which the fighter doesn't contribute so much to a social situation. And you emphasise the time consumed by that situation.

So just to be clear - are you envisaging a pulling back from the 4e approach of everyone can contribute to every situation? But with this being counterbalanced by a change in the time required to resolve an encounter?

I'm all in favor of reducing minimum encounter resolution time. However, I'm not sure I agree with the idea of it as a fix to "balance" questions. Nonetheless, it might be an "end around" the issue. So you don't feel useful in this social situation the party is in? Don't worry, have some junk food, you'll be fighting or snooping around again in a matter of minutes. Honestly, I couldn't care less about balance from any other perspective other than my players having fun.

My own preference is to downplay minor encounters (the Jester upthread, or in a different thread, canvassed 15 combats in a session! - I'm not interested in that at all), focus primarily on major encounters, which I'm happy to have taking 1 hour+ to resolve, and have all PCs be able to contribute meaningfully to those encounters (as a result of both features of PC build, and of encounter build, and of the dynamics of action resolution).

I'd rather the rules not dictate encounter length too strongly one way or another. I strongly favor being able to resolve encounters quickly, but I don't think having to do so would be good, similarly for long encounters. However, that might be getting off topic.

 

[RHGreen]

At the DDXP "class" seminar (transcript here), Monte brought up the Three Pillars of D&D: Roleplay/Interaction, Combat, and Exploration. And the idea that classes would be balanced by their ability to interact with/excel at those three pillars.

I think this is a terrible idea.

It goes back to a post I made at the advent of 4th Edition (Roles in RPGs - EN World: Your Daily RPG Magazine). Essentially: my choice of how I participate during combat should not impact my ability to participate out of combat.

For example, the rogue. The rogue traditionally has fewer hit points and a worse attack bonus than the fighter. This is "balanced" by the rogue's more interesting and diverse skill selection.

Again: terrible idea.

I want to play a game where every class can contribute in every situation: combat, exploration, social interactions. Just because a character can wear armor and skillfully fight doesn't mean that he should be incapable of holding a conversation (3E and 4e fighter, I'm looking at you).

No. 5E should balance classes *within* each of those three pillars. And not try to balance strength in one pillar via a deficiency in another.

I have posted similar things in the past, all the way to when 4E was being designed - but it didn't happen.

All three things should run parallel, but not inerfere with each other. It should not be about one character being better than another in any given area. The distinction should be How they perform in that area.

A barbarian may be a badly educated big oath, but that wont stop him from socially attacking a NPC coward's bravery defence (or whatever) with his intimidating/bullying. He can be as effective as the poncy priest kissing back side, just in a different way.

Here is the problem with D&D social mechanics:

Charisma = slimy wimpy arse kisser.
Diplomacy = the art of slimy wimpy arse kissing.

So the perfect social character is someone who was born slimy and wimpy and naturally arse kisses people and has spent years learning the art of being slimy and wimpy and kissing people's arses.

The real world doesn't work like that. Nobody likes an arse kisser. Which goes against the idea that everybody loves someone with a high charisma and high diplomacy.

Unfortunately it seems that intimidate in skill challenges is seen as an almost definite autofail if attempted.

There should be more theme/breadth in the social side.

The same sort of things can be said for exploration.