The danger of the Three Pillars of D&D

[Mattachine]

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.

I wholeheartedly agree, but you have to be in a campaign where that sort of complication is rewarded. My current campaign, in my homebrew Under a False Sky, I have a game mechanic (called "hero points") to reward play which is true to roleplaying a character, whether or not the character is successful in a given task. But that is the exception; in most games, a character that doesn't pull its weight in combat is similar to having to fight more foes, and can cause annoyance with other players (not the PCs, but the actual players). I find this is especially true with pickup groups, convention games, etc.

 

[pemerton]

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.

To me, this speaks as much to scenario design as PC-build.

Why are players willing to do this in non-combat but not combat? What is different about the stakes in these two situations, so that hilarious failure is possible, and tolerated or even enjoyed, out of combat but not in combat?

 

[Mattachine]

How about a rules option where each character can pick non-combat specialties, if they want, that does not involve a tradeoff with combat abilities?

Players that want such things can opt in for their PCs, and those that don't can ignore them.

 

[Ratskinner]

How about a rules option where each character can pick non-combat specialties, if they want, that does not involve a tradeoff with combat abilities?

Players that want such things can opt in for their PCs, and those that don't can ignore them.

Possibly, I figure themes are looking to be the easy candidate for such things. I favor this a lot more than hard-wiring all the characters to have some minimal aptitude in all three pillars.

Honestly, I don't even care if you do have to trade off some combat ability for exploration or social ability. If its important as a character is developing, then I say let 'em pick it.

 

[Ratskinner]

To me, this speaks as much to scenario design as PC-build.

Why are players willing to do this in non-combat but not combat? What is different about the stakes in these two situations, so that hilarious failure is possible, and tolerated or even enjoyed, out of combat but not in combat?

I didn't say they weren't. I would say it happens less often, due to character death being more of an annoyance than character embarrassment. However, the more I think about it, the less true I think it is.

Just a few months ago while playing a BECMI game, we had a situation where 3 of the PC's went exploring on their own. (Hey, the other guys were late .) Long story short, the two fighters both get held, leaving the tapped-out wizard to fend off two wounded troglodytes and their shaman. Against all odds, he beat them to death with his staff. It wasn't smart, but it was heroic, and it was cool as all get out.

Would it be less heroic and cool if the wizard had the same kind of pillar-equivalence that people are talking about? YMMV, but for my money the answer is "Yes, yes it would." BTW, that's just the most "famous" example kicking around my group, lately. The fighter-types in this group push the thieves to take some truly inordinate risks while scouting, IMO. (Of course, the thieves compensate by making off with loot before the party knows its there.)

 

[Ratskinner]

I wholeheartedly agree, but you have to be in a campaign where that sort of complication is rewarded. My current campaign, in my homebrew Under a False Sky, I have a game mechanic (called "hero points") to reward play which is true to roleplaying a character, whether or not the character is successful in a given task. But that is the exception; in most games, a character that doesn't pull its weight in combat is similar to having to fight more foes, and can cause annoyance with other players (not the PCs, but the actual players). I find this is especially true with pickup groups, convention games, etc.

I like such mechanics. Personally, my favorite implementation is "Awesome Points" from Old School Hack. They function as Hero Points and XP, but not when you earn them...when you spend them. I ran a pick up game one night when the scheduled GM couldn't make it. Awesome points were just that. They encouraged the cinematic style of creativity that I enjoy, at the same time giving players a bit more control over their destiny. They also really encourage the group to work together in creating entertainment, since anyone can hand them out, not just the GM.

Also, in my current group, the differences usually express themselves in bragging and teasing from the combat heavies rather than resentment.