The danger of the Three Pillars of D&D

[pemerton]

The idea I'm getting at is the "gladiator theory". Some people seem to expect that if I take any two PCs created using similar parameters (level, ability scores, items), and have them fight to the death in a controlled environment, every PC should have a 50% chance of defeating every other PC.

<snip>

I don't advocate that this ridiculous setup is the way the game is played or the way it should be balanced, so I'm trying to countermand that notion.

I didn't get that vibe from the OP, but it's possible that I misread/misunderstood.

I certainly don't see "equal contribution" in these gladiatorial terms.

I, OTOH, expect that the average fighter would beat the average rogue in that situation more often than not, because he is a fighter.

I would put it slightly differenlty - the fighter should win because the fight is one that gives the fighter every advantage that s/he needs - a single target whose presence and location is unambiguous, controlled terrain, etc; while the rogue is robbed of all his/her advantages - the confusion of melee, the viability of hit-and-run tactics, the possibility to strike from surprise, etc.

Thus, I want to play a game where I can choose what I want my character to be good at and focus on that, without the expectation that my character will necessarily be good at things I do not choose to focus on.

This strikes me as something different again, and likewise goes to the question of "what is D&D?" If the designers are correct that D&D is about the three pillars, then I think that PC build will (and should) oblige you to focus on all three of those pillars - though, as per my reply to KM, I think there are a range of ways that this might be done (the three examples I gave were "lazy" builds, summoner builds and henchman builds).

 

[Leatherhead]

It's hard to know without having been there, but that sounds like either (i) poor encounter design by the GM, or (ii) poor adjudication by the GM. What was the king (played by the GM, presumably) saying to the fighter PC such that the fighter responded by doing backflips? And if doing backflips is an absurd thing to do in the situation, then how is it contributing a success to the skill challenge?

I think it had more to do with the choice of beverages at the table.

If the other players think it is important for the fighter PC to be part of the scene, then they need to be doing their bit to set up a situation in which the fighter's physical prowess can plausibly make a contribution. Or the GM should frame the encounter in that way in the first place.

It's was more of an attempt at a clutch play. But here is the point if it wasn't clear:

The skill challenge system was designed and intended to include the entire party. Everyone needs to generate successes (or at least non-failures), so everyone did what was most likely to succeed. The fighter, in particular, was forced into an extremely awkward position due to the fact that he needed to generate a success, and his scores with skills that would have been traditionally used in such an encounter were rather underwhelming. So, he improvised with the only thing that might work.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I didn't get that vibe from the OP, but it's possible that I misread/misunderstood.

I certainly don't see "equal contribution" in these gladiatorial terms.

I'm not targeting the OP, just the idea in general. I've seen it raised explicitly sometimes and implicitly often.

I would put it slightly differenlty - the fighter should win because the fight is one that gives the fighter every advantage that s/he needs - a single target whose presence and location is unambiguous, controlled terrain, etc; while the rogue is robbed of all his/her advantages - the confusion of melee, the viability of hit-and-run tactics, the possibility to strike from surprise, etc.

True; that's why the gladiator model doesn't represent most of actual play.

This strikes me as something different again, and likewise goes to the question of "what is D&D?" If the designers are correct that D&D is about the three pillars, then I think that PC build will (and should) oblige you to focus on all three of those pillars - though, as per my reply to KM, I think there are a range of ways that this might be done (the three examples I gave were "lazy" builds, summoner builds and henchman builds).

That's a big "if". That being said, your point is essentially the same as the one I made upthread to the effect that I don't want the designers assuming or dictating very much how my group deals with social encounters or combat encounters or exploration. In other words, I agree.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

At its crudest, I can see it working something like this: At first level, each character gets a handful of abilities distributed into the combat, roleplaying and exploration silos. Maybe a fighter gets 2/1/1, a bard gets 1/2/1 and a rogue gets 1/1/2. There is some scope for customization, so the player can choose two additional abilities from any silo. So, a first level fighter could start the game with 4/1/1, 3/2/1, 3/1/2, 2/3/1, 2/1/3, or 2/2/2 as he desires.

At every level, he gets to choose an additional ability. For most levels, he can choose from any silo, but maybe his choice gets restricted to specific silos at particular levels (say, fighters, bards and rogues must pick an ability from the combat, roleplaying and exploration silos respectively every three levels).

The way I'd do it is provide the opportunity for balance, but in no way enforce it. By all means, have clear silos for each of three pillars, and make the choices available to characters at a given level roughly equal in that pillar. If the fighter has 3rd level choices in the "roleplaying" pillar (I hate that name for the "social" pillar, as its all roleplaying, but whatever) that involve diplomacy, intimidate, or some kind of crafting, then those choices are roughly equal to what the wizard is getting with some utility magic or skills.

The idea being that, IF a casual player of a 3rd level fighter is feeling a bit left out in the social scenes, and decide to spend character resources on shoring that up, he can pick from the appropriate category and not get totally messed up. OTOH if he decides that his deficiences in that regard are fine in return for more exploration or combat ability (and the group is ok with such specialization), he knows what he is getting/giving up with that choice, too.

So balance the pillars and abilities within them so that people who want straight balance can get it. But in no way enforce that balance via the classes picks or restictions. Those restrictions are campaign-specific.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's hard to know without having been there, but that sounds like either (i) poor encounter design by the GM, or (ii) poor adjudication by the GM. What was the king (played by the GM, presumably) saying to the fighter PC such that the fighter responded by doing backflips? And if doing backflips is an absurd thing to do in the situation, then how is it contributing a success to the skill challenge?

Skill Challenges get run different ways by different DMs, but many require everyone to roll, so if you can make a case for it, you try to roll a skill you're good at.

Fighters have crap for social skills. The one social skill they have in class - Intimidate - is used in sample social SCs as an example of an automatic failure. Fighters are still pretty hosed.

That could use some improvement: better skill lists for fighters that give them something to do in each of the other two pillars, at least some of the time.

Also, a 'they also serve who merely stand and wait' clause for SCs might be called for - especially if they go through with balancing across pillars, so you have characters who must suck at exploration or interaction or both to be good at combat - SCs in such a system would be horrid failures if the dead weight wasn't allowed to, well, wait.

 

[pemerton]

I think this would call for a classless game -- one where you determined your character's progression through play rather than via a choice at character creation. Thus, your strengths and weaknesses emerge organically.

I don't think so. I'm not saying that it couldn't be done in such a game. But it can be done in a classed game also, provided that the classes are well-designed relative to the range of situations/challenges that the game expects players to confront via their PCs, and the GM has good mechanics (and advice on how to use them) for setting up those situations.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "winning." Mostly, I'm talking about an equal mathematical ability to be successful at a given task.

But what is the task? And I'm thinking particularly in the context of social interaction. Is the task wooing the maiden? Or scaring her?

Successfully wooing a difficult maiden, or successfully scaring a brave maiden, isn't something that a character who isn't skilled at social interaction should be able to do as easily as a character who is skilled at social interaction. Controlling how NPC's view you is the main ability for those skilled at social interaction.

But D&D has, for the past two editions, taken for granted that there is a difference between being able to make NPCs think you're sincere (Bluff), making NPCs think you're nice and/or worth treating with (Diplomacy) and making NPCs think you're scary (Intimidate).

My point is that a PC who is good at Intimidation doesn't play at all like one who is good at Bluff, across a whole range of social situations. Unless we are looking at very simple situations where either might do ("Do we lure the guard away with a distraction, or scare the guard away with our fierceness?"), we are talkiing about PCs who contribute to situations in very different ways, being good at pursuing different goals through social means.

I assume that when the designers talk about the three pillars, they are suggesting that all PCs should be able to do something meaningful in a social situation. The point I wanted to make was, from the fact that all PCs are able meaningfully to contribute to social situations, it doesn't follow that they are all the same, or that meaningful difference has been erased. The contrast between a maiden-wooer (say, your dapper assassin) and a maiden-scarer (say, a variant on your dumb muscle) is simply intended to illustrate that point.

I personally think that this sort of design actually makes for better play, because it puts the players into a degree of tension with one another, and (if they want their various skills to synergise) requires them to engage cleverly with the fiction (much as, in combat, players use a range of clever techniques to try and protect the squishies, bring their artillery to bear without killing their front-line fighters, etc).

There are character types that SHOULD fail (in an entertaining way) more often than not when attempting challenges involved in role-playing or exploring or direct combat.

It is possible to ensure failing in entertaining ways, however, without having PCs who are not effective at one of the three pillars. If the party decides to woo the maiden, then the maiden-scarer may fail in an entertaining way. Just as if the party decides to challenge the orcs to a series of man-to-man fist fights, the wizard or the rogue may fail in an entertaining way (being powerful combatants in the abstract, but weak pugilists).

But these sorts of entertaning failures will result from choices the players have made, about how best to bring their PCs' disparate abilities to bear upon the situations confronting them.

TL;DR: the issue of homogeneity/entertaining failure is more-or-less orthogonal to the issue of "three pillars". PCs who don't perform in all three contexts may nevertheless be homogenous/never fail entertainingly (the players build a dapper assassin each and only ever play society murder scenarios). PCs who do perform in all three contexts may nevertheless be non-homogenous and frequently fail entertainingly (see examples above).

And if the designers want to build a three pillars game, then I think it would be a mistake to permit the building of PCs who will not be able to meaningfully contribute.

In d20 vs. DC terms, they should have a lower bonus (or even a slight penalty at low levels).

I think that 4e has shown that going this way is design catastrophe, because of the spread of bonuses (and hence need for DCs) that make simultaneous meaningful contribution almost impossilbe (the Essentials patch for this in the skill challenge rules is the under-explained system of "advantages").

Rerolls, or perhaps a broader range of aptitudes ("My guy can both woo maidens and scare them") seems a much better way to go.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Every class can participate in every situation. What every class is not going to have is equal impact in all situations, nor should they.

All strengths and no weaknesses makes Jack a dull character in party full of equally dull characters that all rock at combat, exploration and interaction.

Not participating in a facet of play because another character type does something better than your character is being churlish.This is the every kid at the party needs a present because the birthday kid gets one syndrome.

In a game with choices, it is pointless to offer them if they all lead to the same destination.

It leads to bland vanilla abilities that only have the barest fluff to separate them because they are all very much alike in form and function.

That game has been made already. We don't need another one.

Is a thief going to kick as muck butt in a fight as a fighter? Nope.
Is a fighter going to have as much to contribute to exploration as a thief?
Nope. They can both participate in these activities but each will have the aspect that they are better at.

 

[pemerton]

The skill challenge system was designed and intended to include the entire party.

Skill Challenges get run different ways by different DMs, but many require everyone to roll

I don't want to derail too much, but this reminds me of why I think the skill challenge guidelines are so poorly written.

In combat, the reason that every player rolls is (i) his/her PC is under attack, and (ii) his/her PC has something to offer to improve the situation, both for him-/herself, and for the party as a whole.

A GM who wants everyone to take part in a skill challenge should, in my view, be framing the situation so that (i) every PC has a reason to do something - is under some sort of pressure - and (ii) every PC has something viable to do to relieve that pressure, and the pressure on the party in general. (Even if that viable thing is only stalling until another, defter PC can extricate him/her from the situation - in one social skill challenge I ran, which took place at a dinner party, the smooth-tongued sorcerer said to the dwarf fighter, who was doing a lousy job of trying to keep secrets, "Derrik, time to take a piss!" - thereby defusing the situation, at least temporarily.)

Fighters have crap for social skills. The one social skill they have in class - Intimidate - is used in sample social SCs as an example of an automatic failure. Fighters are still pretty hosed.

A complexity 5 skill challenge is only likely to involve 20 rolls or so (up to 14 primary checks, plus whatever secondaries are used). In the challenge I mentioned above, the fighter only made three checks, I think - a failed social check early on, the Intimidate check that ended the challenge (he goaded an oppposed NPC into attacking rather than just leaving the dinner party), and an Athletics check - made while agreeing with the host's remark that "I am a man of action, not words".

I'm not saying that fighters couldn't benefit from a better range of skills, but even with a very short list it should still be possible to play a meaningful role, provided (i) that the GM frames scenes with the party's capabilties in mind, and (ii) that players are prepared to engage the fiction rather than try and run mechanical roughshod over it.

Everyone needs to generate successes (or at least non-failures), so everyone did what was most likely to succeed. The fighter, in particular, was forced into an extremely awkward position due to the fact that he needed to generate a success, and his scores with skills that would have been traditionally used in such an encounter were rather underwhelming. So, he improvised with the only thing that might work.

I understand this. I just don't think it sounds like very good scene-framing or adjudication. I mean, why (in the fiction) did it matter that the fighter do something? What bad thing was going to happen if he didn't?

I've got nothing against running skill challenges that make everyone take part, but I think the fiction has to make sense of this. Otherwise how do the players know what the sensible options are? Without embedding the challenge in the fiction, I don't see how you avoid the notorious "skill challenges are just a dice-rolling exercise".

To put it another way - I don't quite see how the backflip episode fits in with what the DMG has to say about skill challenges:

You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results...

When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it…

However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation… you should ask what exactly the character might be doing … Don’t say no too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge.​

It doesn't sound to me like the performing of the backflips was "grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation", and that in turn sounds like it may have been because the GM had not "described the environment and narrated the results of previous skill chekcs".

Conversely, if I'm wrong about that, and the king had just said to the fighter "Why should I take you seriously as someone meriting aid?" and the fighter responds by performing some feat of physical prowess - thereby demonstrating that only he can do the tremendous thing that has to be done - then why shouldn't that be viable? If that's what happens, then it sounds like the player of the fighter chose to do a silly feat of prowess - backflips - rather than something more fitting like (say) crushing a goblet in his fist.

Also, a 'they also serve who merely stand and wait' clause for SCs might be called for - especially if they go through with balancing across pillars, so you have characters who must suck at exploration or interaction or both to be good at combat - SCs in such a system would be horrid failures if the dead weight wasn't allowed to, well, wait.

Personally, I would prefer that they pay more attention to advising GMs how to set up and adjudicate situations that don't require either waiting or absurdity to work. But given their inability to write effective guidelines for skill challenges to date, despite three attempts (DMG, DMG2, Essentials) and despite the existence of plenty of good models (HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, and to a lesser extent Burning Wheel), I think they will probably go for the "wait" option instead.

 

[pemerton]

Every class can participate in every situation. What every class is not going to have is equal impact in all situations, nor should they.

<snip>

In a game with choices, it is pointless to offer them if they all lead to the same destination.

Agreed. But "three pillars" is not about each PC being able to have the same impact on each situation. It is about each PC being able to have a meanginful impact in each sort of situation.

 

[Leatherhead]

stuff

I see that you understand the core of the problem:
Forcing people to participate in every situation is bad.

But now it just seems that you are ignoring the forest for the trees.