The danger of the Three Pillars of D&D

[JamesonCourage]

Well, sure, but mechanics aren't irrelevant here. In AD&D, for example, the only way to gain XP and treasure, at least according to the published rules, is to steal loot from creatures (whom you may or may not have to kill first). On the (not unreasonable) assumption that a player wants to advance his/her PC, this makes it hard to deliberately engage the fiction with the aim of failing.

Contrast Burning Wheel, where advancement requires confronting challenges at which your PC will almost certainly fail.

That's true, and a good point. My RPG rewards story advancement (what happened this session?), as well as danger (how much danger were you in?), on a scale of 1 to 10. This helps keep things proactive, it helps keep risks being taken over and over, and so on.

So, my game would give just as much XP for dooming a town as saving it, even if it's from failure. That might sound weird to many people, I suppose. At any rate, XP rewards (and like issues) should be looked at.

Adventure design also matters. If WotC want to be supporting PC builds that aren't competent at all 3 pillars, and will be failing if they participate in a category of challenge

See, this isn't what I've been talking about, but maybe that hasn't been clear. I've been talking about players who choose to make their character largely incompetent in one area (combat, exploration, or social interaction). They can make the classes support all three, for example, but if a player decides to change it, they should be able to.

They've mentioned having "base" builds, with options to swap out features for other abilities (such as powers). They could apply that to what I'm talking about with no issue whatsoever. However, I mentioned "baking competency into the class" and "forced competency" in those areas. I'm specifically referring to something that cannot be swapped out, like the proposal of some ("you get one combat, exploration, and social interaction ability at each level"). That's fine to many people, I'm sure, but if it's forced, then it's a problem for me, as I've outlined in this thread.

Conversely, if the goal of D&D remains to support players aiming at success via their PCs, then I think WotC should focus on meaningful contribution to all 3 pillars as the default design. Those who want to sit out still can, and those who want to drift the game to support participation-even-if-fail will have to tweak things a bit, much as they currently do in relation to combat (or skill challenges, presumably, for some 4e groups).

At the base level of a given class, I agree. I just think there should be ways to swap out that base level of competency. Of course, Fighters will still have a level of competency in combat that couldn't be swapped out, just as Bards might with social interaction. Archetype and all that. As always, play what you like

 

[Tallifer]

I don't want to pass judgement on your gnome PC, but neither the dapper assassin nor the dumb muscle strikes me as ideal PCs for an RPG based on the so-called 3 pillars. If the dapper assassin is in a melee, something has gone wrong. If the dumb muscle is trying to make friends at the ball, likewise something has gone wrong. (In fiction, the dumb muscle generally would be a sidekick or a hencman.)

I am not sure I understand you. Are you saying that the assassin should completely avoid the fight and the fighter should completely avoid the ball? Does that mean that the dungeon master should just have those players play Nintendo while the dungeon delve or the ball occurs?

 

[Grazzt]

I'm seeing a lot of excluded middle here between "everyone is just as good in each of the three areas" and "everyone is a specialist in each area and awful in the other two."

My only criteria for "balance" have always been

1) Everyone has something useful to do in all almost all situations

2) Everyone gets some spotlight time when they get to shine

It's entirely possible to follow these while, frex, having a thief be good at stealth but weak at combat. As long as the thief gets _something_ useful to do in combat (even if he's not a star here like the fighter is) and as long as he gets to be a star in stealth/exploration, it's fine. It's then the DM's job to arrange the encounters so everyone gets a reasonable amount of star time.

Agree. Not everyone has to be in the spotlight for everything all the time. Let the fighter shine in combat doing what he does best. Let the rogue shine when the party is trying to figure out how to navigate the giant chessboard room without springing the trap. And so on...

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

For me personally, as long as combat is quick and doesn't dominate play time it makes balancing between different areas of play seem feasible, and it no longer requires that everyone be equally good at any one area, just that they have enough baseline competence to contribute in a meaningful way even when it's not their moment to shine.

Someone cover Oni for me, this post strikes at the heart of the problem.

When combat consumes most of the game time, PCs need to have equivalent combat output.

When combat consumes a third of the playtime (split equally between Combat, Roleplaying, and Exploration), PCs do not need to have equivalent combat output. A balanced game will give the Roleplayers, the Explorers, and the Fighters a chance to shine at their choosen area of expertise.

The rules need to support this though. You can't have every feat, spell, theme, prestige class, etc be tailored towards combat. These need to be split between the three pillars.

It's perfectly okay for a DM to say "the game will have a heavy combat focus" (once upon a time, this was called a Hack and Slash game). Likewise, a DM can inform players that this will be a heavy social or exploration game. The game should be able to cater to different playstyles. A DM should inform the party of this so that the players can make informed choices.

It's amazing what defining the Pillars does for game design (at the WotC level and at a DM / Game level).

 

[Libramarian]

Essentially: my choice of how I participate during combat should not impact my ability to participate out of combat.

A nice way to balance classes and keep everybody engaged all the time, without making the classes feel mechanically same-y, is to empower the players to make plenty of contributions straight from their brain rather than shunting everything through mechanics.

i.e. player skill/creative problem solving/roleplaying without social mechanics.

I think upping this as a proportion of gameplay really helps smooth out and generally lessen the importance of balance, both PC to PC and PCs to encounter.

It's like a secret sauce that makes just about anything palatable. Ranch dressing.

The constant discussion about balance is kind of strange to me. It makes me realize just how much of the gameplay in my D&D (rules+group) is pretty class-agnostic and communal.

The players interact and make plans together constantly. Like when it comes to the MU using their spells, it's not uncommon for the group Fighter to give them a suggestion.

"Hey let's use your Floating Disc to float over the ooze."

In which case they share the "kudos" in a smooth, cooperative way.

I mean I guess I practically do agree that everyone should be able to contribute all the time. But at the same time, I really get turned off by mechanical samey-ness and "reskinning". I just don't think it's necessary.

 

[BobTheNob]

Just a quick note to people who love to post those "Someone said something I disagree with so Im going to micro respond to every point he made" threads that just go on for ever. In a forum, the whole point is to get your point across, and generally if your post doesnt fit on a computer screen (i.e. its too long) half the audience wont even read it.

If you want people reading your post, keep it short

 

[Li Shenron]

The true danger of the Three Pillars of D&D is ignoring one or two of them and focus only on the third.

There's way too many people obsessed with combat rules, asking for 5e to deliver the ultimately balanced, cool, "dynamic" (sic) or in other words perfect combat system. Well frankly, if you haven't found satisfaction in the 100+ combat systems that all the RPG publishing companies have put out in the last few decades, chances are that you won't get it this time either.

There is also some indidiously common belief that we cannot make our own combat rules (or at least modifications) and we have to rely on professional designers, while we are all so self-confident that we can rely on our own brilliance to handle the other two pillars, especially the one related to the storytelling and roleplaying. Unfortunately in my 10+ years of DMing I've learned that it's much harder to craft a memorable tale or intrigue than a great battle.

 

[BobTheNob]

Agree. Not everyone has to be in the spotlight for everything all the time. Let the fighter shine in combat doing what he does best. Let the rogue shine when the party is trying to figure out how to navigate the giant chessboard room without springing the trap. And so on...

Yes yes yes yes yes.

D&D used to be about this. Characters shined in different ways. Sure, the rogue was pretty naf in a fight, but thats not where he shined. The fighter sucked come sneaky time, but thats not his stick either.

By the time 4e came along, roles had changed to "What do you do in combat?" which (to me) lost the point. EVERYONE did combat, EVERYONE did skills and NO-ONE was truely unique.

In a system where everyone can contribute to everything characters stop being unique.

 

[Libramarian]

A bit of speculation: both KM and Ahnehnois seems to be equating "equally able to contribute" with "equally likely to win", as if "winning" had some predetermined value. I want a game where what counts as "winning" is determined by the players, not the GM, and is worked out in the course of play; and where all the players are, via their PCs, able to have a meaningful impact on any given situation.

Consider the PC who can woo maidens, and the PC who can scare them. It's not the case that both of these PCs are equally good at "winning" - if the first is wanting to woo the maiden, then the scary one is likely (everything else being equal) to be an obstacle to that goal. The point is that both are able to make a meaningful difference in an encounter with maidens. Which is what I want out of an RPG.

This just doesn't sound like it has any connection to D&D at all. Like it would be impossible to tell from this that you posted this in a D&D related forum.

You're not even using DM instead of GM.

 

[billd91]

I am not sure I understand you. Are you saying that the assassin should completely avoid the fight and the fighter should completely avoid the ball? Does that mean that the dungeon master should just have those players play Nintendo while the dungeon delve or the ball occurs?

I'm kind of wondering about that too. As I see it, these are characters out of their best element not situations in which something has gone wrong. And these are situations that sometimes generate the best long term stories. So I'd agree that these situations can be meaningful, though not because the PCs have any mechanic that can help them make it meaningful. Often, it's because they lack a mechanic to make it positively as opposed to negatively meaningful.