The danger of the Three Pillars of D&D

[Tony Vargas]

A related question: in 4e, to play a socially competent fighter you really have to build a warlord. Do you think this is objectionable in the same way as your cleric example

Well. Yes.

, or should we just think of the warlord as the socially competent subclass of fighter?

I think the Warlord deserves to be it's own class. But, if it were rolled up into the fighter, and you had defender fighters (knights), leader fighters (warlords), striker fighters (slayers) and controller fighters (soldiers), it would be nice if each of them, not just the warlord, got to be competent out of combat.

Same goes for all characters of all classes. You're adventuring, you should be able to handle adedventuring. That means everybody contributes meaningfully in combat, when exploring dungeons or caverns or enchanted woods or whatever, or when interacting in adventuring situations (which can be pretty varied, obviously, but might reasonably not include some of the more obtuse 'social' scenarios). If you can't handle yourself in a fight, or scaling a cavern wall, or around important people, you shouldn't have become an adventurer, because you're going to get yourself killed (stabbed, defenestrated or executed as the case may be).

A mage may deal with the cavern wall by having feather fall on tap, or the dapper con man handle himself in a fight using feints and sneak attacks, or the knight-champion fighter might rely on his reputation over social graces, wit and charm. Each class is different, but each class remains viable. Balance within each of the three pillars is really no different from balance in combat (which 4e did well). Balanced <> identical. (Very different then the 'everyone is exactly as good at doing everything in every arena' straw man that keeps getting repeated in this thread).

 

[Libramarian]

On the point of winning vs other goals of play - in D&D that goes back at least to a whole heap of non-winning focused Dragon articles in the early-to-mid 80s, and Oriental Adventures as an official AD&D supplement. On the wooing and scaring of maidens, there is a nymph encounter in The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, and probably others in modules of comparable vintage, and similar sort of stuff in Beyond the Crystal Cave, I think. And that's all before we get to 2nd ed AD&D.

I'm sure it does. But you remarked in the GNS thread that Gygaxian gamism remains the most popular D&D mode of play today.

It would be a little gauche of me to go over to a Sorcerer or Dogs in the Vineyard forum and complain about the lack of support for this.

It's just unfortunate how easy it is to stigmatize gamism in general.

I have one player who is just a stereotypical case of someone who claims that they play for "the story" and that they like "deep characterization" when in play it's the most obvious thing in the world that what they like is beating the scenarios that I as DM give them.

He even plays Call of Cthulhu like that (learning to run CoC in a satisfyingly gamist fashion I think made me into a much better D&D DM. It's like weightlifting for gamist DMing. But I digress.)

If he were reading this thread, he might agree with you (sounds good!), but he doesn't know his own preferences.

It's not your fault, it's just unfortunate.

I find your discourse poisonous and want to point this out. But I cannot actually blame you for it. It is your prerogative to argue for the D&D that you want.

 

[hikaizer]

Part of the problem is whether you plan for every character to be able to contribute equally in any given encounter, or whether you balance over an adventure. You do risk homogenising gameplay if you focus into too small a level of detail in this. The real trick would be finding the right point to try and balance this at. This is as much a responsibility of the GM as it is of the system. We've seen at least some annecdotal evidence of games which have balanced things out better in previous editions already. It's important for the system to provide a good foundation for the GM to use, but it's up to the GM to actually utilise it. A system that builds your adventure for you entirely risks feeling a little hollow I fear.

As for Fighters and social encounters again...well it's generally not fun if someone can do everything. Part of what makes a gaming group fit together nicely from my years of experience has been that everyone has a role that they can excel in. This is because people like having something they're good at and can make their own often. Not only this but when people excel in similar areas they begin to compete for the spotlight in the session. Specialisation is a good thing in DnD and again it's something previous editions (perhaps ignoring 4e a little) have tried to emphasise. Should classes be allowed to specialise into other pillars than their typical focus? I personally think that would be great. Certainly exploring the possibilities for each pillar for each class would be a creative challenge, but if this is a core design paradigm for 5e wouldn't it be worthwhile?

 

[Ratskinner]

History, it fails us now

I think part of the problem here is the historical baggage of some of the classes. As discussed in another thread "Fighter" is an awfully broad brush. I also think that "Balance" is highly overrated, and trying to enforce it through the rules does too much to "lock down" playstyle.

I think that all the classes should have options in all three arenas, but that exercising those options should be up to the player. I also, think/hope/believe that the "themes" we've heard so much about may be the mechanic that lets people do that for the social sphere.

I'm not so sure about all the dungeoneering/exploration abilities. Historically, those are a province reserved (somewhat) for the roguish types. Although, the more I think about it, the more that can/could be wrapped into themes as well. So "Thief" might be something that any class can be. We know "Warlord" is currently a theme, I believe. However, we also know that they want all the classes from all the previous PHB1s. Maybe some of them are getting cross-moted into themes?

 

[pemerton]

We've seen at least some annecdotal evidence of games which have balanced things out better in previous editions already.

What do you have in mind here?

It's important for the system to provide a good foundation for the GM to use, but it's up to the GM to actually utilise it. A system that builds your adventure for you entirely risks feeling a little hollow I fear.

I'm not sure what you have in mind here, either. I can think of at least two possibilities. (1) the system only balances over the adventure, not the encounter, so it "prebuilds" your adventures for you, in that they must have a certain minimum number and spread of encounters. (2) the system only balances if each encounter (or, at least, each major encounter) is equally open to contributions from all PCs, and therefore it "prebuilds" your major encounters for you, by requiring them to fit the specialties of the PCs for whom you are building it.

Problem (1) can arise if some PCs can nova and others can't (the 15-min day issue). It can also arise if some encounters are better suited to only some PCs, and so an adventure without the right mix won't balance the spotlight properly.

Problem (2) can arise if each PC is strong in each pillar, but has differing ways of being strong. Presumably it won't arise if each PC is strong in each pillar in the same way, but this would then cause the homogoneity problem.

 

[Anaxander]

I think this post really gets to the essence of the necessity for both "balance" and "variety" between characters:

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.

Mechanical "balance" then does not mean that all characters contribute equally to a (combat, skill, social) encounter. It means that characters have an equal opportunity* to shine throughout the narrative of a session / adventure / campaign, while still feeling important and part of the team when they are not shining.

In order to back up "having fun in the game" players have to feel both "balanced" and "different".
Balanced in the sense that a cleric is not, in general**, a better fighter than the fighter and the wizard a better manipulator than a socially specialized rogue.
Different in the sense that not all characters are created equal and are good in overcoming any type of challenge. This is a good thing because it creates character variety and encourages team work.

In order to create balance and difference between players, we need not only fluff, but also mechanics to back up this feeling in play.

I would argue that "balance" is diachronic rather than synchronic. This means that the feeling of balance should emerge after a certain time of play. Ideally this would be within the time frame of one session of play, but within the context of a broader adventure or campaign there are entire sessions where one character is shining more than others.

From this perspective, judging balance between characters synchronically, i.e. on the basis of a single encounter, is in most cases impossible because no single encounter can contain all different levels and domains of play and will inevitably play more into the strengths of character X than Y.

To a large extent this feeling of balance is created by the DM, who creates narrative opportunities for players to let their characters shine. But the ability of players to actually use these opportunities and stand in the spotlight is determined by mechanics. Mechanics should support the ability of all characters to do something relevant in any circumstance, while at the same time ensuring the ability of all characters to be generally "the best" in specific circumstances. This means that mechanical variety and difference between characters is not a threat to balance, but a requirement.

To phrase it differently, characters should have some options which enable them to participate or contribute in each of the three pillars, but they should be better at one of the pillars, and perhaps "the best" at a subdomain of a pillar.

In summary: the DM should ensure that throughout a sessions, adventure and/or campaign equal opportunities exist for any player to put his character in the spotlight. This is the real balancing act of the game.
Mechanics ensure that (1) a player can make good use of this opportunity through the "difference" of his character and that his "moment" is not "stolen" by other players whose characters easily emulate the char's specialization; (2) that other players are not sidelined, but still contribute to the encounter.


* Of course, a DM can only create opportunities for PLAYERS. If a player chooses to play a "social" heavy character but is an awkward roleplayer, it's entirely possible he"misses out on his moments to shine. It's the same scenario with a player creating a fighter with a lot of tactical feats, but who isn't able to make good use of the battleground setup the DM offers.

** In general is a key word here. A cleric may be very well able to call on her god to grant her superhuman strength and beat the fighter on his own game - but this should be the exception, not the norm. A wizard succeeding in casting charm person *is* more effective than the rogue with maxed diplomacy skills, but this is not a continuous, reliable ability like the rogue's social talent.

 

[pemerton]

I find your discourse poisonous and want to point this out.

Don't hold back!

I have one player who is just a stereotypical case of someone who claims that they play for "the story" and that they like "deep characterization" when in play it's the most obvious thing in the world that what they like is beating the scenarios that I as DM give them.

He even plays Call of Cthulhu like that (learning to run CoC in a satisfyingly gamist fashion I think made me into a much better D&D DM. It's like weightlifting for gamist DMing. But I digress.)

If he were reading this thread, he might agree with you (sounds good!), but he doesn't know his own preferences.

It's not your fault, it's just unfortunate.

I would agree that I'm not responsible for the lack of self-knowledge of one of your players whom I assume I have never met or otherwise interacted with.

you remarked in the GNS thread that Gygaxian gamism remains the most popular D&D mode of play today.

I think it's the single most prominent approach on these boards. I don't have a view on whether it's the most popular mode of play more generally, or even the most popular on these boards. I assume that Encounters and Lair Assault are pretty popular, or why would WotC run them? And they're not very Gygaxian.

It's just unfortunate how easy it is to stigmatize gamism in general.

Who's stigmatising gamism? I didn't say anything about gamism in this thread. In the recent long GNS thread on General I defended the centrality of gamism to D&D against the arguments of the OP that gamism is a deviant or secondary form of RPGing.

Part of the complaint about 3E fighters having no social skills is driven by gamist concerns. There is an arena of challenge in which fighters are hosed not through bad play, or even bad PC building, but by unfair limitations in the PC build mechanics themselves.

If you're objecting to the idea that some PCs might be good at wooing maidens, others at scaring them, I think this is analogous - in the social domain - to some PCs being good in melee, others in archery. The latter has, for years, been creating more complex and dynamic game play as the players have to develop a plan of action that brings their divergent capacities to bear while not getting beaten by their enemies. Whereas it is notorious that D&D social interaction - especially in its 3E form - is plagued by the problem of everyone deferring to the "face" PC. One way to get rid of this problem is to make everyone be able to be "the face". Which is then seen to threaten homogeneity. Which can, in turn, be avoided if different PCs have different "faces" - eg some nice, others scary. Which also then opens up a scope for interesting social play somewhat on a par with the existing interesting tactical dynamics of combat.

I'm sure there are other ways to design a gamist system around the three pillars, but the above strikes me as one obvious approach.

It would be a little gauche of me to go over to a Sorcerer or Dogs in the Vineyard forum and complain about the lack of support for this.

I'm confused. The only thing that I've said there is a lack of support for is how to run skill challenges. And I think that's a legitimate complaint, given that they are meant to be core to action resolution in 4e. As a mechanic, they're obviously derived from other "extended contest/scene resolution" mechanics in games like HeroWars/Quest and Maelstrom Storytelling. In fact, the 4e DMG 2 has Robin Laws regurgitate a whole lot of stuff from HeroQuest revised, but unfortunately, it is not adjusted to fit the 4e approaches to encounter design and action resolution (which are different from HeroQuest in some important ways) and is therefore close to useless for the 4e GM.

There are other obvious points at which 4e draws on other contemporary games for ideas and advice. Save My Game, for example, in a column last year advised using "Let It Ride" in 4e.

One thing that's interesting, though, is that many of these games don't emphasise party play in the same way as D&D does, and therefore don't face quite the same issues in respect of "3 pillars" PC-building. They put the pressure elsewhere, like how to have the stories of the separate PCs connect, and how to make action resolution matter at the group level in the metagame, even if it's separated in the gameworld.

But I cannot actually blame you for it. It is your prerogative to argue for the D&D that you want.

I'm not even arguing for any form of D&D in this thread. I'm just suggesting various ways how 3 pillars design might be done.

 

[hikaizer]

What do you have in mind here?

I meant that there have been accounts of Fighters being able to do things aside from fight, and Rogues being able to contribute to combat. There's enough material now in 3E to allow for most of the permutations if you're willing to compromise in other areas.

I'm not sure what you have in mind here, either. I can think of at least two possibilities. (1) the system only balances over the adventure, not the encounter, so it "prebuilds" your adventures for you, in that they must have a certain minimum number and spread of encounters. (2) the system only balances if each encounter (or, at least, each major encounter) is equally open to contributions from all PCs, and therefore it "prebuilds" your major encounters for you, by requiring them to fit the specialties of the PCs for whom you are building it.

What I really meant was that if you just roll for all of the encounters as you play, or perhaps even before the session then the game can lack a sense of life. The GM is an important part of the game and their job is important to really make the game be engaging. That's all I really was trying to explain with the comment, but I think I might not have worded it so well. Now it seems somewhat of a tangent to the main discussion anyway.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It's already been mentioned a couple of times in these discussions and circled around more than that, but I'll state it more baldly: A big part of the disconnect/fuss over the line between balance and "being useful" on one hand, versus character differences and weaknesses on the other hand--is ultimately caused by over-specialization in class mechanics, rather than balance or lack thereof.

That is, there is nothing wrong with the idea that Bob the Socially Awkward Fighter is built so that he really can't contribute in social settings--even with intimidate--provided that is satisfactory to Bob's player (and potentially the group, depending on how the table views minimal contribution). There is also equally nothing wrong with the idea of Sally the Social Butterfly Fighter (or in many editions, "Fighter"), with the same caveats. And likewise, there should be plenty of room in between those extremes.

There is, however, something terribly wrong with this gross distortion of the "fatal flaw" in mythic characterization, being systematically enforced by class limits, as if every Fighter was not only Achilles or Odysseus, but instead of having the "fatal flaw" was a walking basket case of broadly and deeply felt flaws. It's as if we said that Robin Hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor meant that he had to ignore all laws, all the time while simultaneously performing every kind of good works imaginable to make up for it. I realize that at the table you need to exaggerate the effect a bit to make it felt, much like the actors on the stage need to be more expansive compared to film, but there are still limits!

You can, of course, get around this by not having much in the way of mechanics for most things outside of combat and a bit of key exploration, and "roleplay it". That will work for some people. But if there is to be mechanics for wider exploration and social areas, then "totally inept" should be something that is relatively rare. And of course part of this problem in 3E and later is that the nature of the roll and the modifiers thus far has made narrow uber specialization the way to be somewhat useful, whereas in many cases, a more interesting and toned down mix would better fit the intended characterization.

TL;DR: If you design mechanics for all three pillars such that hyper-specialization is rewarded and expected, you cannot reconcile the preferences of those who want some broad competency with those that want more weaknesses.

 

[I'm A Banana]

TL;DR: If you design mechanics for all three pillars such that hyper-specialization is rewarded and expected, you cannot reconcile the preferences of those who want some broad competency with those that want more weaknesses.

It's sort of the old bard argument.

If you have a jack-of-all-trades, they are necessarily eclipsed by a party of specialists. On the other hand, if you have a character capable of equalling the specialists in all areas, they are necessarily overpowered -- they have none of the weaknesses of the rest of the party.

You kind of have to have all characters be equally competent on all the pillars, or you have to have a character with strengths and weaknesses.

I vastly prefer the latter. It is more varied, more chaotic, more interesting, more fun. I personally find that the main appeal of the former is a fear of being "unbalanced," but if there's a strictly even balance, it is deeply unsatisfying to a large portion of D&D players (including me). Variety is what keeps things interesting and entertaining in my book, and a precariously balanced game has no inherent appeal to me.

Not to say that balance has no value, just that diversity is much more valuable to me. I don't want my artificer to be able to contribute well to a social encounter. I'm glad she can roll a Diplomacy check if she has to (she isn't Always Failing) and I'm glad she's not great at it, so usually some other party member needs to.

For me, this plays into the nature of D&D has a party game. You could say that 4e's combat roles work similarly. Everyone can deal damage, not everyone is a Striker, and some classes (Pacifist Cleric; Lazylord) don't deal damage themselves at all. Everyone can roll check for a social skill success, but not everyone is equally good at it. That's the job of the specialist.