Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The danger of the Three Pillars of D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5818797" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I don't think so. I'm not saying that it <em>couldn't</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p><strong>TL;DR: the issue of homogeneity/entertaining failure is more-or-less orthogonal to the issue of "three pillars". </strong>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).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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").</p><p></p><p>Rerolls, or perhaps a broader range of aptitudes ("My guy can both woo maidens <em>and</em> scare them") seems a much better way to go.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5818797, member: 42582"] I don't think so. I'm not saying that it [I]couldn't[/I] 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. 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? 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). 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. [B]TL;DR: the issue of homogeneity/entertaining failure is more-or-less orthogonal to the issue of "three pillars". [/B]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. 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 [I]and[/I] scare them") seems a much better way to go. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The danger of the Three Pillars of D&D
Top