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: 5818897" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>KM, I think there's some stuff on which we're agreed, and some stuff on which we have divergent preferences, but it's a bit hard to work it all out in the abstract. I'll just pick up on some points that struck me.</p><p></p><p>I'm a bit leery of this "success" notion, but otherwise I agree. Part of why I'm a big fan of rerolls rather than bonuses.</p><p></p><p>Sure, but I think this is to a significant extent about scenario and encounter design, and also adjudication. That's where the "needs" (in "the party needs to do") comes from. And also the "advantages" and other ways of addressing the fiction.</p><p></p><p>To try and give a concrete example: barbarians and fighters as just socially inept is a problem in design, I think. (And has been regarded by some as such for a long time - I'm thinking of an article (in Dragon #95 or thereabouts) on non-combat challenges for AD&D, and the discussion of what exactly the fighter might do to contribute - I remember "looking intimidating" being one suggested answer). On the other hand, a situation in which the party decides that sneaking in is their best option, and then has to work out how to get the fighters in (preferably with their weapons and armour), is not a problem but of the essence of play.</p><p></p><p>Part of what I'm trying to get at here is the difference between a disadvantage/weakness/specialistion that just makes everyone at thet able feel that the PC is a deadweight, as opposed to something which actively drives the game forward, and which makes the player of that PC an active contributor to resolving the challenges the game throws up.</p><p></p><p>Which takes me to your gnome:</p><p></p><p>I had thought of the grim antihero as having an impact via his/her charismatic grimness, but that's by the by. I want to talk about the sort of stuff your gnome is doing. I think the game needs to give much better advice to GMs on how to handle these sorts of situations. And perhaps also to players, on how they might approach such situations.</p><p></p><p>Burning Wheel, for example, requires (as part of its advancement mechanics) that PCs face a certain number of checks that they are almost certain to lose. And comments that, in light of this, wound penalties are actually a good thing because they increase the likelihood of getting such checks (given that difficutly is assessed after penalties and (most) bonuses). So players have a reason not to always try to max their bonus, or have only the "face" do the talking, etc. And then this is supplemented with advice for GMs on how to run a game in which these sorts of situations figure somewhat prominently, and yet the PCs still survive and the players don't feel completely hosed. (Call of Cthulhu gives another, though very different, example of an RPG where the players are generally prepared to have their PCs try stuff that they won't win at, and in which the GM is given some tools and ideas to help adjudicate this.)</p><p></p><p>D&D has, in my view, always sucked at this - both in reassuring players that they can try stuff they won't succeed at, and in helping GMs adjudicate this (in part because it is the opposite of Gygaxian "skilled" play). If it is meant to be part of the game - as an alternative to full-fledge three-pillars-ism - then the rulebooks should talk about it.</p><p></p><p>Well, in 4e using a different weapon can make a fairly big difference. But in every version of D&D there's been a big difference between melee and ranged combat. And while the goal might be the same (kill your enemies) a lot of the play is in the mechanical and story intricacies of the different means.</p><p></p><p>But in the context of social situations, I think the gap extends upward not just through the intricacy of the means but to the goal itself - whereas generally speaking, shooting someone in order to kill them doesn't make it harder to try and kill them by stabbing them (although AD&D took a different view with its shooting into melee rules), trying to influence someone by scaring them may (depending on context) make it harder to influence them by wooing them. The interaction at this higher level can, in my experience, mean the shared reliance on CHA isn't such a big deal. The difference in play between a smooth but shallow Bluffer and an honest and reliable Diplomat is often as great as the difference between an archer and a swordsman, despite both the social PCs relying on CHA.</p><p></p><p>I'm not really into minor encounters at the moment - I tend to see them as sub-elements of major encounters, or as part of exploration. But anyway, I agree that distributed specialisation isn't really an issue here: "The thief picks the lock, then we all go through the door."</p><p></p><p>With major encounters, though, I think it is a problem if some PC can only contribute in a minor way. And I see "three pillars" design as intended to help avoid that. I also think that more advice needs to be given to GMs on how to frame and adjudicate scenes so as to avoid the issue - and the better that advice, the wider the range of PCs who satisfy the three pillars requirement (for example, as per my other line of conversation on this thread, by explaining how to set up and adjudicate situations in which a fighter can use Athletics as a social skill).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5818897, member: 42582"] KM, I think there's some stuff on which we're agreed, and some stuff on which we have divergent preferences, but it's a bit hard to work it all out in the abstract. I'll just pick up on some points that struck me. I'm a bit leery of this "success" notion, but otherwise I agree. Part of why I'm a big fan of rerolls rather than bonuses. Sure, but I think this is to a significant extent about scenario and encounter design, and also adjudication. That's where the "needs" (in "the party needs to do") comes from. And also the "advantages" and other ways of addressing the fiction. To try and give a concrete example: barbarians and fighters as just socially inept is a problem in design, I think. (And has been regarded by some as such for a long time - I'm thinking of an article (in Dragon #95 or thereabouts) on non-combat challenges for AD&D, and the discussion of what exactly the fighter might do to contribute - I remember "looking intimidating" being one suggested answer). On the other hand, a situation in which the party decides that sneaking in is their best option, and then has to work out how to get the fighters in (preferably with their weapons and armour), is not a problem but of the essence of play. Part of what I'm trying to get at here is the difference between a disadvantage/weakness/specialistion that just makes everyone at thet able feel that the PC is a deadweight, as opposed to something which actively drives the game forward, and which makes the player of that PC an active contributor to resolving the challenges the game throws up. Which takes me to your gnome: I had thought of the grim antihero as having an impact via his/her charismatic grimness, but that's by the by. I want to talk about the sort of stuff your gnome is doing. I think the game needs to give much better advice to GMs on how to handle these sorts of situations. And perhaps also to players, on how they might approach such situations. Burning Wheel, for example, requires (as part of its advancement mechanics) that PCs face a certain number of checks that they are almost certain to lose. And comments that, in light of this, wound penalties are actually a good thing because they increase the likelihood of getting such checks (given that difficutly is assessed after penalties and (most) bonuses). So players have a reason not to always try to max their bonus, or have only the "face" do the talking, etc. And then this is supplemented with advice for GMs on how to run a game in which these sorts of situations figure somewhat prominently, and yet the PCs still survive and the players don't feel completely hosed. (Call of Cthulhu gives another, though very different, example of an RPG where the players are generally prepared to have their PCs try stuff that they won't win at, and in which the GM is given some tools and ideas to help adjudicate this.) D&D has, in my view, always sucked at this - both in reassuring players that they can try stuff they won't succeed at, and in helping GMs adjudicate this (in part because it is the opposite of Gygaxian "skilled" play). If it is meant to be part of the game - as an alternative to full-fledge three-pillars-ism - then the rulebooks should talk about it. Well, in 4e using a different weapon can make a fairly big difference. But in every version of D&D there's been a big difference between melee and ranged combat. And while the goal might be the same (kill your enemies) a lot of the play is in the mechanical and story intricacies of the different means. But in the context of social situations, I think the gap extends upward not just through the intricacy of the means but to the goal itself - whereas generally speaking, shooting someone in order to kill them doesn't make it harder to try and kill them by stabbing them (although AD&D took a different view with its shooting into melee rules), trying to influence someone by scaring them may (depending on context) make it harder to influence them by wooing them. The interaction at this higher level can, in my experience, mean the shared reliance on CHA isn't such a big deal. The difference in play between a smooth but shallow Bluffer and an honest and reliable Diplomat is often as great as the difference between an archer and a swordsman, despite both the social PCs relying on CHA. I'm not really into minor encounters at the moment - I tend to see them as sub-elements of major encounters, or as part of exploration. But anyway, I agree that distributed specialisation isn't really an issue here: "The thief picks the lock, then we all go through the door." With major encounters, though, I think it is a problem if some PC can only contribute in a minor way. And I see "three pillars" design as intended to help avoid that. I also think that more advice needs to be given to GMs on how to frame and adjudicate scenes so as to avoid the issue - and the better that advice, the wider the range of PCs who satisfy the three pillars requirement (for example, as per my other line of conversation on this thread, by explaining how to set up and adjudicate situations in which a fighter can use Athletics as a social skill). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The danger of the Three Pillars of D&D
Top