The Paradigm of Pillars

[B.T.]

Inspired by this thread.


This whole "pillars" paradigm is worrisome to me. It reminds me too much of "roles" in 4e, where a class is defined by a metagame concept and not how it exists within the game. The idea itself is not problematic, but I see the developers attempting to codify elements of 5e which resist codification. You can attempt to break a game down into singular data points--Roleplaying, Exploration, and Combat--but it will fail in the same way that attempting to classify a game as Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist fail.

The reason it fails is because it is an artificial form of game design. It excises the creative process in favor of a logical, analytical construction of ordered game mechanics producing a sterile result. A game ought to arise naturally and organically. It can be analyzed and refined once it has been created, but to attempt to create a game out of preconstructed building blocks that fit together perfectly will result in a stale, uninteresting game. Can you imagine a movie that was created in that sort of manner? The director saying, "This scene will have one-fourth of our total Emotional Drama Quotient. I require at least one character crying, but no more than two. Next we will have Action Scene #2. This will need five gunshots and one explosion. Our surveys show that if we do less than this, people won't stay interested, but if we do more, they'll get bored."

Ridiculous. And yet, I fear, this is what 5e is going to do with the paradigm of pillars: "This is an Exploration option. It should not increase your ability to explore by more than 1.75, which we have calculated by averaging the possible number of scenarios that it might apply and then dividing it by pi."

The reason that this will fail is because things do not fall into discrete packages in role-playing games (or life in general). When my thief decides to hide from some orcs, sneak behind one, and backstab him, is he exploring (because he's scouting the area), is he roleplaying (because he's afraid to enter direct combat with them), or is he having a combat encounter (because he's sneak attacking them)? If we're fighting and I convince the guards to surrender, am I roleplaying (because I used a social skill) or am I having a combat encounter (because we were fighting)? If I use magic missile to break the lock on a prison cell, am I exploring (because we're in a prison cell) or am I having a combat encounter (because I used a combat ability and potentially used up a daily combat resource)?

The above questions are rhetorical. (Given this is the Internet, I feel compelled to point this out, lest the forest be missed for the trees.) The point is, an entire game session will have encounters that are blends of the three. Attempting to rigidly define them and shoehorn classes into one of the three pillars--and trying to balance them around this, no less!--cannot succeed.

 

[dkyle]

The reason it fails is because it is an artificial form of game design. It excises the creative process in favor of a logical, analytical construction of ordered game mechanics producing a sterile result. A game ought to arise naturally and organically. It can be analyzed and refined once it has been created, but to attempt to create a game out of preconstructed building blocks that fit together perfectly will result in a stale, uninteresting game.

I don't see how that is remotely inevitable. Producing a game out of logical, ordered game mechanics is just good design.

Can you imagine a movie that was created in that sort of manner? The director saying, "This scene will have one-fourth of our total Emotional Drama Quotient. I require at least one character crying, but no more than two. Next we will have Action Scene #2. This will need five gunshots and one explosion. Our surveys show that if we do less than this, people won't stay interested, but if we do more, they'll get bored."

I don't see how that has anything to do with the game design. Noone is prescripting what the "scenes" in a game session will have. The pillars are simply points of focus for the game design.

Ridiculous. And yet, I fear, this is what 5e is going to do with the paradigm of pillars: "This is an Exploration option. It should not increase your ability to explore by more than 1.75, which we have calculated by averaging the possible number of scenarios that it might apply and then dividing it by pi."

Ridiculous straw man. All options should be balanced. Whether it's balance among Exploration options, or among all options. This is nothing new.

The reason that this will fail is because things do not fall into discrete packages in role-playing games (or life in general). When my thief decides to hide from some orcs, sneak behind one, and backstab him, is he exploring (because he's scouting the area), is he roleplaying (because he's afraid to enter direct combat with them), or is he having a combat encounter (because he's sneak attacking them)?

First, roleplay is really "interaction", as in character interaction; they realized the folly of the term "roleplaying" for a pillar a while back, but sometimes they slip up.

So, there's no real "interaction" here. But I would expect that scenerio to be resolved with both combat and exploration mechanics. Nobody is suggesting that a given situation is only one of the pillars. Just that those pillars are useful for looking at the aspects of most situations.

If we're fighting and I convince the guards to surrender, am I roleplaying (because I used a social skill) or am I having a combat encounter (because we were fighting)?

Again, the pillars have nothing to do with what the encounter is. Only what the mechanics are geared towards. So you'd be using interaction mechanics, during the combat. Nothing wrong with that.

If I use magic missile to break the lock on a prison cell, am I exploring (because we're in a prison cell) or am I having a combat encounter (because I used a combat ability and potentially used up a daily combat resource)?

Magic Missile would be a combat-focused mechanic, but that doesn't mean that you couldn't use it in an exploration-style manner. Just as a weapon strike is clearly a combat ability, but could be used to break things, too (exploration).

The above questions are rhetorical. (Given this is the Internet, I feel compelled to point this out, lest the forest be missed for the trees.)

Why are they rhetorical? They're useful examples for describing what the pillars are meant to be. I think you are misunderstanding the point of them.

The point is, an entire game session will have encounters that are blends of the three. Attempting to rigidly define them and shoehorn classes into one of the three pillars--and trying to balance them around this, no less!--cannot succeed.

Encounters are not being shoehorned into one pillar. That is not what they're for.

Classes are not being shoehorned into one pillar. In fact, we've been specifically told that every class will have at least basic abilities towards pillar (and the blog you linked the thread of even suggests equal amounts towards each pillar).

Only specific mechanics are being designed with a focus towards the pillars. There has been no talk of forcing mechanics to be used only for the pillar they are designed towards.

 

[Serendipity]

I think in general the whole pillars thing is a metaphor for a design principle that a lot of people on the interweebs are taking far far far too literally. But then, that's what fans do (a good number of us anyway). Mind, I'm also hoping the designers aren't taking it as literally (and I generally don't think they are).
Yes, it's good to have all three in a game. No, there doesn't need to be specific mechanical implementation of every little thing. At least, not without modules. Not hard.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Keep in mind that game designers talk about this kind of thing so that they look like they know what they're doing. Otherwise, how would we know they weren't just throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if it stuck?

 

[pauljathome]

The reason that this will fail is because things do not fall into discrete packages in role-playing games (or life in general). .

I completely agree.

The split is highly artificial. One could easily come up with different splits that would be equally valid. Or with more splits (for example, I think that "Know things" is as valid a pillar as exploration)

 

[Mattachine]

I think that many people don't think of D&D as a game, in the manner that Settlers of Cataan is a game, or that Monopoly is a game, or that basketball is a game. If you don't think of D&D as a game, with rules, strategies, and so forth, then any game design that reminds you that it is a game is going to be troublesome.

 

[Minigiant]

I think that many people don't think of D&D as a game, in the manner that Settlers of Cataan is a game, or that Monopoly is a game, or that basketball is a game. If you don't think of D&D as a game, with rules, strategies, and so forth, then any game design that reminds you that it is a game is going to be troublesome.

I think that is the crux of the issue.
Some see D&D as a formal game. Some don't.

The pillar approach is a reaction who see D &D as a game and seek a mild level of fairness. As players only enjoy fair games or games where the good tilt is on their side.

 

[dkyle]

The split is highly artificial. One could easily come up with different splits that would be equally valid. Or with more splits (for example, I think that "Know things" is as valid a pillar as exploration)

Perhaps, but what's wrong with picking a split, and using it as a guide to design the game? We can still have "know stuff" abilities; I expect they'll be categorized according to what pillar it's generally "knowing stuff" about, and what kind of situations that knowledge tends to be useful in.

It's not like "Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard" isn't artificial. Or the six ability scores.

Just because there are lots of other possible choices, doesn't mean that picking some is bad.

 

[Doug McCrae]

You could say the same thing about alignment. Or classes. Or levels. Or hit points - attempting to bring totally disparate concepts such as wounds, fatigue, luck and skill together into one category. Or, well, any roleplaying game rules.

That's what rpgs do. They attempt to codify and categorise reality. Messy, chaotic, discrete reality, which cannot readily be contained in 60, or even 200, pages of relatively simple rules. Rpgs do simulation very very crudely.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think that many people don't think of D&D as a game, in the manner that Settlers of Cataan is a game, or that Monopoly is a game, or that basketball is a game. If you don't think of D&D as a game, with rules, strategies, and so forth, then any game design that reminds you that it is a game is going to be troublesome.

Well, Gary Gygax tells us that it is a game. That's why you get xp for gold. And why magic-users can't use swords.