The Paradigm of Pillars

[Mishihari Lord]

I like the pillars idea because in a way it works exactly the opposite of roles. Roles promote specialization in PCs, while pillars promote being a generalist.

 

[pauljathome]

Perhaps, but what's wrong with picking a split, and using it as a guide to design the game?

If they go for some form of codified balance across the pillars then my "knows lots of things" character is quite likely to be hard to build effectively. As is my nature themed character or my sea themed character etc.

And it is going to be harder for me to create a campaign where characters ability to create artistic items is important (eg, Rokugan).

 

[Minigiant]

I have no problems with the pillars method. Let me give you an organic way the pillars method would show up in the roleplay.

I run a campaign where the PCs run an NPC thieves guild. They hire NPCs, send them on missions, and take a percentage of the profits.

Now at first, they hired anybody and sent them on missions. But most would turn up dead or arrested. Tired of paying of judges and cops, they evaluated why their thieves constantly failed. The members of their guild did not have the features of a proper thief. The thieves needed:

Stealth
Lock picking
Combat skill

The other issue was numbers. Their thieves were too low level to cover for someone else. So anyone sent had to self sufficient in their 3 pillars as someone had to unlock the doors inbetween and the chests at the end if any money is to be stolen.

So they fired all NPCs who would not multiclass into a rogues or someone who could cast Knock and Invisibility. The PC wizard taught all the casters Invisibility and Knock.

And technically they could have fully roleplay the thief missions rather than treat it like a bored. And someone could roleplay the NPCs fired or killed. And if you were fired, you could not blame the PCs for doing so. You couldn't do all the aspects your job.

But in my guild example, the pillar were forced because efficiency and success required it. In D&D, interest and immersion requires it. Players, by default, want to be involved in the major aspects game. But the part of the game that takes of the most time varies from group to group. Some groups are heavy combat. Others are exploration and interaction. Others are combat and interaction.

The designers don't know how you play. Nor should they conform to your group as the model of play if they ever find out how you play. So they have to balance ever character within ever pillar. So the group that spends 2 hours fighting and 10 minutes talking has every character involve. So the group that is 2 hours of social and exploration each has every character involved. So the ⅓ each group has every character involved. Unless they use pillars, they either have to force a certain time of gameplay or suggest banlists for character types/classes that can't fit in some campaigns.

 

[pauljathome]

The pillars aren't as artificial as all that.

They actually arise out of the way that people actually play the game.

I'm not sure that linking to another post that claims that there are 3 non combat pillars is the best way to support the argument that there are 2 non combat pillars.

 

[Gold Roger]

Splitting the game into the three pillars from a theoretic viewpoint isn't bad. Actually, I think it's a good way to look at D&D.

But the recent "trap choice" article on feats worries me. I fear that they take the split to far and to literally, to a point where it will be detrimental to the game.

That article feels to me like when 4th was comming in.

For example they identified the PC roles of striker, leader, controller and defender. A thing that was important to consider.

But then that idea was pushed to an exegarated point, where it became artificial and ridiculous.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Actually you can´t use magic missile to break a lock. That spell never worked this way...

I like the Idea of having combat and non combat proficiencies. But I like them beeing interchangable to a degree:

everyone, IIRC could use a combat proficiency as a non-combat proficiency. A fighter could also do it the other way round. (Or was this just with skills and powers skill points?) So I would wish theme´s give combat and non-combat feats by fedault in rotation. You can swap them for different feats. The DM decides, if you can swap cross pillar!

 

[dkyle]

If they go for some form of codified balance across the pillars then my "knows lots of things" character is quite likely to be hard to build effectively.

Why? I'm sure there will "knows things" options. They'll just be categorized according to which kinds of situations that knowledge is most likely to be useful in. What's wrong with that?

As is my nature themed character or my sea themed character etc.

Those are both obviously Exploration.

And it is going to be harder for me to create a campaign where characters ability to create artistic items is important (eg, Rokugan).

Seems to me, Art would be Interaction. It's primary use is influencing other people in some way.

 

[Dausuul]

Splitting the game into the three pillars from a theoretic viewpoint isn't bad. Actually, I think it's a good way to look at D&D.

But the recent "trap choice" article on feats worries me. I fear that they take the split to far and to literally, to a point where it will be detrimental to the game.

That article feels to me like when 4th was comming in.

For example they identified the PC roles of striker, leader, controller and defender. A thing that was important to consider.

But then that idea was pushed to an exegarated point, where it became artificial and ridiculous.

Yeah, this is how I feel. The core concepts of striker-leader-controller-defender have been around since the cleric took its place in the Big Four, and consciously thinking about that and considering it in design was an excellent idea. But when those roles become rigid game mechanics, where every striker class must have a 1/round damage bonus, and every leader must have a twice-per-encounter minor action to grant a healing surge, and every defender must have a marking ability, it's gone way too far.

Likewise, the pillars are an excellent way to approach the question "What do people do playing D&D?" But things like pillars and roles belong primarily in the brainstorming, blue-skying part of the design process, when laying out the broad strokes of the system. Once you get to filling in details, such concepts should move into the background.

 

[Caster]

Though EGG tells us that D&D is a game, many do not approach it that way, despite having dice in hand. Many people play D&D as cooperative storytelling, or imagine that they do.

For those folks, talks of pillars, silos, and all that draws back the curtain.

Many people want the Wizard of Oz, not the traveling salesman.

This. We bitch at WOTC when the design process isn't transparent but then we bitch even more when they show us how professional designers make games.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not sure that linking to another post that claims that there are 3 non combat pillars is the best way to support the argument that there are 2 non combat pillars.

The thing about my original post on the 3 noncomabt pillars was that it was closely based on the existing skill system for 4e, and what those skills accomplish.

However, the one pillar they drop -- discovery -- can be supplanted by the others. "Discovery" is just what your character knows that you the player might not know. Rather than make that a skill check, you might make that part of interacting with the game world, or part of an assumed level of skill. Int 17 might automatically know XYZ, and can find out anything else via going into the world and figuring it out.

So it's not strictly necessary for gameplay to have that pillar. It's really just a convenience of the skill system.