I think you're really on to something here but how do they add this while still maintaining that DnD feel? I think the mechanical benefit to these things will encourage buy in across a wider player base too.
Supporting the "Three Pillars" Combat, Exploration and Roleplay equally?
- Thread starter jshaft37
- Start date
I think you're really on to something here but how do they add this while still maintaining that DnD feel? I think the mechanical benefit to these things will encourage buy in across a wider player base too.
Nor do I think they need to. Copying other peoples ideas is not the way to go.
I raise this because I have seen it is possible to do more than just skill rolls. Do I want D&D to do what the others do...HELL NO. But I sure want to take a leaf out of their book in so far as believing it can be done. They dont have to copy, but at least learn that more can be done than a skill roll.
Ah, now you've hit on the problem. I would like to think that something like this could be done without leaving the impression that it doesn't feel like D&D, but this would be something that hasn't appeared previously at any point in D&D that I'm aware of. I suspect it's too risky a step to take considering how conservative the designers seem to be. I also wonder how it would go down with some of the potential buyers.
I understand your point perfectly, and I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I have to ask why not copy other games in this area? If their ideas work, and can be adapted to the particular mechanics of 5e, then why invent something different just because you can?
hemera
Explorer
What I'd like to see in regards to the exploration side is more rules for making environments more engaging and hazardous. Actually dangerous traps (looking at you 4e), extreme heat/cold, pathfinding over land/water/underground, that kind of thing.
Socially, I do actually like skill checks. We have a lot of wallflowers in our group, so it's not really fair to penalize them for not being able to articulate their characters intentions all the time. We do use discretionary bonuses for good rp though.
On both counts I do like rituals from the 4e system, but don't get me wrong I would like to see non combat spells returned to casters as well. I wouldn't mind though some effects turned to rituals that anyone could use for some kind of effect, like find the path, or zone of truth or something like that. Hedge magic that anyone could use for exploration or some social effect type spells. Just my thought.
Socially, I do actually like skill checks. We have a lot of wallflowers in our group, so it's not really fair to penalize them for not being able to articulate their characters intentions all the time. We do use discretionary bonuses for good rp though.
On both counts I do like rituals from the 4e system, but don't get me wrong I would like to see non combat spells returned to casters as well. I wouldn't mind though some effects turned to rituals that anyone could use for some kind of effect, like find the path, or zone of truth or something like that. Hedge magic that anyone could use for exploration or some social effect type spells. Just my thought.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
As I sadi elsewhere: The discrimination between damage spells and utility rituals is arteficial.
I don´t buy the explanation, that subtle magic which is used in rituals can´t be memorized and used in shorter time, but flashy magic like a fireball can´t be reproduced by a ritual.
In my opinion both, flashy and subtle spells should both be able to be cast in combat as prepared spells, and out of combat as rituals.
Actually I Imagine memorizing as partially casting the ritual and unlashing the magic at-will.
I don´t buy the explanation, that subtle magic which is used in rituals can´t be memorized and used in shorter time, but flashy magic like a fireball can´t be reproduced by a ritual.
In my opinion both, flashy and subtle spells should both be able to be cast in combat as prepared spells, and out of combat as rituals.
Actually I Imagine memorizing as partially casting the ritual and unlashing the magic at-will.
I think good rules for relationships/family (like someone mentioned the FATE), social background (ancestor/background feats, but without the mechanical part) and for reputation or honour are the way to go.
Yes, I know reputation and honour are in Unearthed Arcana, but I want it not squeezed into levels.
Indeed. I don't think it is enough for WotC to simply say that Next will retain the "feel" of classic D&D and that will be enough to support Roleplay and Exploration. In many ways I think those are two diverging ideas. Without any additional tools, you're just leaving it up to the DM to create exciting Roleplay and Exploration, and that is possible without using any game system. I know that many of my player's feel more engaged when they are rolling and using their utilities, equipment, feats, etc and I'd like the possibility for that style of play be brought into the fold in a less abstract way.
ExploderWizard
Hero
I am ok with roleplaying and exploration being mostly abstract if the only methods that can be thought of to make them more concrete is via dice fests like the skill challenge system.
The problems with the three pillars can be addressed by the system in a couple of ways. First do away with the rigid dividing line between combat and non-combat. Just stop that . Second, give characters abilities that will be useful in all pillars. Some will be stronger than others in certain pillars but make sure everyone can add something to each pillar.
The very best thing that can be done for this though, is through the adventures themselves.
Do not dictate what the players do:
This means don't pre plan strings of combat encounter, puzzle, combat encounter, skill challenge, combat encounter, combat encounter....
Adventures should outline scenarios not dictate player reactions. Present the conflicts, the motivations of those involved, descriptions of locales, and stats for npcs/monsters. How the PCs deal with things should be up to them.
This means that the players get to decide how the three pillars are balanced for the campaign. If the players design a combat heavy party then they will probably be solving a lot of problems with violence. If the party creates a largely exploration/socially focused party then they may try more trickery and negotiation to resolve adventures.
hafrogman
Adventurer
I think this is one of the big issues. For good or ill, D&D's mechanic is 'roll a dice, get a result'. This could probably work better for exploration, but I feel it really falls apart on social. I've seen really lackluster diplomacy rolling type of social interaction, and I've seen fun and engaging scenes where nobody rolled anything.
There are definitely systems that can mesh better with the social pillar, but they're not necessarily going to mesh well with the rest of the game. I think this is where the "modular" design of D&DN may come in. I can definitely imagine a social module getting published, but in the end, the rest of the game system is about numbers too much, where as the social pillar really isn't, and so it'll feel tacked on to the end. It may work well, but I don't see it being unified.
It depends on how they approach the pillars, and the nature of the character building choices related to the pillars.
If all three pillars are basically treated as equals, and being good in one means sacrificing in the others, then I'd expect to see similar rules support for each pillar. This is a radical deviation from every past edition, so I don't think it's a good approach.
If, instead, characters have "combat" build resources, and "non-combat" build resources (for Interaction and Exploration), and very few tradeoffs between the two categories, just different options of what kinds of combat and non-combat the character will be good at, then I think it's OK to have the well-codified combat rules and loose non-combat rules D&D has traditionally had. If Interaction and Exploration have similar rules support (which, again, has generally been the case), then it's OK to have trade-offs between those two.
If all three pillars are basically treated as equals, and being good in one means sacrificing in the others, then I'd expect to see similar rules support for each pillar. This is a radical deviation from every past edition, so I don't think it's a good approach.
If, instead, characters have "combat" build resources, and "non-combat" build resources (for Interaction and Exploration), and very few tradeoffs between the two categories, just different options of what kinds of combat and non-combat the character will be good at, then I think it's OK to have the well-codified combat rules and loose non-combat rules D&D has traditionally had. If Interaction and Exploration have similar rules support (which, again, has generally been the case), then it's OK to have trade-offs between those two.
