Supporting the "Three Pillars" Combat, Exploration and Roleplay equally?

[Scribble]

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.

They would just need to work some sort of flavor into it.

Some magic is more powerfull but less controlled. Things like fireball, and stuff... It's mianly just raw energy, less controlled and lasts less time, but easier to memorize.

Rituals would be more controlled, but would be harder to cast.

 

[Quickleaf]

There are lots of exploration rules to draw from all editions of the game...forced marching, environmental hazards, random encounter checks/tables, overland travel rules, guide rules for rangers, divination spells, visibility, dungeon turns/movement, etc, etc.

For interaction there's much less D&D rules precedent to draw from...skills, charm spells, morale, NPC reaction table, and...is that it?

If we want more balance between rules for the 3 pillars, then it's interaction rules that need the most development.

 

[jshaft37]

...do away with the rigid dividing line between combat and non-combat. Just stop that .

100% Agreed. This makes it more difficult to capture that classic dungeon crawl feel as well.

There are lots of exploration rules to draw from all editions of the game...forced marching, environmental hazards, random encounter checks/tables, overland travel rules, guide rules for rangers, divination spells, etc, etc.

Additionally, many of the elements and rules regarding time are tied into exploration. But the game has gotten further away from these things as the editions progress. However, that isn't nearly as robust as the development of combat rules.

If we want more balance between rules for the 3 pillars, then it's interaction rules that need the most development.

When I hear "focus on the three pillars" (or whatever the exact terminology WotC used), to me that would mean mechanics, tools, rules, advice, etc roughly equal in capacity and quality for all three pillars.

If WotC is just going to make the system get out of the way for Exploration and Roleplay, then they aren't really focusing on the three pillars, imo. They are writing a game governing combat and letting the DM free-form everything else. Maybe that is the best way to go, but I can't help but think that if free form Exploration and Roleplay are ideal, then why wouldn't combat also be best suited for free form?

Alternatively, would it be possible to create a system that is ALL combat? Exploration is combat. Interaction is combat. Etc, Etc. I could see it as a possibility.

 

[dkyle]

First do away with the rigid dividing line between combat and non-combat. Just stop that .

The only way to actually "stop that" is to give equal rules support to combat and non-combat. Easier said than done. D&D has always had much more support for combat rules than non-combat rules, and a dividing line naturally emerges from that. Pretending the line doesn't exist solves nothing.

 

[jshaft37]

The only way to actually "stop that" is to give equal rules support to combat and non-combat. Easier said than done. D&D has always had much more support for combat rules than non-combat rules, and a dividing line naturally emerges from that. Pretending the line doesn't exist solves nothing.

Any thought on how that could potentially relate to the idea if it would be possible to create a system that is ALL combat? Exploration is combat. Interaction is combat. Etc, Etc. I could see it as a possibility.

 

[dkyle]

Any thought on how that could potentially relate to the idea if it would be possible to create a system that is ALL combat? Exploration is combat. Interaction is combat. Etc, Etc. I could see it as a possibility.

Strands of Fate has Social and Mental combat (Interaction), that works essentially like Physical combat.

Donjon doesn't quite have Exploration as Combat, but the die rolling mechanics for Combat largely apply to Exploration as well. The caveat is that it is strongly based on narrative control. If a player get a good role (say, on Perception), they can state some facts about what they find. This is a pretty stark deviation from traditional D&D.

I think with D&D, it would be hard to make an Interaction as Combat or Exploration as Combat system simply because D&D Combat is traditionally so heavily simulationist, which makes it hard to generalize the mechanics.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The only way to actually "stop that" is to give equal rules support to combat and non-combat. Easier said than done. D&D has always had much more support for combat rules than non-combat rules, and a dividing line naturally emerges from that. Pretending the line doesn't exist solves nothing.

There was plenty of exploration rules support and WOTC just kept stripping it out of the game bit by bit.

Time management
Wandering monsters
Evasion & Pursuit
Wilderness exploration & getting lost
Treasure for XP

Take a look at a B/X rulebook sometime and behold the mighty couple pages of combat rules.

If by rules support, you mean convert into a dice fest then no thanks.

 

[Quickleaf]

There was plenty of exploration rules support and WOTC just kept stripping it out of the game bit by bit.

Time management
Wandering monsters
Evasion & Pursuit
Wilderness exploration & getting lost
Treasure for XP

Take a look at a B/X rulebook sometime and behold the mighty couple pages of combat rules.

If by rules support, you mean convert into a dice fest then no thanks.

Yeah, this is what I was getting at, thanks Exploder Wizard Older editions of D&D have lots of rules support for exploration that the designers could take inspiration from.

However, there really isn't much of an equivalent when it comes to interacting with NPCs; that has always been more free-form.

When I hear "focus on the three pillars" (or whatever the exact terminology WotC used), to me that would mean mechanics, tools, rules, advice, etc roughly equal in capacity and quality for all three pillars.

Yes... BUT.... the type of rules for exploration, interaction, and combat should not be the same. Yes, have them be well-designed and well-playtested, of course, but each of these "pillars" needs different types of rules. Exploration is well-served by rules which simulate a consistent environment, passage of time, and world paradigm. Interaction is well-served by rules which lean more to the "indie" side and engage players in the fiction. Combat is well-served by rules which accommodate improvisational stunts while being tethered to hard numbers. All IMHO of course.

Alternatively, would it be possible to create a system that is ALL combat? Exploration is combat. Interaction is combat. Etc, Etc. I could see it as a possibility.

That has been done in Dynasties & Demagogues, Spycraft, and several other games. I don't think it's an elegant solution because you're taking a model that works well in combat (roll and deplete points to win) and trying to apply it to scenarios that don't have clear victory conditions and have multiple possible outcomes.

What *might* be interesting is, for example, to have a stakes-setting element when interacting with NPCs. Something where the players get to influence what the victory / defeat conditions are when there's a conflict of interests.

 

[jshaft37]

Yes... BUT.... the type of rules for exploration, interaction, and combat should not be the same. Yes, have them be well-designed and well-playtested, of course, but each of these "pillars" needs different types of rules. Exploration is well-served by rules which simulate a consistent environment, passage of time, and world paradigm. Interaction is well-served by rules which lean more to the "indie" side and engage players in the fiction. Combat is well-served by rules which accommodate improvisational stunts while being tethered to hard numbers. All IMHO of course.

Agreed, that's why I mentioned that "quality and capacity" of the rules, rather than "quantity or type". I'm probably not choosing the correct language, I think we're on the same page. I mean that I would let to see rules for exploration and roleplaying as well-thought and well-designed as rules for combat, even if they take on an entirely different form or mechanic.

 

[BobTheNob]

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.

This is bang on. Really. Couldnt be more correct. I myself would say that I more than once guilty of violating this, but I like to try and be conscious of it.

I would however add that the system does need to incentivise players to believe that the other pillars can be just as engaging as combat can be. Alot of the time, as DM and adventure designer, I was injecting non-combat scenarios in the vain hope that players would pick up on that and go with it. But lets face it, when players are looking as 4 page characters sheets crammed with combat mechanics and dynamics with a (less than) 1/4 page side-bar for skills to summarise everything the exploration/interaction side of the game has to offer, it was no surprise that players wanted to jump straight back into combat every time.

That is not to say my group is a bunch of combat nuts. We have played many games in the past when rules were "combat-light" and their approach was a mix of exploration/combat. Over time games grew by constantly evolving combat mechanics to the point where you pick up a book (as a player) and 90% of what it has to offer you is in the form of cool combat options with a disclaimer at the bottom saying you can opt out of these cool things for a skill bonus. Its no wonder the players want to use combat to resolve everything...that's the best thing the rules are offering.

In summary, I completely agree with your point. But the rules need to offer equal enticements in the exploration/interaction pillars to get players believing it would be just as much fun to play the explorer/interactive when putting a character together. If you dont, players will fall back to creating combat titans and the idea of the open adventure, as altruistic as it is, just becomes "lets do combat", because thats what people characters are designed to do.