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

[Crazy Jerome]

Several of the more recent comments dovetail into what I meant some time ago, when I said the way to square this circle was to go aggressively sandbox with the base mechanics. (You'd then need to bolt on some modular support for other styles, given the popularity of adventure paths, linear adventures, and other such, but that's neither here nor there on my point.)

Say you have some mechanics that deal with doing a recon on the "next hex over there." This isn't some major resolution of every possible event, but a way for the party to do a brief (in real-world time, not game time), tentative exploration of the hex, and get some information. Whether they pursue that information further, or get drawn into combat, or dialog, or whatever, is largely up to them. That's nothing special, but it is something that a character with the right kind of skills/abilities can support. And outside of sandbox, it has to be more or less contrived.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Do we need to create the 12 page character booklet to even out exploration and interaction with combat or would trimming back the combat crunch on the character sheet to sane levels be more reasonable
?

Look at the humble but functional B/X character sheet. There isn't a whole lot there combat or otherwise. You can interact with the world and do what you think would be the most interesting thing rather than feel like you were missing something by not constantly scanning a multipage form looking for answers.

With a newer edition character sheet filled with buttons to press its no wonder that players get so self absorbed in the character sheet instead of the adventure. Whats happening? There has to be a power/skill/feat/ritual for this somewhere?

I would really like to see the core of the base game return to players focusing on what they are doing as opposed to obsessing over what their character can do mechanically.

 

[tlantl]

When I think of role playing and social interaction in D&D I don't immediately think of rolling dice. I think of the player conversing with the npc I'm playing. I like to keep any dice in the background. I don't want the player to have any idea how they are affecting the npc until I tell them what the results are.

When a die roll is called for in a social situation I don't want a confrontation style opposed roll to determine the outcome I want the player to feel his high charisma or strength had an effect but the dice didn't determine the outcome. Although in reality the dice might be the determining factor made secretly by the DM (using his discretion and new found empowerment)

Rather than have diplomacy vs sense motive or some such, I'd be more comfortable with a baseline number to check against with the player's ability score modifier (or whatever the new system employs) to be used to modify the result. This could be further modified by the situation whether good or bad.

I certainly don't want skill challenges or some other bizarre method of determining how the players or the group as a whole, by using dice alone, end up determining the outcome of delicate negotiations or shows of strength.

I think the group should role play not roll play in these encounters. persuasive players could get the job done without a single roll of the dice. Less effective players could get some help from their character sheets in the form of reaction adjustments derived from their abilities, spells, feats, or what have you.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

I'm not sure they have to. While I'm in favor of adding a lot of these things, I'd be perfectly happy to have them in a module. Even if the module had a big warning sticker on the front. Although a surprising number of people seem to have played some version of 3\4e with Aspects from FATE bolted on (presumably FATE points as well,) so for them it wouldn't be a departure.

 

[Ellington]

I really want all three pillars to be as viable when constructing an adventure. Just like there's adventures with mostly combat, so should it be possible to create good adventures with mostly exploration. However, I don't want to see a lot of new rules to deal with exploration and roleplay since skill checks aren't a very exciting mechanic. Sure, you could add some more elaborate rules but I think the way to go would be to create more guidelines rather than rules.

For exploration you could create a detailed chapter on how to build puzzles for your players to solve, and how to create situations where multiple exploration skills would be needed to advance and the players would have to figure out how to work together to solve it. A guide on how to create interesting and challenging dungeons and terrain to traverse would be awesome. As for mechanical rules, they should put some sort of set XP reward on exploration challenges just like combat, so it could become a more feasible part of each session and not just something to fill in between fights.

Similarly, I'd like to see guidelines instead of rules for roleplay. A chapter on how to create interesting NPCs with various goals that would intertwine with the players' goals. Not just for antagonists and allies, but especially those that were somewhere in between. The people you REALLY need to use your social skills on. Give the DM a helping hand in fleshing out NPCs and how the players could cater to them. Maybe the half-orc doorman isn't easily intimidated by the party fighter, but with a good enough insight check the party druid could infer that he might be easily flattered by the party bard.
And as with exploration, give players a set XP reward for finishing challenging roleplay situations.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

This is, I think, a very cogent point.

Wouldn't it be neat, though, if they could come up with a system where similar notations of ability could work for all the pillars' different mechanics. That is, a trait like "Orcish Blood: 2" would be usable in different ways in all three areas.

 

[BobTheNob]

Do we need to create the 12 page character booklet to even out exploration and interaction with combat or would trimming back the combat crunch on the character sheet to sane levels be more reasonable
?

To look at it from that perspective, yea, I guess that would work. Your right also, the old B/X days of a 1 page crib sheet with minimal mechanics worked just fine (which is an ironic retrospective).

I guess I would clarify that what we have is a massive imbalance in game systems of combat vs the other pillars. Which yes, could easily be solved by stripping combat back to basics, where the "skill" system currently is.

Point well taken.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

To look at it from that perspective, yea, I guess that would work. Your right also, the old B/X days of a 1 page crib sheet with minimal mechanics worked just fine (which is an ironic retrospective).

I guess I would clarify that what we have is a massive imbalance in game systems of combat vs the other pillars. Which yes, could easily be solved by stripping combat back to basics, where the "skill" system currently is.

Point well taken.

Having systems for exploration and interaction does not necessarily imply a bigger character sheet. It does imply that mechanical connections would exist in somewhat different places.

Think about it in terms of the BECMI dominion rules. You don't have:

Character sheet dominion abilities <--> interact with the dominion in the fiction.

Rather, you have:

Character sheet abilities (sparse as they are) <--> interact with the dominion subsystem <--> which then drives the interaction with the fiction.

In 4E, one of the limitations of the skill challenges is that the weight is rather heavy towards the charater sheet and the fiction, respectively, and not very much in the mechanical subsystem. Given how generic the subsystem is meant to be, it really can't be any heavier.

BECMI did a better job of weighting each part. Where it didn't do so well was in how the interaction was mechanically accomplished (rather ad hoc or even adlibbed in some cases). So if y'all will excuse appropriating the concept from "skill challenge" for a moment, think of several, more customized "challenge mechanics" that involve abilities, skills, etc. depending on the particular purpose--working differently than skill challenges do. You might have:

1. Wilderness Exploration Challenge - involving Con, a few skills like "Nature", certain abilities, relevant magic, etc. It's got a well-defined system. Perhaps it shares the procedures of a "Dungeon Exploration Challenge" but with somewhat different character ties.

2. Court Social Challenge - for noble or other high society social interactions, involving Cha, different skills, different magic, perhaps with more DM guidelines than the exploration challenges.

3. Dominion Rulership Challenge - a mix of demonstrated power, Int, Cha, Wis, yet other magic, and particular types of in-game decisions (e.g. tax rates).

That last one is kind of what the BECMI dominion rules are. There would be several of these, perhaps some alternates to choose from, depending upon detail. Plus, this way you can always drop a particular one, and have the character sheet directly interact with the fiction, if you want, or it isn't that important. "Make a Cha check and roleplay the scene. DM decides if the mob is talked down from going on the rampage."

 

[Quickleaf]

This is, I think, a very cogent point.

Wouldn't it be neat, though, if they could come up with a system where similar notations of ability could work for all the pillars' different mechanics. That is, a trait like "Orcish Blood: 2" would be usable in different ways in all three areas.

Interesting. Isn't that how Burning Wheel and FATE handle character traits/descriptors?

 

[Ratskinner]

Interesting. Isn't that how Burning Wheel and FATE handle character traits/descriptors?

Sortof. I can't really speak for Burning Wheel, but in FATE, basically everything is a skill check. Combat, Interaction, and Exploration are all basically the same (as much as a FATE game can be divided that way, anyway.)* I was suggesting that D&D could use the same notation in all three areas, but still have distinct mechanics in each area.

So as an example, a Character with "Orcish Blood: 2" could get:

• Interaction: a different starting point on reaction tables for humanoids
• Exploration: a +2 to ability checks involving orcish culture or artifacts
• Combat: ability to use "Orc" magic items, also vulnerable to "Orc-Bane" effects and items. Maybe qualify for special "Orcish Fighting" theme or something.

*3e seemed to almost go this way with DCs~ACs, but stopped short of making "Melee Attack" a skill. Which is probably a good thing, if you think about it. At that point, you might as well drop the classes entirely and just give everyone 6 skill points and a feat every level. Put in new skills like "Melee Attack" and "Use Magic", and call it day with a classless system.