Mearls' L&L on non-combat pillars

[howandwhy99]

Encounters are not exclusively combat encounters.

For D&D playstyles that highlight combat can be balanced by Hit Point attrition.

Other kinds of Encounters, like ones for conversations, can be balanced by other resources.

Balancing long term resources against short term ones is a big part of D&D.

Balancing by the day is a solid strategy, but higher levels do focus on longer term actions that can take weeks, months, and even years to complete.

Adventure design focusing on degrees of combat availability in an adventuring area is a solid idea. A traditional dungeon has a lot of monsters to fight and many such battles can be waged in a single day.

Adventure design can also focus on degrees of other pillars (or non-pillars). For example, maneuvering within relationships with intelligent NPCs. Or environmental challenges like terrain or traps. All kinds of which can increase in density / number appearing, in difficulty, and so forth.

Similar to a predetermined number of combats / day (I assume players can opt to attempt more or less), non-combat challenges can be balanced similarly. So they do not need to be "in the realm of the Dungeon Master's hands" by default.

And coloring all of this is the degree of competence for engaging with every pillar, adventure type, module, and playstyle baked into each class.

Classes can be different. In fact its a very positive design method as mentioned in the Penny Arcade video on imperfect balance. (The principles discussed just shout as coming from the roots of D&D design).

For example, the Dungeon! boardgame is being rereleased soon and most of its core rules front and foremost showcase diverse class level balancing. It doesn't include design elements for cooperative play, but it doesn't include everything in D&D either. D&D came later to include both balanced asymmetric play and cooperative play.


EDIT:
Last point: it was mentioned several times throughout the article of how DMs have options for adventures and campaigns. Is it possible to to also include the sandbox design where players have that option? Let's go to the maze where we can face creatures in long chains or lets stick to the plains and blast them in big groups?

I think once safe rest areas aren't mandatory or the default and resting resource accumulation amounts are lowered the 5-minute combat day will be handled by the players themselves, and in character in reference to the game world.

 

[howandwhy99]

Why I prefer a slower natural healing rates:

We go and fight a fire giant. We each get whittled down in hit points to about half of our totals. However, we nearly killed the fire giant. Then it ran and we didn't catch it before rest. Rest = all HP are regained, for NPCs too. Now all our hard work is negated. When we catch the giant the next day every Hit Point must be carved off again. If the giant gained 1 hp / day as did we, then the results of the fight remain almost the same. If we heal 1 hp / level, then we still have our advantage for a week or so. All of this assuming that Rest isn't the traditional required 24 hours of sleep and light activity and a safe place to rest isn't hard to find outside of trusted homes, towns, and cities.

 

[Balesir]

The problem is such things are an element of the setting. Social terrain in Toril is very different than it is Ravenloft, Dark Sun, or Planescape.

Yes - but so what? Geographic terrain is very different in FR, DS and Ravenloft, too - and so is the range and character of monsters likely to be encountered. Does that mean that the rules shouldn't bother detailing any of that stuff, either?

The details might be different from world to world, but the structures and how they operate - the rules by which interactions occur - are the same. Just as the way monsters are composed of tactics descriptions and game statistics for combat, they are composed of character descriptions and social attributes for interactions. The way that movement and action works in that "social sphere" is common - just as the way creatures move and act in the physical sphere for combat and exploration is common - accross worlds.

 

[ExploderWizard]

What if you have a character with a 6 Charisma but you're a powerful personality yourself? That's the problem with having a social mechanic built into the most basic nature of characters (a Charisma ability score), then advising that players just freeform social interactions. What good is the Charisma score if you're just going to ignore it?

In that case my character can retain far fewer henchmen, and I have a penalty on ALL reaction rolls whenever interaction takes place.

Because of my low CHA score fewer NPC associates of quality want to work with me, and I have to work to overcome being generally 'not likable' by everyone in the campaign world that doesn't already want to kill me on sight.

These are actual rules.

What an exceptionally low or high CHA score doesn't do is play the game for me. The score gives a disadvantage that has to be overcome, or an advantage that can make getting what I want easier. Either way it serves as a springboard for playing rather than a substitute.

 

[triqui]

The sad part of this, is that the number of rounds in combat should per adventure day shouldn't be a "math" issue, but a "playstyle" issue. Some DM/groups like to fight endless attrition wars in Diablo-like dungeons, some others like to play a lot of exploring/interaction with only a fight per day/session.
Any attempt to balance resources toward an "adventuring day" (including milestones or daily powers in AEDU) is flawed, because adventuring days are very different, depending on playstyles. Imho, resources should focus on encounters. If the encounters are balanced, each group can play as much or as few encounters per day as they like to meet their playstyle. If you balance the game toward a set number of encounters per day, no matter of what, some groups will be playing more encounters than the game is ready for (with too much attrition, or being forced to stop before they'd like), and some others will be playing fewer encounters than the game is ready for (with nova-ing and 5 minute work-day problems)

 

[pemerton]

What an exceptionally low or high CHA score doesn't do is play the game for me.

<snip>

Either way it serves as a springboard for playing rather than a substitute.

Who do you think is calling for attributes to "play the game for them"?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Who do you think is calling for attributes to "play the game for them"?

Not just attributes, skills and such.

Anyone who thinks that a die roll can serve as a substitute for actual interaction.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Not just attributes, skills and such.

Anyone who thinks that a die roll can serve as a substitute for actual interaction.

Make the scope of the mechanics as wide as you want. I still join the chorus wanting to know who is calling for the die roll to serve as a substitute for actual interaction. Point where that has been advocated.

 

[Fifth Element]

Not just attributes, skills and such.

Anyone who thinks that a die roll can serve as a substitute for actual interaction.

There's no actual interaction, just imaginary interaction. You are not your character, and the DM is not the NPC. You play their roles, but if that play is not informed by the game mechanics, why have the game mechanics at all?

Thus we have reaction rolls. You don't need reaction rolls if you use only the interaction itself.

 

[B.T.]

When treasure used to be the primary means of gaining XP the pillars balanced themselves out and could be equally rewarding. You could fight, trick, negotiate, and explore as you chose to gain experience.

So long as 'defeating encounters' is the end in itself rather than ONE means to an end, there will be these rules support issues.

This.