D&D 5E Only three pillars?

[Charlaquin]

Right, but that bolded piece does not necessarily follow. That’s one of my points. You make different decisions and different actions are being taken because the fiction is different, regardless of the mechanical sameness or difference.

I don’t think the fiction is the relevant distinction here. The mechanical systems through which the players engage with the game are.

The other point is that’s an arbitrary line to draw. Mechanically, you’re always acting on the game through the referee, regardless of the fiction or subsystem differences.

Yes, again, that’s the underlying supersystem, which is consistent across modes of play. But there are various systems that overlap that supersystem and vary by mode of play.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'd probably use timeframes to delineate between different modes/pillars of play.

Combat - action declarations cover the next few seconds, action declarations and resolution happen in a pre-determined order and all participants take equivalent turns.

Active exploration - generally action declarations cover next few seconds to few minutes, depending on the hazards involved. The order of resolution of individual actions is generally more freeform, and often not all participants consume equivalent actions. Exact dialog between PCs and NPCs would fall in here.

Passive exploration/travel - Action declarations usually cover several hours, and are generally done by the entire group, with some participants taking "roles" (scout, rearguard, etc.) Explicit actions generally folded into the overall time frame. ("I cast some healing spells while we walk.") Discovering hazards moves back into one of the two previous modes. Longer-length social dynamics, which don't require exact dialogue, happens here. ("I haggle with the merchant for 10 minutes over the price of the armor." "I ask various bar patrons about what they saw for the next half hour.")

Downtime - Action declarations in the days to weeks time frame, primarily used to reframe the next section of the narrative. Crafting, healing, and domain management can all occur here if desired.

I think this is an accurate observation when it applies to D&D, but the connection to timeframe is ultimately arbitrary. You could use initiative and turns to represent days instead of seconds, for example. The important distinction is the mechanical systems that govern actions at those timescales, not the timescales themselves.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The only important pillar is Purchasing

We're talking about  players of D&D, not  sellers of D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'd put it squarely under combat if any PCs are involved, even peripherially.

But the PCs can very easily be involved in a mass combat situation without making use of the combat rules. Logistics, and command, for examples. Would it still be considered combat then?

 

[Micah Sweet]

but you’ve just gone and introduced WAR! as a mass combat minigame where the Players are involved as characters known as ‘The Royal Fusilliers’ instead of Baret the Fighter.

scope zooming from individual character to troop or faction is an artifact of play not a pillar and its still either Players determining outcome ‘in play’ or DM rolling some dice solo (if not fiat).

Afterall all those pillars are suppose to carry the Story being created between Players and DM,

Or war is just a thing that happens based on the progression of events in the world and how the PCs interacted with them. No "story" is necessarily being created as a goal of play.

 

[overgeeked]

I don’t think the fiction is the relevant distinction here. The mechanical systems through which the players engage with the game are.

Yes, again, that’s the underlying supersystem, which is consistent across modes of play. But there are various systems that overlap that supersystem and vary by mode of play.

Yeah…we’re just talking passed each other. Cheers.

 

[Tonguez]

But the PCs can very easily be involved in a mass combat situation without making use of the combat rules. Logistics, and command, for examples. Would it still be considered combat then?

For Mass Combat I would consider command and logistics to be part of the ‘Combat rules’, indeed the mechanics of Command is the whole ‘player interface’ with the mass combat minigame.
RPGs are all about “Player statement” - “Mechanics” - “Outcome” played across different Character Scopes (Individual/Troop/Faction) and Timeframes (round/hour/month/year)

Or war is just a thing that happens based on the progression of events in the world and how the PCs interacted with them. No "story" is necessarily being created as a goal of play.

I’d consider PC interactions across the “progression of events in the world” to be the very definition of “Story”.

If War is just a background setting element then its GM authority and not a ‘Pillar of Play” unless the Players get involved in the progress of battle (mass combat), either way its still the games Story

 

[Lanefan]

It would mean that downtime not being a pillar doesn't say anything about downtime, it just tells us that the initial design of 5e didn't consider downtime as important as combat, exploration, or social interaction.

And IMO this is a design error.

He did throw out an alternate pillar structure of two: Dungeons and Dragons.

Dungeons are the interesting locations where adventures happen, dragons are the interesting beings you face in dungeons. Downtime happens in not-dungeons. It's not unimportant, but at least for DnD I expect downtime to be about dungeons: recovering from or preparing for the next one. Dragons doesn't include all monsters (a bunch of skeletons is a type of hazard) but does imply that they're not just there for combat. Dragons (whether winged dinosaurs or beholders or necromancers or goblin chieftains) can be reasoned with, lied to, stolen from, or snuck past as well as fought, and the dm should be prepared to handle all of that from a standard writeup.

The main benefit to Downtime being its own pillar (or mode) is that it's pretty much only during downtime that the PC engages with any more of the setting than the Dungeons and the Dragons who live there.

As both DM and player I want that added setting engagement.

 

[Lanefan]

I don’t think the fiction is the relevant distinction here. The mechanical systems through which the players engage with the game are.

This assumes a different mechanical system for each mode, which may or may not exist (particularly for downtime where ideally very few game mechanics are involved), and which may or may not overlap significantly if-when they do.

 

[Lanefan]

But the PCs can very easily be involved in a mass combat situation without making use of the combat rules. Logistics, and command, for examples. Would it still be considered combat then?

Yes, if the focus is combat.