D&D 5E Only three pillars?

[Paul Farquhar]

I think the things that fall out of combat, exploration, or social are pretty necessary.

But world building is not. It's something only one of the participants does - the DM, and they can get it from a book. From the point of view of the players, they learn about the world via the exploration pillar.

Sure, lots of people enjoy worldbuilding, bit it's far from essential.

 

[Maxperson]

In D&D 5E the three pillars are combat, exploration, and social interaction.

Are there any other pillars to typical D&D-style play? In the old days we had things like domain management, mass combat, and seeking immortality.

Are there other pillars? If so, what are they? What other pillars should get attention?

Domain management involves directing others on what to do(social), combat(combat) and finding out about problems and fixing them(exploration. Mass combat is combat. Seeking immortality is a goal that involves the three other pillars as well. Social to talk to those to find out what to do and where things are, exploration to locate places, people and things, and combat to overcome enemies and take what you need.

The only possible other pillar I've seen on page 1 is shenanigans and that's mainly because I'm not sure what people are thinking for that as a pillar.

 

[Maxperson]

I like "Downtime" as the 4th pillar, including everything from domain management and war to raising your family and establishing your business. It isn't as common a pillar for today, which is too bad, because it adds something to the "end game" that higher CR monsters don't.

Again, I don't think downtime is a separate pillar. Looking at Xanathar's list of downtime we have.

1. Buy Magic Items(exploration/social)
2. Carousing(social/combat/exploration)
3. Crafting an Item(exploration/social)
4. Crime(exploration/combat/social)

The depth of the downtime activities is not going to be as great as non-downtime, but the activities, rolls and results fall into the big three pillars.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

It assumes a different mechanical system because that’s how I’m defining modes of play. If you handle downtime using the same mechanics that you use to handle exploration, then I would not consider downtime its own mode of play in your game.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

"Downtime" is part of the social pillar, and one my players show no interest in engaging in, and therefore not a required part of the game. Same with kingdom management stuff. These things are just optional extras for those who want them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Architecture suggests that four pillars are perfectly stable.

Well, that's sort of the thing, innit?

With three, everything is vital. You can't lose any of them without the structure becoming unstable. With four, you could have at least one that's a rickety wreck because it's not essential. Restricting yourself to three means you have to make sure they're all worthwhile, or else it's quite noticeable that they aren't.

"Downtime" is part of the social pillar, and one my players show no interest in engaging in, and therefore not a required part of the game. Same with kingdom management stuff. These things are just optional extras for those who want them.

Yeah, I definitely get the feeling that there's a lot of "I really REALLY like this subsystem, so it should be promoted to being one of the things everyone should expect to care about."

For my own part, if I absolutely, positively had to add a fourth pillar, it would be Ethos. Note, not "Ethics," nor "Philosophy." Because that actually rises, to some extent, to the level of a key part of the game that everyone is expected to care about at least to SOME extent. Alignment goes in there. But so do things like values, personality, and "thematics" (e.g. choosing to play an "ice mage" so you only take spells which fit with that theme). 5e Backgrounds, 4e BGs/Themes/alignment, and prior games' alignment and other systems, all feed into this pillar. It has real, meaningful mechanical impact, and for all but the most stridently murderhobo near-zero-RP games, SOME part of Ethos matters to play.

In general, I don't think of this as actually being a pillar, but rather being something that rests atop the pillars, a further elaboration of gameplay "above" the pillar part, since players choose whether and how much to dip their toes into it. But if I absolutely had no other choice but to pick a "new" pillar to "add" to the game, that would be it. Because it's effectively already there. It just doesn't get called out because it's considered more a rider of play rather than a fundamental goal of play.

 

[rgoodbb]

Skill Challenges. Depending what the challenge is I know it could be classed as exploration but it does break up the other three if things are getting monotonous once in a while. I think it's sufficiently different to be a minor pillar of its own.

If I run a 1-shot. It will usually have a skill challenge to start with. Get out of the sinking ship/burning building, evade the pursuer etc.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, that's sort of the thing, innit?

With three, everything is vital. You can't lose any of them without the structure becoming unstable. With four, you could have at least one that's a rickety wreck because it's not essential. Restricting yourself to three means you have to make sure they're all worthwhile, or else it's quite noticeable that they aren't.


Yeah, I definitely get the feeling that there's a lot of "I really REALLY like this subsystem, so it should be promoted to being one of the things everyone should expect to care about."

Nah, I just don’t think architecture metaphors are a particularly good thing to base a game’s design around. 5e does have four distinct modes of play; that doesn’t mean everyone should be expected to care about all four of them. I mean, that’s already not the case under the three-pillar schema - there are plenty of players who don’t care about social interaction and just want to fight some monsters. There are plenty who are there specifically for the social aspect and check out during combat. There are plenty who love exploration and plenty who hate it. Just because the designers identified an activity as whatever a pillar is doesn’t actually mean it’s an important part of everyone’s play experience, nor should it.

 

[Lanefan]

Domain management involves directing others on what to do(social), combat(combat) and finding out about problems and fixing them(exploration.

Domain management, treasury division, training, spell research, item/scroll/potion making, business interests, investments - none of these involve adventuring*. All are things done while out of the field, and thus fall under downtime.

Another major and fairly frequent downtime activity at the table, not yet really touched upon, is levelling up.

* - usually; and if-when they ever do the other three pillars/modes boot up.

Mass combat is combat.

Agreed.

Seeking immortality is a goal that involves the three other pillars as well. Social to talk to those to find out what to do and where things are, exploration to locate places, people and things, and combat to overcome enemies and take what you need.

Seeking immortality is most likely either itself an adventuring activity or will involve a lot of such.

The only possible other pillar I've seen on page 1 is shenanigans and that's mainly because I'm not sure what people are thinking for that as a pillar.

I love shenanigans as much as anyone but I don't see it as its own pillar as there is no place or time where it's not overlapping at least one other pillar (if downtime is counted as a pillar). That said, I think it could almost count as its own mode of play under @Charlaquin 's model.

 

[Charlaquin]

I love shenanigans as much as anyone but I don't see it as its own pillar as there is no place or time where it's not overlapping at least one other pillar (if downtime is counted as a pillar). That said, I think it could almost count as its own mode of play under @Charlaquin 's model.

No. Shenanigans isn’t even a specific thing, let alone a distinct mode of play governed by independent rules systems. It’s just a catch-all term for when wacky stuff happens.