Mearls' L&L on non-combat pillars

[Remathilis]

Really not sure what we're all looking for...

Interaction: You just need some method of Talking/Convincing, Bluffing, and Intimidating (as well as some method of Sensing Deception). These could all be Cha/Skill checks.

Exploration: You need rules for searching/looking, listening, moving/running, climbing/swimming/jumping, light sources, and dealing with traps. Additional rules for getting lost, overland movement, and mounts/vehicles for outside adventures.

The rest is all determined by the DM and adventure/story/module he's running. What other rules do we need?

 

[pemerton]

Really not sure what we're all looking for...

Interaction: You just need some method of Talking/Convincing, Bluffing, and Intimidating (as well as some method of Sensing Deception). These could all be Cha/Skill checks.

Exploration: You need rules for searching/looking, listening, moving/running, climbing/swimming/jumping, light sources, and dealing with traps. Additional rules for getting lost, overland movement, and mounts/vehicles for outside adventures.

The rest is all determined by the DM and adventure/story/module he's running. What other rules do we need?

A system that will let me run dynamic and dramatic non-combat challenges. To see what I (and some others) have in mind, check out the skill challenge thread!

At a minimum, I want dramatic conflict resolution. What you describe isn't going to deliver that, I don't think - for example, it doesn't seem to have rules for how many Diplomacy successes are required to persuade someone, nor for evolving the situation dynamically as those checks are made, nor for permitting non-face PCs to play a significant role in the scene.

 

[Balesir]

Look at the playtest Charm Person. It is weak sauce in comparison to earlier editions, and isn't going to make any spellcaster dominate any social encounter. Advantage on Charisma checks is pretty empty when your CHA is mediocre to begin with.

Really? I would think that, with a "bounded accuracy" type system, advantage with a middling attribute is going to be pretty major. For the sort of DCs I see cropping up in the playtest materials it's worth around +5 to the (effective) d20 roll.

 

[Fifth Element]

The rest is all determined by the DM and adventure/story/module he's running. What other rules do we need?

Why don't we just have a "Fighting" skill for combat, and whoever rolls the best Fighting check wins the battle?

The idea is that the divide between combat and the other pillars (mechanically) is largely arbitrary. There's no reason for combat to have detailed tactical resolution mechanics, but for nothing else to.

 

[Balesir]

Interaction: You just need some method of Talking/Convincing, Bluffing, and Intimidating (as well as some method of Sensing Deception). These could all be Cha/Skill checks.

What, because persuasion always happens in a vacuum?? I would (just for starters) add in rules for relationships and groups, power structures and poiltical control, tactics and approaches to ascertain both the social "landscape" and how you might benefit from it and to optimise the chances of a favourable hearing. Oftentimes, finding out what you should be asking (for) is half the battle. Then there's figuring out who to ask, how to ask them and who might influence them to be sympathetic when you "pop the question"...

The rest is all determined by the DM and adventure/story/module he's running. What other rules do we need?

Ones that give a common understanding of how these things work in the game, rather than the players trying to second-guess the warped facsimile of "reality" that the GM carries around in his or her head. Nota bene that I am saying this as a GM, most of the time.

 

[Remathilis]

What, because persuasion always happens in a vacuum?? I would (just for starters) add in rules for relationships and groups, power structures and poiltical control, tactics and approaches to ascertain both the social "landscape" and how you might benefit from it and to optimise the chances of a favourable hearing. Oftentimes, finding out what you should be asking (for) is half the battle. Then there's figuring out who to ask, how to ask them and who might influence them to be sympathetic when you "pop the question"...

Ones that give a common understanding of how these things work in the game, rather than the players trying to second-guess the warped facsimile of "reality" that the GM carries around in his or her head. Nota bene that I am saying this as a GM, most of the time.

So the PHB should have explict rules for hierarchies, rulers, guilds, and other campaign related info so you KNOW who you should be asking to find info?

"Sorry DM, but on page 134 it says a guard always knows who the local lord is and can request an audience. I ask the guard and the lord has to grant us an audience if I roll a DC 14. *Rolls* Success! So we're at the Lords audience chamber, right?"

A system that will let me run dynamic and dramatic non-combat challenges. To see what I (and some others) have in mind, check out the skill challenge thread!

At a minimum, I want dramatic conflict resolution. What you describe isn't going to deliver that, I don't think - for example, it doesn't seem to have rules for how many Diplomacy successes are required to persuade someone, nor for evolving the situation dynamically as those checks are made, nor for permitting non-face PCs to play a significant role in the scene.

Skill Checks: Great idea, miserable executions. Most of them ended up "pick whatever skill you have the most bonus in, come up with some excuse to use it, and have everyone give Aid Another to that guy until success is virtually guaranteed. Don't try to use your own skill though; you may need 7 successes to win, but only 3 to lose".

There may be a place for multiple/complex skill checks, but I really hope formalized skill challenges go the way of alignment languages.

Why don't we just have a "Fighting" skill for combat, and whoever rolls the best Fighting check wins the battle?

The idea is that the divide between combat and the other pillars (mechanically) is largely arbitrary. There's no reason for combat to have detailed tactical resolution mechanics, but for nothing else to.

Lots of RPGs treat combat as a skill contest. However, D&D has always treated combat as something unique and special. Then again, I'm not one of the guys who is awaiting the Tactical Combat Module either.

And I'm not sure how to make the other pillars equal to combat? Do we want Social HP (how much BS you can take before you're worn down?) and social attacks (I am so taking witty comeback and cutting comment as attacks!)

 

[Fifth Element]

Lots of RPGs treat combat as a skill contest. However, D&D has always treated combat as something unique and special.

That's not a good enough reason to keep it that way. Plenty of people want 'em, and there is of course some precedent in 4E.

And I'm not sure how to make the other pillars equal to combat? Do we want Social HP (how much BS you can take before you're worn down?) and social attacks (I am so taking witty comeback and cutting comment as attacks!)

I'd leave it up to the designers to actually design the thing. But if people want them, when designing the edition that supposed to appeal to all playstyles, you should probably think about them.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So the PHB should have explict rules for hierarchies, rulers, guilds, and other campaign related info so you KNOW who you should be asking to find info?

"Sorry DM, but on page 134 it says a guard always knows who the local lord is and can request an audience. I ask the guard and the lord has to grant us an audience if I roll a DC 14. *Rolls* Success! So we're at the Lords audience chamber, right?"

Heck no. Adapt the Burning Wheel "Circles" and "Resources" sub systems to Next as a module. It wouldn't even be that difficult, though a straight port won't quite get the job done with BW using die pools as the base mechanic. Best of all, they won't muck up the framework of Next for people who don't like that kind of play and want something more traditional.

All you really need that might be a little odd to pull that off is that when you have equipment lists or "building castle by parts" lists or similar, you need every item to have both a standard gold piece cost as well as a "resource" factor. That "resource" factor will even be handy for hybrid options that stick to traditional principles, but abstract the costs. Likewise, for organizations and rulers, you need some traditional modifers as a default and then the more abstract "Circles" target numbers.

 

[pemerton]

Crazy Jerome, beat me to it.

But interestingly, what Remathils complains about is, in a sense, part of the playtest - with the Knight's Station, Temple Services, etc.

 

[Balesir]

So the PHB should have explict rules for hierarchies, rulers, guilds, and other campaign related info so you KNOW who you should be asking to find info?

"Sorry DM, but on page 134 it says a guard always knows who the local lord is and can request an audience. I ask the guard and the lord has to grant us an audience if I roll a DC 14. *Rolls* Success! So we're at the Lords audience chamber, right?"

Both [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] beat me to it, but in essence:

Yes, in exactly the same way the PHB has details of how every dungeon must be laid out and what monsters must go where.

In other words - of course not!

You give rules for social "terrain" and "layout" (not to mention social "monsters") in just the same way you do for any other adventure setting. ou explain how they work and give rules for building and interacting with them. Like Burning Wheel does, but adapted to fit the different aims and tenor of D&D.