D&D General Ranking the Pillars of Play

[cowpie]

Social is irrelevant to the rules, therefore not a pillar.

5e doesn't really support social with rules (coz they rushed the DM's guide out on a deadline), but it can be. Give the PCs an obstacle they need to RP to overcome, without a combat option. Or, give them a combat obstacle that can be more easily defeated if they parley with the opponent, find out a vulnerability, use what they learned to go explore to get the vulnerability, and then apply that in combat to more easily defeat the opponent. You can combine all three to play off each other to reward all three pillars of play...or not, as the players choose.

 

[el-remmen]

I voted Combat > Social > Exploration, but really 2 and 3 are very close and I could just as easily swap them if asked a different day. I love combat, but it needs to be tactical and be in an interesting material environment (i.e. potentially has a mechanical effect on the combat, but doesn't have to be fancy - a mud pit could be an interesting combat environment) and there should be some kind of stakes, not necessarily world-shattering or even connected to a plot, but stakes nonetheless. The most memorable combats I have run and been in have also been part of "Social" encounters and that Sociality is a great source for stakes. Exploration, naturally leads to cool environments for fights, but avoiding fights or working to change the future combat condition is a lot of fun too.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

I put Combat in the #1 slot...and yet...4 out of the last 5 sessions I've run have had no combat whatsoever. And they've been fun!

 

[J.Quondam]

For the poll, I voted "Exploration > Combat > Social".
But my real feeling is probably closer to "Exploration > Combat = Social", or something.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I voted Social > Combat > Exploration, because when I've been in sessions that revolved disproportionately around just one that has been the order I've enjoyed them or been annoyed with them the most.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Social - Combat - five miles of bedrock - Exploration.

Mainly because how D&D deals with exploration as just a bunch of penalties and bookkeeping instead of discovering cool places and things.

 

[CleverNickName]

...4 out of the last 5 sessions I've run have had no combat whatsoever. And they've been fun!

THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE!!!111

According to certain dark, dusty corners of these forums, anyway.

But yeah, I feel ya. Combat is nice, but it isn't the end-all, be-all reason for adventuring in my games. It's in solid second place, though, and even though we generally like it, we have entire gaming sessions where we don't even roll initiative. And it's fun!

 

[schneeland]

For the poll, I voted "Exploration > Combat > Social".
But my real feeling is probably closer to "Exploration > Combat = Social", or something.

Yeah, same for me.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I voted for Exploration > Social > Combat, and here's why:

To me, combat is hollow without the stakes built through social or exploration. If all I'm doing is fighting goblins, but I'm not doing it to save a town (social) or find treasure (exploration), then I might as well be playing a board game. Now I really enjoy combat, but again without story stakes (yum!) it's just not as fun to me.

Exploration is the top dog because I love both running and playing it. Unlocking doors, listening for monsters, scouting ahead, avoiding traps, sneaking, solving puzzles, making maps, making plans, making camp... All that just really describes D&D to me. I don't think overland travel is the most important part of exploration, the dungeon stuff is!

Then in the middle is social, because it's fun to pretend to be someone else and interact with the world!

 

[jmartkdr2]

If it were an option, I would have voted Combat = Social > Exploration.

I suppose it's just poorly supported, but I've never found the exploring part to be a good part of a ttrpg. It works in video games well enough.