Rules volume and play focus.

[Reynard]

Which is to say, the game, as written gives you a lot of fun in combat. The game as played at my table gives fun in the other pillars

The DMG talks a lot about those other pillars, without giving much mechanical support. I think that is evidence for my belief that the game is supposed to more even distribute play around each pillar, despite not evenly distributing mechanics (and by extension, effort by participants). That is to say, the GM is expected to work much harder than the players on the social and exploration pillars in play, and roughly the same on combat in play. Prep of course is a different issue.

 

[overgeeked]

This is a false premise, I think.

Still disagree and I thought I explained why.

EDIT: I did not mean to make that seem short. I got interrupted with (eyeroll) work.

No worries.

Anyway, as someone who has done a fair bit of freelance design in the TTRPG space, I maintain that the rules that take up the most word/page space are not necessarily the ones that reflect the most important aspect of play.

As someone who has also done a fair bit of freelance design in the TTRPG space, I maintain that the rules that take up the most word/page space do necessarily reflect the most important aspect of play.

Rather, they are the rules that require the most precision to properly adjudicate.

The assumption is false. "It's super important to get this right" does not translate to huge word count, because you can "get it right" succinctly. Further, you "need" no more precision in combat adjudication than you do in any other aspect of the game. You only think you "need" more precision precisely because it's more important to game play. If it was not important to the game, it wouldn't need such precise rules. Again, look at crafting. It's not important to the game, therefore it doesn't get any (many?) rules.

 

[Reynard]

Still disagree and I thought I explained why.

No worries.

As someone who has also done a fair bit of freelance design in the TTRPG space, I maintain that the rules that take up the most word/page space do necessarily reflect the most important aspect of play.

The assumption is false. "It's super important to get this right" does not translate to huge word count, because you can "get it right" succinctly. Further, you "need" no more precision in combat adjudication than you do in any other aspect of the game. You only think you "need" more precision precisely because it's more important to game play. If it was not important to the game, it wouldn't need such precise rules. Again, look at crafting. It's not important to the game, therefore it doesn't get any (many?) rules.

I don't think you can say the social pillar is not important to game play because it doesn't get any rules. it might not be important to a particular table's play, based on their preferences, but not because of the number of pages dedicated to it in the rulebooks. Similarly, for a given group, combat may be unimportant to play even though the vast majority of the rules and character sheet is related to combat. See any game that Deborah Ann Woll runs as an example of both.

I don't want to belabour the point -- both because it is obviously a matter of opinion, and I don't want to make it appear as though I am mandating a truth or shutting down discussion. So I will just reiterate one thing: the amount of GM advice 9as opposed to hard rules) between the pillars is much more equitable, strongly suggesting the pillars are of equal importance. Adventures themselves dedicate a lot of space to exploration (any space there is not a monster) and (to a lesser degree) social interactions (any time a potentially "friendly" NPC appears).

 

[overgeeked]

Luckily, video games have a heap more money to burn and are a lot more open about their design and intentions.

This is a great video about the topic, though the title might be a bit off-putting to some.

 

[MGibster]

I don't think the design of 5e really supports all pillars equally/equitably. If the intent is for them to be equal, the intent is also for the GM to be most of two pillars, without a lot of rules to direct them. And some classes are, in current design, not themselves designed to be potent outside of combat.

I'm in full agreement here. And the way the D&D rules work, combat is the only pillar where every character class is competent. A Fighter would be out of place in a campaign built around intrigue or exploring the wilderness.

 

[MGibster]

I don't think you can say the social pillar is not important to game play because it doesn't get any rules. it might not be important to a particular table's play, based on their preferences, but not because of the number of pages dedicated to it in the rulebooks. Similarly, for a given group, combat may be unimportant to play even though the vast majority of the rules and character sheet is related to combat. See any game that Deborah Ann Woll runs as an example of both.

Every character class is good at combat. The Wizard, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Warlock can all hold their own in a fight. Not every class is good at social or exporation. The Warlock, Rogue, Bard, and Cleric all have mechanical advantages that make the social pillar more viable for them than it is the Wizard or Fighter. The same goes for exploration with a few classes being good at it and the rest kind of fumbling around. When one pillar is something every class can participate in more or less equally, that tells me it's more important than the others. The rules, not just the mechanics of game play but of how characers are built, reflects that importance.

 

[overgeeked]

I don't think you can say the social pillar is not important to game play because it doesn't get any rules. it might not be important to a particular table's play, based on their preferences, but not because of the number of pages dedicated to it in the rulebooks.

Good thing that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's less important to the game as designed because it gets almost no rules.

Similarly, for a given group, combat may be unimportant to play even though the vast majority of the rules and character sheet is related to combat. See any game that Deborah Ann Woll runs as an example of both.

Right and you could easily argue that there's a point at which you stop playing a specific game when you stop using the game's rules. No judgement attached one way or the other.

I don't want to belabour the point -- both because it is obviously a matter of opinion, and I don't want to make it appear as though I am mandating a truth or shutting down discussion.

Respectfully, then maybe don't try to appeal to your "authority" as a freelancer. Your opinion is no more right and has no more weight than anyone else's simply because you're a freelancer. Besides, a lot of people here are freelancers...and they can still disagree. Clearly.

So I will just reiterate one thing: the amount of GM advice (as opposed to hard rules) between the pillars is much more equitable, strongly suggesting the pillars are of equal importance.

Not in the slightest. Assuming your numbers are accurate, even with combat getting 33% of the advice it still gets 90% of the mechanics. That in no way implies that social or exploration are co-equal to combat.

Adventures themselves dedicate a lot of space to exploration (any space there is not a monster) and (to a lesser degree) social interactions (any time a potentially "friendly" NPC appears).

And again, when Witchlight was new the designers went to great pains to up-sell players and referees on the AP because it was new and unique and never done before in D&D...because it was an AP you could complete without...gasp...killing anything. If combat wasn't a disproportionally huge aspect of the game, then it wouldn't make sense for them to focus on that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I believe that WotC's designers want to create the appearance that all three pillars of play are equally important, as indicated by the distribution of DMG advice the OP called out. But they also know where their bread and butter is, and what type of material most of their paying customers are looking for and at in their products. And I'm afraid that in the majority of cases it isn't new social or exploration rules.

 

[Reynard]

And again, when Witchlight was new the designers went to great pains to up-sell players and referees on the AP because it was new and unique and never done before in D&D...because it was an AP you could complete without...gasp...killing anything. If combat wasn't a disproportionally huge aspect of the game, then it wouldn't make sense for them to focus on that.

I think maybe I made an error using D&D as an example, because all we are doing now is arguing about D&D.

Let's take Savage Worlds. It is a trad game, like D&D, with a heavy focus in the rules on combat and combat related things (weapons, powers, etc). But just because the non combat rules elements take up fewer pages, a Savage Worlds game is intended to cover a lot of ground in play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think maybe I made an error using D&D as an example, because all we are doing now is arguing about D&D.

Let's take Savage Worlds. It is a trad game, like D&D, with a heavy focus in the rules on combat and combat related things (weapons, powers, etc). But just because the non combat rules elements take up fewer pages, a Savage Worlds game is intended to cover a lot of ground in play.

What makes Savage Worlds different from D&D in this regard? I'm not very familiar with it.