Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The Paradigm of Pillars
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dkyle" data-source="post: 5898873" data-attributes="member: 70707"><p>I don't see how that is remotely inevitable. Producing a game out of logical, ordered game mechanics is just good design.</p><p></p><p>I don't see how that has anything to do with the game design. Noone is prescripting what the "scenes" in a game session will have. The pillars are simply points of focus for the game design.</p><p> </p><p>Ridiculous straw man. All options should be balanced. Whether it's balance among Exploration options, or among all options. This is nothing new.</p><p> </p><p>First, roleplay is really "interaction", as in character interaction; they realized the folly of the term "roleplaying" for a pillar a while back, but sometimes they slip up.</p><p></p><p>So, there's no real "interaction" here. But I would expect that scenerio to be resolved with both combat and exploration mechanics. Nobody is suggesting that a given situation is only one of the pillars. Just that those pillars are useful for looking at the aspects of most situations.</p><p></p><p>Again, the pillars have nothing to do with what the encounter is. Only what the mechanics are geared towards. So you'd be using interaction mechanics, during the combat. Nothing wrong with that.</p><p></p><p>Magic Missile would be a combat-focused mechanic, but that doesn't mean that you couldn't use it in an exploration-style manner. Just as a weapon strike is clearly a combat ability, but could be used to break things, too (exploration).</p><p> </p><p>Why are they rhetorical? They're useful examples for describing what the pillars are meant to be. I think you are misunderstanding the point of them.</p><p></p><p>Encounters are not being shoehorned into one pillar. That is not what they're for.</p><p></p><p>Classes are not being shoehorned into one pillar. In fact, we've been specifically told that every class will have at least basic abilities towards pillar (and the blog you linked the thread of even suggests equal amounts towards each pillar).</p><p></p><p>Only specific mechanics are being designed with a focus towards the pillars. There has been no talk of forcing mechanics to be used only for the pillar they are designed towards.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dkyle, post: 5898873, member: 70707"] I don't see how that is remotely inevitable. Producing a game out of logical, ordered game mechanics is just good design. I don't see how that has anything to do with the game design. Noone is prescripting what the "scenes" in a game session will have. The pillars are simply points of focus for the game design. Ridiculous straw man. All options should be balanced. Whether it's balance among Exploration options, or among all options. This is nothing new. First, roleplay is really "interaction", as in character interaction; they realized the folly of the term "roleplaying" for a pillar a while back, but sometimes they slip up. So, there's no real "interaction" here. But I would expect that scenerio to be resolved with both combat and exploration mechanics. Nobody is suggesting that a given situation is only one of the pillars. Just that those pillars are useful for looking at the aspects of most situations. Again, the pillars have nothing to do with what the encounter is. Only what the mechanics are geared towards. So you'd be using interaction mechanics, during the combat. Nothing wrong with that. Magic Missile would be a combat-focused mechanic, but that doesn't mean that you couldn't use it in an exploration-style manner. Just as a weapon strike is clearly a combat ability, but could be used to break things, too (exploration). Why are they rhetorical? They're useful examples for describing what the pillars are meant to be. I think you are misunderstanding the point of them. Encounters are not being shoehorned into one pillar. That is not what they're for. Classes are not being shoehorned into one pillar. In fact, we've been specifically told that every class will have at least basic abilities towards pillar (and the blog you linked the thread of even suggests equal amounts towards each pillar). Only specific mechanics are being designed with a focus towards the pillars. There has been no talk of forcing mechanics to be used only for the pillar they are designed towards. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The Paradigm of Pillars
Top