Those other two pillars

[Savage Wombat]

If this is old news to you forum sages, just say so.

I was thinking about the "interaction" and "exploration" pillars. We have had a lot of discussion saying that the rules should support those pillars as well (or approaching) as they do the combat pillar.

It occurs to me there's another aspect to this. D&D is for people who enjoy combat, yes. Rolling the dice and thinking of tactics is fun. But it also directly rewards combat, in terms of character power and acquisition.

People who play D&D for the other two pillars get direct enjoyment from discovering new things, and solving problems through diplomacy. But does the game actively reward this? Especially in the most recent editions? The assumption that treasure and experience is earned through combat is almost hard-wired into 3rd edition, quest experience or no. (Not to mention that "congratulations, you get a 1000 xp story award" isn't much of an exciting reward, especially if your campaign levels up whenever the DM wants.)

Now, I am willing to consider that this is a DMing problem, not a rules problem. Maybe it's just that DMs should be instructed to place/prepare rewards for non-combat behavior commensurate with the interests of the players.

Anyone have any suggestions?

 

[delericho]

The assumption that treasure and experience is earned through combat is almost hard-wired into 3rd edition, quest experience or no.

I would have thought it was trivially easy to see how exploration could result in treasure acquisition, in any edition.

But, yes, I agree that the game could do more to reward exploration and interaction with XP - even if only by explicitly stating "if the PCs discover this room, award them 100 XP".

 

[Dungeoneer]

For good or ill, 'classic' D&D has always leaned heavily on combat and given only a little thought to exploration and virtually none to interaction. You could certainly make an edition of D&D that fixed that, but then people would complain that you were turning D&D into a 'storytelling' game. This is why I'm starting to find games like 13th Age, which feels a lot like D&D but jettisons a lot of its baggage, attractive.

 

[ExploderWizard]

For good or ill, 'classic' D&D has always leaned heavily on combat and given only a little thought to exploration and virtually none to interaction. You could certainly make an edition of D&D that fixed that, but then people would complain that you were turning D&D into a 'storytelling' game. This is why I'm starting to find games like 13th Age, which feels a lot like D&D but jettisons a lot of its baggage, attractive.

Which 'classic' D&D are you referring to?

When treasure = XP regardless of the means used to acquire it combat becomes only one of many options.

You can explore and find hidden treasure. The dull ogre can be tricked out of his valuables. The lethality of low level combat ensures methods other than combat will be employed or there will be quite the repetitive grind going on.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

People who play D&D for the other two pillars get direct enjoyment from discovering new things, and solving problems through diplomacy. But does the game actively reward this? Especially in the most recent editions?

Yes and no. Mostly no. The basic game does not reward exploration or interaction. Only adventures seem to do so. Worse, the social skills were very poorly written in 3rd Edition, so a DM trying to reward a PC for boosting their social skills quickly learns not to do so!

Maybe it's just that DMs should be instructed to place/prepare rewards for non-combat behavior commensurate with the interests of the players.

That's not enough. A basic understanding of the CR or 4e XP system is enough to create a combat encounter for the whole party. Just knowing the skill rules is not enough to create an interesting exploration or social encounter, and in 3e will probably make you give up on social encounters entirely, if you don't know alternative social skill systems.

4e did try; there's a negotiation skill challenge in the DMG somewhere. Unfortunately, it may have the mechanics down pat, but what's the goal? When is it worth negotiating? What could you expect to get? What should you never expect to get? What if the PCs simply ignore potential allies and so don't negotiate?

I found combining the Giant in the Playground Diplomacy system with the negotiation skill challenge to work pretty well, but that still meant looking outside of 4e core rules to do so.

When it comes to exploration, a lot of the rules are just there to avoid boredom. You really don't want to fail a skill check that results in PC getting lost. In effect, a use of the Nature skill (avoiding getting lost) is pointless, as it's too fun-sapping to fail it.

 

[fjw70]

I typically use level-up when the DM says approach, but I would like to see D&D move to a DM XP award per session based on what was accomplished per session.

 

[Desdichado]

For years now, when I GM, I reward XP by fiat, not for combat success.

Not trying to say that my games don't feature plenty of combat, but it is true that they specifically don't reward combat to the exclusion of any other activity in game.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Anyone have any suggestions?

Stop thinking in terms of pillars. Trying to categorize and silo abilities is pointless and fruitless. In the game, a battle might be avoided by diplomacy or careful scouting, or it might be caused by lack of tact and clueless wandering, or it may be what it is regardless how perceptive and diplomatic the players are. And even that ignores plenty of other aspects of the game like knowledge, crafting, athletics, various forms of subterfuge and deception, etc. In that context, trying to categorize an action, a scenario, or a character in "pillar" terms is misleading.

Instead, design goals should be considered in naturalistic terms. If a player declares the intent to play a wandering adventurer with a bent for music and a little magical talent, the question is how well do the rules allow that concept to come into play. Is the character good at the skills you would expect? If so, it works. The usefulness of said character in any particular game scenario, combat or otherwise, is not relevant at the level of game design.

 

[Bedrockgames]

For years now, when I GM, I reward XP by fiat, not for combat success.

Not trying to say that my games don't feature plenty of combat, but it is true that they specifically don't reward combat to the exclusion of any other activity in game.

The longer I GM the more I agree. In a game where lots of different types of abilities improve each level (not just sword swinging) it is fair to factor in other things and i feel putting this more in the GM's court allows for a more considered judgement.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Stop thinking in terms of pillars. Trying to categorize and silo abilities is pointless and fruitless. In the game, a battle might be avoided by diplomacy or careful scouting, or it might be caused by lack of tact and clueless wandering, or it may be what it is regardless how perceptive and diplomatic the players are. And even that ignores plenty of other aspects of the game like knowledge, crafting, athletics, various forms of subterfuge and deception, etc. In that context, trying to categorize an action, a scenario, or a character in "pillar" terms is misleading.

Instead, design goals should be considered in naturalistic terms. If a player declares the intent to play a wandering adventurer with a bent for music and a little magical talent, the question is how well do the rules allow that concept to come into play. Is the character good at the skills you would expect? If so, it works. The usefulness of said character in any particular game scenario, combat or otherwise, is not relevant at the level of game design.

But I'm not talking about character design here - I'm talking about rewarding the players for whatever it is they want to do. If the rules allow a wandering adventurer with a bent for music, shouldn't they also make sure that the character - and player - are rewarded appropriately for doing so?

At its most obvious extreme - a DM that has all treasure in his game wielded by dangerous monsters is not going to be adequately rewarding negotiators and sneakers - except maybe the really good pickpockets.