WOTC’s 3 Pillars

Not sure I buy into this, but a mention on twitter of WOTC’s 3 pillers of RPG (Exploration, Roleplaying and Combat) popped it into my mind. (EDIT: Dave rightly points out that Wizards views these as the three pillars of D&D, a subtle but important distinction)

9 thoughts on “WOTC’s 3 Pillars”

  1. Cam_Banks

    What I find interesting about this is that I tend to think in terms of the three overlapping areas when I consider gaming styles: Sandbox, Tactics, and Cinematic. I could happily play a game that focused 40/40/20 of Sandbox/Cinematic/Tactics.

    Reply ↓
  2. Reverance Pavane

    Not sure if it quite works as a Venn diagram (because I think I’m hearing two distinct versions of “Combat” when I do), but it definitely works as a list:

    Sandbox => Roleplay & Explore
    Cinematics => Roleplay & Combat
    Tactics => Combat & Explore

    Although I’d probably change Tactics to “Problem-Solving” myself.

    Reply ↓
  3. Bryant

    If we’re talking the OSR sandbox definitions, I don’t see roleplaying as being a key element. The idea that players decide where they go, yeah, that’s absolutely exploration, but you can privilege either combat or roleplaying within that. Non-D&D sandboxes might be another issue.

    Likewise I’m wondering what’s actually tactical about exploration. Tactics seems to live firmly inside combat, no?

    Which leaves me thinking that in the D&D context Combat is very well supported, Exploration is reasonably well supported, but Roleplay is not well supported at all. That matches the degree of mechanical support available for sure.

    Reply ↓
  4. Rob Donoghue

    I consider tactics to require an element of exploration because good tactical play involves setting engagement on a micro rather than macro scale. Without that, it ends up abstract.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *