Introduction
I have been working on 2 Role Playing Games (RPG) off-and-on over the last 3 years or so, whose genesis was found in inspiration from the release of Owlcat Games’ Rogue Trader in early Dec 2023. This game explicitly inspired the first system, named ND1 (a percentile based system). I have had to take a break due to needing to find time to do the programming to make the math work since that is really complicated and intense. Instead, I have been working on the second one (a classless, skills-based system) starting in early March 2024 and have been making good progress with this. I had the skill system done and the Core Resolution Mechanic done right away, but both have expanded a bit since then in great an interesting ways.
In this work I have begun some serious thought into the concept of Pillars of Play (PoP) and what this means for game design and play, especially when it comes to structural complexity of the individual pillars. I am just beginning my thought process into this meta discussion, so much of what I write here is merely my current stream of thought. Hopefully, some of my ramblings will be useful to you and I would love to hear your perspectives on this topic too.
I. Pillars of Play
What exactly is a Pillar of Play? In my current thinking, I am defining Pillar of Play as follows:
A Pillar of Play is a thematic area of conflict, interaction, and narrative. Each pillar also tends to have rules structures specific to enabling the resolution of that sort of conflict.
The main Pillars of Play are Combat, Exploration, and Social:
- Combat – players vs physical conflict
- Exploration – players vs environmental conflict
- Social – players vs social conflict
Active vs Passive Conflict – Each pillar has a differing amount and type of conflict, active vs passive conflict. Combat is the pillar that is directly active conflict, then Social, with Exploration being very heavy on passive conflict.
Something that has annoyed me for a long time, especially with D&D and Pathfinder character sheets, and many other systems is that when we are in combat, I have to look all over the sheet for the combat stats. When we are in exploration, I have to look all over the sheet for those stats. When we are in social mode I have to look all over the sheet for the social stats. Super annoying for my neurodivergent ADHD brain. Character sheets should be organized according to how they are going to be used, according to each Pillar of Play, so that everything is in one location so I do not have to search all over the place for the information needed to resolve the current conflict.
The structural model with which I am organizing both systems, including the rules and the character sheets, is based on the game’s Pillars of Play. However, I have expanded the Pillars of Play from the 3 main ones by adding 2 more:
- Academic (knowledge and information) – players vs information conflict; mostly passive opposition
- Business and Trades (engineering and crafting, business and income/wealth management). – players vs technological and financial conflict; mostly passive opposition
Although, in these systems I call them Arenas and all skills and activities, everything except for the core rules which are shared by all Arenas, are arranged within these collective containers.
II. Pillars of Play Meta Conversation
Now, there may be a significant meta conversation here about Pillars of Play which may be worth having. Here are all of the questions which are racing through my mind for you all to consider, and I would love to hear what you all think about these:
- What defines what is a Pillar of Play and why?
- Why have these 3 evolved as the current Pillars of Play?
- Are they the correct ones?
- Do there need to be more Pillars? If so, what should they be?
- Should there be fewer pillars?
- How do the Pillars of Play impact design and narrative systems?
- How does that limit or structure the thoughts of the GM and the players and their ability to solve problems… systems defining mental, narrative, and structural methods of engagement?
III. Player Roles within Pillars
Something else that came to mind when thinking about this topic was 4E Dungeon & Dragon’s (D&D) combat roles such as defender, controller, striker, leader, and their counterparts on the monster side, and how they interfaced with the Combat Pillar of Play. The combat roles are just thematic specializations of statistics or structures within the Combat Pillar.
This had me ask the following questions:
- What are the Exploration roles?
- What are the Social roles?
- What would their thematic mechanical specializations be and how would they manifest?
IV. Structural Complexity of the Pillars of Play
Here are the questions that I have been pondering regarding structural complexity of the Pillars of Play:
- How does the structural complexity of each pillar impact game play and GM and player decisions and enjoyment?
- Is structural complexity a reward and can interacting with it provide enjoyment? If so, why?
- Can it reduce enjoyment? If so, why?
- Can you fine tune a game’s narrative design by adjusting the structural complexity of individual pillars – complexity showing importance of that pillar to the game?
- Should we seek equity in structural complexity for all the pillars? If so, why or why not?
- What is the point or benefit of differential structural complexity in the Pillars of Play?
- What could a game look like where the Exploration and Social pillars were all equally complex and had the same interactive depth as the Combat pillar?
- In games with high levels of structural complexity do players and GMs rely on mechanics vs narrative and role playing?
- In games with Low levels of structural complexity do players and GMs rely narrative and role playing vs mechanics?
- Do structurally complex, rules heavy, or crunchy systems inhibit people’s ability to engage in narrative storytelling or role playing, relying on mechanics instead (since there is so much of it)?
Related Links
