D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Lanefan]

So not activity opposing is the same as supporting??

Yes. If the game can support a playstyle by just getting out of its way, that's good enough....and sometimes doing more than that, e.g. putting rules in in an attempt to support something like courtly intrigue or who-dunnit solving that works best when left freeform, can actually be counterproductive.

 

[Lanefan]

You cannot claim that a system supports a particular style of play if you are simply free forming play. Because I could claim that Chess is just as good as D&D for supporting these styles of play because, after all, I can simply free form in Chess just as easily as I can in D&D.

Unlike chess, D&D almost invariably provides a forum (the setting in use) as a backdrop against which that free-forming can take place.

For a system to actually support a given playstyle or concept, that system needs to address that playstyle or concept.

Freeform in-character roleplay (a common enough concept) is quite happily supported by D&D when, once the characters are made and the secne is set, the rules just stand aside and let the players get on with it.

The rules don't have to get involved until-unless something cannot be roleplayed and needs to be abstracted.

 

[Minigiant]

Yes. If the game can support a playstyle by just getting out of its way, that's good enough....and sometimes doing more than that, e.g. putting rules in in an attempt to support something like courtly intrigue or who-dunnit solving that works best when left freeform, can actually be counterproductive.

Again gotta push back against the community bias toward Freeform Roleplay and against Game Mechanic Rollplay.

Politics, Diplomacy, and Mystery at times can work very well or even better with more game mechanics.

The weakness of Freform is the limitations of the player's and DM/Gm's acting.

"Rollplay" can allow you to roleplay something you can't act.

 

[Oofta]

Again gotta push back against the community bias toward Freeform Roleplay and against Game Mechanic Rollplay.

Politics, Diplomacy, and Mystery at times can work very well or even better with more game mechanics.

The weakness of Freform is the limitations of the player's and DM/Gm's acting.

"Rollplay" can allow you to roleplay something you can't act.

Maybe for you. It's a preference. I wouldn't want to play something that gamifies politics, diplomacy, mystery.

 

[Minigiant]

Maybe for you. It's a preference. I wouldn't want to play something that gamifies politics, diplomacy, mystery.

Exactly, it is a preference.

But a lot of people in the community state that Freeform Roleplay is objectively better. To the point that Mechanical Rollplay is omitted or ignored as an option. Like Freeform doesn't have flaws Most people who aren't actors tend to have their Roleplay devolve into their own personalities instead of their characters as they aren't train to keep up the "act".

Mechanical Rollplay not even in the Original Post.

 

[Oofta]

Exactly, it is a preference.

But a lot of people in the community state that Freeform Roleplay is objectively better. To the point that Mechanical Rollplay is omitted or ignored as an option. Like Freeform doesn't have flaws Most people who aren't actors tend to have their Roleplay devolve into their own personalities instead of their characters as they aren't train to keep up the "act".

Mechanical Rollplay not even in the Original Post.

It's a preference that seems to be shared by a lot of people which is one (of many) aspects that's made it the best selling TTRPG ever. I just don't see a need for it, if people do there's likely 3PP out there.

Who knows what difference it would make if other aspects of the game had rules added but I remember what it was like in 4E to have a "system" to handle out of combat. Occasionally the idea sort of worked, I use a version of it now and then with modifications. But when 4E first came out and we were using it for everything? It sucked the soul out of the game.

Not saying it can't be done, but I don't need it or want it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's a preference that seems to be shared by a lot of people which is one (of many) aspects that's made it the best selling TTRPG ever. I just don't see a need for it, if people do there's likely 3PP out there.

Who knows what difference it would make if other aspects of the game had rules added but I remember what it was like in 4E to have a "system" to handle out of combat. Occasionally the idea sort of worked, I use a version of it now and then with modifications. But when 4E first came out and we were using it for everything? It sucked the soul out of the game.

Not saying it can't be done, but I don't need it or want it.

No one needs to justify a preference by continuing to defend the popularity of it. Liking something doesn't become less subjective because other people agree with you.

 

[Oofta]

No one needs to justify a preference by continuing to defend the popularity of it. Liking something doesn't become less subjective because other people agree with you.

People are arguing that we should make a significant change. I think that's a minority opinion. That's all.

 

[Hussar]

except D&D does have a resolution system that can be adapted to almost all styles of play: the ability check. Chess has no equivalent.

Heck, D&D could get rid of the complex combat rules and just use ability checks. we ran some adventures like that in 4e and it works.

Simple question. How do you use the ability check system as written to determine the attitudes of the population over time during an election for mayor in a large town?

See, there are systems out there that will actually do this. They can track successes and failures over time, can be altered to track different checks over different time periods, and can be nested in order to resolve something like this without simply free-forming most of the answer.

D&D is not a system that does this. That's not saying that D&D is a bad system. Far from it. But, this notion that rules-absent is somehow a strength of a system is so baffling to me. If a system does not have mechanics for a particular task, then that system does not support that task. Seems pretty straight forward to me. But, people keep telling me that it's a strength of a system to not have any mechanical support for a task. Which, to me, means that something like Basic/Expert would be the best D&D system since it has virtually no mechanics outside of combat resolution.

Or, even better, a completely ad hoc, DM fiat system is the best system for role play.

 

[Hussar]

There is support and examples of how to use what's basically a skill challenge. That, and I don't need, nor do I want a lot of rules for certain aspects of the game. If I wanted to play something that gamified politics I'd play something else.

Sometimes what they don't cover is just as important as what is covered.

Which is the point I'm making. The OP is claiming that D&D is good at dealing with politics. You just said that you'd use a different system to handle a political campaign.

So, why are you arguing with me?