D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Crimson Longinus]

Skill system can be used to cover wide variety of situations. It might not be as much support as you wish, but it is there, so there is no reason to make obviously absurd chess comparisons.

And personally for many things I prefer the rules light approach, so it is about as much support than I need. YMMV.

 

[Hussar]

Skill system can be used to cover wide variety of situations. It might not be as much support as you wish, but it is there, so there is no reason to make obviously absurd chess comparisons.

And personally for many things I prefer the rules light approach, so it is about as much support than I need. YMMV.

There's a difference between "rules light" and "rules absent".

If you wanted to run a political campaign in D&D, it's largely "rules absent". There are simply no rules to support this. Sure, you could kitbash something together and cobble something, but, again, we're talking about how much does the system actually SUPPORT something like this. So, no, the skill system, while perfectly serviceable in a dungeon crawler/typical D&D scenario, is not the panacea system that people seem to want it to be.

 

[Minigiant]

Skill system can be used to cover wide variety of situations. It might not be as much support as you wish, but it is there, so there is no reason to make obviously absurd chess comparisons.

Sure but

2 editions didn't have skills by default.
None of the editions had a decently balanced skill system for even the play styles D&D was designed for or excelled at.
And the magic system, completely run roughshod over the skill system if you don't do a bunch of fights to consume spell slots.

I'm begging to think the best way to do D&D is to organize skill by playstyle and have groups include them by preferece

• Hack and slash
  • Athletics
  • Acrobatics
  • Bend Bars/Lift Gates
  • Concentration
  • Perception
  • Sleight of Hand
  • Stealth
• Problem Solving
  • Animal Handling
  • Insight
  • Arcana
  • History
  • Investigation
  • Medicine
  • Nature
  • Perception
  • Religion
• Character Driven
  • Craft
  • Deception
  • Insight
  • Intimidation
  • Performance
  • Persuasion
  • Profession
• Historical Simulation
  • Animal Handling
  • Craft
  • Etiquette
  • Medicine
  • Profession
  • Survival
• Slapstick
  • Sleight of Hand
  • Concentration
  • Drinking
• Monty Haul
  • Craft
  • Profession
• Tactical
  • Athletics
  • Acrobatics
  • Bend Bars/Lift Gates
  • Concentration
• Political
  • Etiquette
  • Deception
  • Insight
  • Intimidation
  • Performance
  • Persuassion
  • Profession
• Survival
  • Dungeoneering
  • Survival

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

There's a difference between "rules light" and "rules absent".

If you wanted to run a political campaign in D&D, it's largely "rules absent". There are simply no rules to support this. Sure, you could kitbash something together and cobble something, but, again, we're talking about how much does the system actually SUPPORT something like this. So, no, the skill system, while perfectly serviceable in a dungeon crawler/typical D&D scenario, is not the panacea system that people seem to want it to be.

OK, spoke to my DM and rather than go back to my previous post I will respond here. He was speaking specifically about 5e.

My DM said skill checks are the basic resolution system, but that the DMG has several guidelines (aka rules - he doesn't like to call anything a rule) that cover different types of play. He said in our games we typically handle political and stronghold type scenarios through the downtime guidelines in the DMG and Xanthar's and sprinkle in the social interaction guidelines in the DMG with skill checks as needed. He said there is also a factions and renown system in the DMG and some of the supplements, but he hasn't actually looked at those in a long time.

Beyond the core books he said there is support for just about any style of game from some 3pp. So he believes 5e at least has support for lots of play styles.

 

[hgjertsen]

There's a difference between "rules light" and "rules absent".

If you wanted to run a political campaign in D&D, it's largely "rules absent". There are simply no rules to support this. Sure, you could kitbash something together and cobble something, but, again, we're talking about how much does the system actually SUPPORT something like this. So, no, the skill system, while perfectly serviceable in a dungeon crawler/typical D&D scenario, is not the panacea system that people seem to want it to be.

I would think this is largely because the resolution of political drama is not easily represented by arithmetic unless you would desire a social combat system in which social interactions are abstracted to a mechanical challenge rather than an intellectual one.

 

[Minigiant]

I would think this is largely because the resolution of political drama is not easily represented by arithmetic unless you would desire a social combat system in which social interactions are abstracted to a mechanical challenge rather than an intellectual one.

As a salesman by occupation and a fan of political discussion, a lot of social interaction in D&D would be arithmetic fights.

The core issue is that you'll be investing system resources into a system that some playstyles straight up ignore, some playstyles could us but the players straight up ignore, and some playstyles that have different levels of need.

It's the "Mental Stats" problem.

If you are in a pure combat table, Intelligence and Charisma are useless dump stats for anyone but the classes who use them for magic.

If you are in a combat heavy table, Intelligence and Charisma are still useless dump stats except in a few clutch situations where your DM forces a single check that ends up being a big deal.

If you are in a combat light but freeform table, Intelligence and Charisma are still useless dump stats except in a few more common clutch situations

If you are in a combat light table where people are sic of the dump stats, Intelligence and Charisma become powerful as the DM has added a few powerful optional rules or force mental skill checks often.

If you are in a combat extra light table, Intelligence and Charisma are overpowered because of a fat book or pdf file.

 

[Hussar]

I would think this is largely because the resolution of political drama is not easily represented by arithmetic unless you would desire a social combat system in which social interactions are abstracted to a mechanical challenge rather than an intellectual one.

That would be a good example of a system that actually supports that style of play. A game that lacks a social combat system does not really support social interaction all that well, no? If social interaction is simply freeform, then that system isn't supporting anything. Which isn't to say you cannot do these things freeform. That's obviously true.

I'm arguing about the point that the SYSTEM is supporting play. Freeform is not a system.

 

[Hussar]

OK, spoke to my DM and rather than go back to my previous post I will respond here. He was speaking specifically about 5e.

My DM said skill checks are the basic resolution system, but that the DMG has several guidelines (aka rules - he doesn't like to call anything a rule) that cover different types of play. He said in our games we typically handle political and stronghold type scenarios through the downtime guidelines in the DMG and Xanthar's and sprinkle in the social interaction guidelines in the DMG with skill checks as needed. He said there is also a factions and renown system in the DMG and some of the supplements, but he hasn't actually looked at those in a long time.

Beyond the core books he said there is support for just about any style of game from some 3pp. So he believes 5e at least has support for lots of play styles.

Ok, put it another way.

The downtime rules in teh DMG or Xanathars that cover stronghold type scenarios is about a page long. Maybe two? Certainly no more than that.

The rules for creating a monster in the DMG is over ten pages long.

Which would you say is more supported by the rules?

If I wanted to determine how likely it was for one of the guards guarding your stronghold could be bribed, what mechanics in 5e would I use for that? How would I determine the loyalty of your staff?

To give another example, in Waterdeep Dragon Heist, there are rules for running a business. That's true. There are rules. The rules consist of a random table where you make xdx gp per week depending on what you roll on the table. There are a couple of modifiers for the table but that's about it. You could fit the entire ruleset on a file card. That is the sum total of rules for running a business. It's quick, easy and, if you're not terribly concerned about it, they do work.

But, I'd hardly call that support by the system.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That would be a good example of a system that actually supports that style of play. A game that lacks a social combat system does not really support social interaction all that well, no? If social interaction is simply freeform, then that system isn't supporting anything. Which isn't to say you cannot do these things freeform. That's obviously true.

I'm arguing about the point that the SYSTEM is supporting play. Freeform is not a system.

The issue is though this is a very contentious topic in RPGs. For a lot of people, social combat doesn't support social interaction, it interferes with it (because I think for many gamers, freeform RP is the optimal way to manage social interaction).

That said most forms of D&D have some amount of social rules, even if it is just stuff like CHR and reaction adjustment.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I would think this is largely because the resolution of political drama is not easily represented by arithmetic unless you would desire a social combat system in which social interactions are abstracted to a mechanical challenge rather than an intellectual one.

It's also difficult to design a political system without making political value judgments.