D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Minigiant]

Mysteries, politics, etc. happen all the time in D&D. They discuss using skill checks, setting DCs, etc. in the DMG (yes, there could be more). It's supported through skill checks and backgrounds features, not to mention things that may have happened previously in game.

It seems like people are being deliberately obtuse so ... have a good one.

Exactly.
You roll dice, add bonuses, and compare the sum to a DC

My Niece's Elf Wizard rolls. Using her elf's 18 INT and proficiency in Investigation to realize that that guard over there has muddy shoes.

Rollplay lets you roleplay something not like yourself than Freeform unless you are an actor or other member of the performance community.

 

[cbwjm]

Which skills do you see missing from 5e? I know I’m missing a gather information type skill, or some kind of courtesy/intrigue/etiquette or other « function well in society » that isn’t Persuasion or Deception.

I've always used Charisma/Investigation checks for gathering information. You could maybe use Charisma/History for court gossip/etiquette. Sort of like knowing who can sit next to whom when sorting out seating at a wedding reception.

 

[Lanefan]

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

So does that make this a push-of-war?

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.

I wasn't a fan of rollplay in the 1980s and have seen no reason to change that stance since.

 

[Lanefan]

Again, I strongly disagree. By this logic, a totally systemless game would be the best solution to an RPG. An RPG with zero rules would always be better than an RPG with any rules.

You missed part II of my logic; that being that the rules take over as and when needed, i.e. when something can't be roleplayed at the table and abstraction is required.

Because that's what the rules are there for: to allow us to a) generate characters and b) deal with in the abstract that which can't be roleplayed

 

[Lanefan]

Exactly.
You roll dice, add bonuses, and compare the sum to a DC

My Niece's Elf Wizard rolls. Using her elf's 18 INT and proficiency in Investigation to realize that that guard over there has muddy shoes.

This is an example of something that can't* be roleplayed and thus has to be abstracted - does she notice something in the fiction that her player can't physically perceive at the table?

What doesn't need dice or rules is her character's reaction to said muddy shoes, nor the king's in-character reaction to being told about them if that's what transpires.

* - unless, of course, you've hired an actor to stand in the corner of your gaming room wearing a muddy-shoed guard's uniform.

 

[Minigiant]

This is an example of something that can't* be roleplayed and thus has to be abstracted - does she notice something in the fiction that her player can't physically perceive at the table?

What doesn't need dice or rules is her character's reaction to said muddy shoes, nor the king's in-character reaction to being told about them if that's what transpires.

* - unless, of course, you've hired an actor to stand in the corner of your gaming room wearing a muddy-shoed guard's uniform.

I don't think character control was ever mentioned as a viable playstyle.

But there were games that are heavy on Intigue, Diplomacy, Travel, Management, and Mystery that mostly split into 3 playstyles.

1. The DM and Players roleplay freeform based on their character's traits with no dice rolls beyond maybe an initial reaction roll
2. The DM and Players roleplay based on their character's traits and roll a die to discover the final resolution
3. The DM and Players roleplay based on their character's traits, roll a dice for every significant action, and discover the outcome via a tally or the final dice roll

There is a trend, because 1e and 2e were not printed with skills or NWP, to see #2 and #3 ignored or denied existing by a vocal group in the community. Then you have another vocal group who do to them not liking #2 or #3, straight up claiming them as inferior and without any good merit.

Because there is a playstyle of wanting to true experience the life of the PC or NPC.

It's the opposite of "Many people play a human fighter because it's familar".
"Many people play an lizarkfolk barbarian, warforged artificer, or grey dwarf psion because it's unfamiliar"


And because it's unfamiliar in order to get that feeling, you must abstract a lot with mechanics. Or be an actor.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Lots to add here.

First off, there's active system support and passive system support. Not all support need be active in order to be present and effective.

But "passive support" is not the same as "doesn't prevent." It still needs to be, y'know, supporting something.

Rules for mundane and magic item pricing, for example, passively support an economics- or industry-focused game. They don't actively support developing trade between two places (that would require price differentials and a bunch of other stuff), nor do they actively support the creation of magic items. But they are at least a starting point for doing those things yourself. Your tools and materials to work with, metaphorically speaking.

"Simply getting out of the way and doing nothing to discourage it" is not and cannot be support, of any kind. It isn't opposition, to be sure, but it isn't support either. It is not passive support, it's very intentional nothing. Because, by that standard, literally every game ever made "supports" roleplaying, because there aren't any rules that prevent roleplay.

Doing nothing to prevent something is not supporting it. It is permitting it. Permitting is a far cry from supporting in most cases. Chess permits roleplay, but that doesn't mean it supports roleplay, passively or otherwise.

Does D&D support slapstick play? Yes, passively, by simply getting out of the way and doing nothing to ban or discourage it. Same for some definitions of character-driven play.

To counter this with what I would consider actual "passive support": fumble tables, potion mixology rules, magic item quirks (e.g. the rules from 13th Age), and actually useful personality-trait systems would be passive support of "slapstick" play. That is, none of them is in any way doing something intended for slapstick use, and none of them is directly applicable as slapstick itself. But they provide raw materials which could be taken up, adapted, rearranged, and/or extrapolated in order to produce a "slapstick" tonal experience.

Second off, the OP lists 8 or so play styles and yet still misses several important ones, which may overlap with both each other and those on the original list:

I think part of the problem here is that we're conflating at least two very different meanings of "style" here. One is about the overall gameplay intent or concept, e.g. "problem-solving." The other is about the manner/method. A possible third is about the tone, since "big damn heroes" and "mercenary" are both tonal things, not relating to purpose/concept ("problem solving," "hack-and-slash," "political"), while "sandbox/freeform" (though, since "freeform" is rather loaded already, I'd prefer "impromptu") and "adventure path/railroad" are both about the manner or method by which the campaign is played.

That is, I don't think it is in any way a "hybrid" to speak of a game as a "big damn heroes" "political" "sandbox/impromptu" game. Those three descriptions seem to be operating on distinct levels. Likewise, a "slapstick" "mercenary" "adventure path/railroad" game sounds perfectly plausible.

In general, D&D supports degrees of heroic or mercenary tone for various reasons, and doesn't handle other tonal types as well, e.g. Zeitgeist had a lot of heavy lifting to do to make it make sense that the players are formally part of an official law enforcement agency. Such a tone is not actively supported, and I would not personally call it even passively supported, but it is certainly permitted. Likewise, while it is possible to do horror with D&D, it's rarely even passively supported without significant bolt-on modules added (see: Ravenloft), made more or less from whole cloth.

For intent/concept, one that hasn't strictly been mentioned thus far: Survival. This is an important one, because 5e (much like 3e and PF1e before it) is in fact actually set against this gameplay concept. You have to actually go in and delete existing rules, and often add more rules as well, to get a survival-focused game. It's a complaint I've seen quite frequently from old-school fans. Conversely, despite the many claims to the contrary, 4e actually did passively support "survival" gameplay, via the Healing Surge and exhaustion mechanics, and Dark Sun then built on those rules to bolt-on actual active support for it. I lack sufficient experience to speak of previous editions, but given the strong association between gritty survival-based gameplay and the OSR, I can only imagine that the rules were at least passively supporting it back then.

This way, we can differentiate active support (rules specifically designed to achieve the described end), passive support (rules not designed to do that, but which can be re-purposed for it, or used as an effective foundation), mere permitting (more or less lacking any rules at all relevant to the topic), and outright opposing (having rules that actually resist or prevent something.)

Of these, D&D actively supports the second and third, passively supports the first and fourth, and gently fights against the fifth unless the DM does some tweaking.

See, here I actually agree that it passively supports "mercenary." It's not just that it doesn't do things which prevent this; it does, in fact, lay ground work for doing so, but little more than that. See, for example, the oft-mentioned lack of stuff to do with the filthy lucre obtained from your mercenary ways. Conversely, it simply permits sandbox play; there's really not much in it which can be purposed toward its specific ends. For example, if there were robust support for random generation of things like settlements, businesses, organizations, and NPCs, then those things would be good passive support--they make it easier to develop locales on the fly, which is something sandbox play wants to do a lot. Active support would look more like rules for how to design maps (with specific reference to hexes vs grids), ways to spice up an existing locale, checklists for making sure you're covering your bases (literally and figuratively), and wandering monster tables of varying levels (preferably with advice for how to build your own such tables.) As it is, the DMG is....pretty sparse on the NPC-generation front, and nearly silent on the rest--that's pretty squarely in the "permit" category, with just the faintest blush of passive support.

 

[Hussar]

This is an example of something that can't* be roleplayed and thus has to be abstracted - does she notice something in the fiction that her player can't physically perceive at the table?

What doesn't need dice or rules is her character's reaction to said muddy shoes, nor the king's in-character reaction to being told about them if that's what transpires.

* - unless, of course, you've hired an actor to stand in the corner of your gaming room wearing a muddy-shoed guard's uniform.

See, right there, that's the trick.

You are 100% right. You don't need rules to determine the reactions. That is 100% true. You can certainly free form that and decades of gamers have done exactly that.

But, that's not quite the question is it? The question isn't, "do we need this?" No. The question is, "Does the system SUPPORT this?"

And the answer, in a rules absent system, is no, it does not support it in any way. The reaction is 100% dependent on the DM. And, if the DM decides that the reaction is something that the players don't like? Too bad. They can suck it up. Even though no one at the table is enjoying the game because of the DM's decision, it doesn't matter. It's all on the DM's shoulders. So, when the DM decides something that the table enjoys (note, enjoy, not like - that's a different thing) then that is a great DM who everyone applauds. But, when the DM decides something that the table doesn't enjoy, it is equally the fault/responsibility of the DM.

Whereas in a system where these reactions are supported by the mechanics, there is a framework in place which determines that reaction. SInce we're all choosing to play this system, presumably we like this framework. Note, we could also, just as easily, choose to ignore this framework in this situation in favor of something the table likes better. No problems. But, with the framework there, you have a starting place to work from. Without that framework, it's all guesswork and, as you say @Lanefan, trial and error. With error resulting in people at the table having a bad time.

I'd much rather that the system had something in place to support what we're trying to do. Claiming that it's better to have no mechanical support means that you are presuming that the DM will make the correct ruling every single time, regardless of how experienced that DM is.

 

[Minigiant]

For intent/concept, one that hasn't strictly been mentioned thus far: Survival. This is an important one, because 5e (much like 3e and PF1e before it) is in fact actually set against this gameplay concept. You have to actually go in and delete existing rules, and often add more rules as well, to get a survival-focused game. It's a complaint I've seen quite frequently from old-school fans. Conversely, despite the many claims to the contrary, 4e actually did passively support "survival" gameplay, via the Healing Surge and exhaustion mechanics, and Dark Sun then built on those rules to bolt-on actual active support for it. I lack sufficient experience to speak of previous editions, but given the strong association between gritty survival-based gameplay and the OSR, I can only imagine that the rules were at least passively supporting it back then.

Totally forgot Survival.

D&D's been anti-survival for more that 2 decades now. That's likely why the ranger class tends to suck and/or be a blender/LMG.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Totally forgot Survival.

D&D's been anti-survival for more that 2 decades now. That's likely why the ranger class tends to suck and/or be a blender/LMG.

I will say, the one time I saw a 4e ranger in play, it was genuinely kind of awesome. He could do a dance of death with an opponent all by himself for quite a while. That plus the rituals and utility powers genuinely made him feel like an ice-cold, no-nonsense hunter. Sadly the player didn't stick around for that game.