D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Crimson Longinus]

Guess what? I was addressing Crimson Longinus.

I didn't say anything about it either, and I am rather certain that this is the first time in my life I have typed the word "rollplay."

 

[Oofta]

Guess what? I was addressing Crimson Longinus.


I do appreciate the bold. So thank you for at least being that sympathetic. I will also share that my partner likes having social mechanics because it often gives them cues and formalizes the social process in a way that they often find clear. I mentioned Stonetop and Avatar Legends before. The fact that these social moves often divulge pertinent information is a big boon for them.

Even without autism, some people feel uncomfortable speaking out in a group. Even a group of 4-6 others can be intimidating to some people, especially if the others are used to, and comfortable, with it.

So I totally get not wanting freeform play, even if I think playing D&D can help people express themselves. It has certainly helped me. But different people need and want different things.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That sounds to me like the game is trying to bake in a lot of setting information in order to make these elements work as intended.

Hard to square that with a homebrew cosmology where the deities are way more hands-on in mortal affairs.

I mean, you don't have to use Investiture if you don't want to. It's literally just a setting element explaining how things work for the World Axis. It isn't a "rule" in the strictest sense. There is not, to my knowledge, any actual ritual for the process nor for its removal, that's all left for each table to figure out (or for adventure writers to write about.)

If you desire a different explanation, you can use it. But it would generally be best to stick with one that doesn't employ divine Big Brother surveillance, since that's rather well known for the problems it causes, both cosmologically and in actual at-table play.

This one's almost too easy: if you don't want divine Big Brother surveillance then don't play a divine-casting class.

Problem solved.

And if one wishes to play a divine caster...?

Big Brother looking over your shoulder through the telescreen and instantly punishing your slightest heterodoxy isn't somehow the only way to run divine magic. Now who's "bak[ing] in a lot of setting information in order to make these elements work as intended"? Talk about a highly unverisimilitudinous way to go about magic. Major gods must hardly have any time for anything but watching their millions of worshipers.

 

[Maxperson]

I can do analogies all day too.

Thread posts are like a box of chocolate, no matter which one you eat, the odds are good that it will taste bad.

 

[Maxperson]

In fairness, the quickest and easiest way to make those styles valid is to just excise a few spells and abilities from the list.

I disagree. They are valid either way. Excising spells and abilities just makes it easier on the DM and often less fun for the players, since they the DM is depriving them of tools to help them in the playstyle.

Embracing the spells while still trying to give a particular play experience (e.g. gritty survival and resource management while the party have access to create food and water spells and-or always-successful foraging and-or safe shelter magic) always IME leads to situations way too contrived to be believable.

But survival takes many more resources than just food and water. You can do gritty survival with a bounty of food available. The scarcity of shelter, storms(perhaps like the changewinds of Jack Chalker) that require shelter or bad things happen, lack of metal for weapons, etc. are plenty to bring on gritty survival while something like create food and water is present.

 

[GrimCo]

Some people are on the spectrum. Some are shy. Some are uncomfortable. And some people just don't enjoy that part of game. So decent mechanical rules set for social interactions can be of great benefit. And not just for those players. Personally, with background in corporate sales and management, i have pretty much maxed my bullshido skill (i professionally use deception, persuasion, diplomacy and intimidation on daily basis), and there are days when i just don't want to role play interactions. I just want to roll dice, see if I fail/pass and move along with the story. Same with my friends who have some amateur theater background and are professional communicators (academia, corporate management). Dnd does have very basic and rudimentary mechanics. Skill or ability check vs DC or opposed check. Is it perfect? Not by the long shot. But for most part, it gets the job done. They could always make more robust optional system and release it as splat book. Or, like always, DMs can homebrew their own if they need it real bad.

 

[Lanefan]

That's simply impossible. I can in fact engage survival as a playstyle without food scarcity even being present. I can have an abundance of food sitting outside town forever, and still include survival as the primary focus of the campaign. You can argue that it doesn't aid(and I disagree), but you can't say that it hinders, because it doesn't at all hinder.

Not true. A tool in surviving is an aid to the style.

I see where you're coming from here - that the system speaks to the playstyle by providing those tools is in itself support for that playstyle - but I also disagree; in that providing tools that intentionally render the playstyle moot or irrelevant isn't exactly what I'd call support.

And Create Food is merely one of many tools that 5e provides that fight against the survival playstyle. And yes, survival can still arise in contrived situations e.g. the PCs find themselves teleported to a desert island with no access to spells and have to find ways to a) survive and b) get to somewhere useful; but that sort of thing is nearly always a one-off within a campaign of a different style.

When I see "playstyle" I think of something that permeates the whole campaign and can't be overcome or ignored on a whim. For "survival" that means having to worry about resources every adventuring day, having to play cautiously on the assumption the game world really is out to kill you, making sure you're not biting off more than you can chew in any given encounter or situation, always being ready willing and able to run away if you have to, and so on. Survival is Job One.

And most campaigns are a blend of a few playstyles. Survival-exploration, or survival-heroic, or heroic-hack'n'slash, etc.

 

[Imaro]

I really don't get this obsession with food as central to survival gameplay...

 

[Imaro]

I see where you're coming from here - that the system speaks to the playstyle by providing those tools is in itself support for that playstyle - but I also disagree; in that providing tools that intentionally render the playstyle moot or irrelevant isn't exactly what I'd call support.

And Create Food is merely one of many tools that 5e provides that fight against the survival playstyle. And yes, survival can still arise in contrived situations e.g. the PCs find themselves teleported to a desert island with no access to spells and have to find ways to a) survive and b) get to somewhere useful; but that sort of thing is nearly always a one-off within a campaign of a different style.

When I see "playstyle" I think of something that permeates the whole campaign and can't be overcome or ignored on a whim. For "survival" that means having to worry about resources every adventuring day, having to play cautiously on the assumption the game world really is out to kill you, making sure you're not biting off more than you can chew in any given encounter or situation, always being ready willing and able to run away if you have to, and so on. Survival is Job One.

And most campaigns are a blend of a few playstyles. Survival-exploration, or survival-heroic, or heroic-hack'n'slash, etc.

Isn't almost any survival gameplay contrived?? I can't think of a single example where it's not that's just part of the genre.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I really don't get this obsession with food as central to survival gameplay...

typically, people need to eat to survive.