D&D 5E Heteroglossia and D&D: Why D&D Speaks in a Multiplicity of Playing Styles

[Campbell]

Vantage point matters here (by like a country mile). It's fundamentally like being an American Football player and expecting to be able to play quarterback in a soccer game or being a so
ccor player and expecting to pass the ball forward with a kick in an American football game.

Sure, expecting to be able to engage in a game like Sorcerer in the same ways you can engage in a game like D&D is asking for an exercise in frustration. The same is also true - the various ways I can play/run Apocalypse World are simply unavailable to me in D&D. Trying to get the same sorts of play experiences is like trying to get blood from a stone.

As far as accommodating different sorts of players at the same table all I can say is that in my experience players bring their own focus and energy to any game, whatever the process of play. How that manifests will be different from game to game but I can say that on a basic playstyle level each of us in the Blades game @Manbearcat is running sure seem to be approaching the game in phenomenally different ways. They won't map to Robin Laws' player types because it is a different sort of game so of course the player topology will be different.

 

[FrogReaver]

Vantage point matters here (by like a country mile). It's fundamentally like being an American Football player and expecting to be able to play quarterback in a soccer game or being a succor player and expecting to pass the ball forward with a kick in an American football game.

Sure, expecting to be able to engage in a game like Sorcerer in the same ways you can engage in a game like D&D is asking for an exercise in frustration. The same is also true - the various ways I can play/run Apocalypse World are simply unavailable to me in D&D. Trying to get the same sorts of play experiences is like trying to get blood from a stone.

To summarize.

• Different games produce different ranges of playstyles.
• Even if Game A produces a greater range of playstyles that doesn't mean there is necessarily any overlap with the range of playstyles that Game B produces. (there could be or could not be).

I've been focusing on the first. You on the 2nd. I agree with both. Do you?

 

[hawkeyefan]

IMO. Being able to fiddle with dials and craft rulings to fit and set differing dc's based on 'theme' definitely feel like they produce a change in playstyle to me.

I think playstyle is more than just process, it's also the specifics within that process.

Shooting a shotgun feels different than shooting a pistol than shooting a high powered rifle even though the basic process is aim and pull the trigger.

Sure that stuff matters. But how much? And perhaps more specifically, how much compared to games that have a different structure?

To use your example, how different is firing a pistol versus a shotgun, and then how different is firing a pistol from water-skiing?

What I’d love to see are peoples’ actual examples of how they changed something about the way they play D&D and it had a dramatic impact on the way the game played, and why.

People assert this stuff all the time, but we don’t often get specific examples.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What I’d love to see are peoples’ actual examples of how they changed something about the way they play D&D and it had a dramatic impact on the way the game played, and why.

People assert this stuff all the time, but we don’t often get specific examples.

And to what degree can you still do so and have most people agree it's D&D?

My longest period with a D&D version was in the OD&D days, and it wasn't exactly uncommon for people to do various hacks of OD&D (sometimes pretty severe ones) back then--but I'd be willing to bet some would be a bridge too far for most D&D players. Some had a distinct change in feeling to the game, but those tended to be the more severe ones (some of the spell point systems, for example, or things like the Armsmaster critical hit system).

 

[hawkeyefan]

And to what degree can you still do so and have most people agree it's D&D?

My longest period with a D&D version was in the OD&D days, and it wasn't exactly uncommon for people to do various hacks of OD&D (sometimes pretty severe ones) back then--but I'd be willing to bet some would be a bridge too far for most D&D players. Some had a distinct change in feeling to the game, but those tended to be the more severe ones (some of the spell point systems, for example, or things like the Armsmaster critical hit system).

So what did those things do? How does a spell point system change the game? Or a critical hit system?

 

[Thomas Shey]

So what did those things do? How does a spell point system change the game? Or a critical hit system?

The spell point system I'm thinking of seriously upped the flexibility of spellcasters, as their spell slots were only relevant for spells available; basically it made all spellcasters like latter-day sorcerers, but even more flexible, as you could spend all your points on lower or higher level spells as you wished. On the whole, it upped the power of spellcasters in a time when there was some serious issues with stalling around waiting for the right minute to use a spell, and/or only taking spells that had a very consistent use case. Basically, it tended to impact the way people played spellcasters and viewed them in a fairly serious way.

The Armsmaster system tended to strongly impact the way people interacted with the hit point system, because it made it less consistently relevant. You (or your opponents) could get taken out by a single hit even if there was a D8 damage and 50 hit points involved. There were also maiming and temporary disablement rules. All of those impacted how people approached dealing with combat an its aftermath seriously (in some ways more severely than it did in things like Runequest).

(Both of these arguably tilted the net benefit to spellcasters more than they already were, though it was complex with the crits, since it provided some capability for fighters to sudden-death opposition that previously only been available to mages at certain slices of advancement-to-opponents).

 

[Hussar]

I disagree with people that say the game is poorly designed because they don't like some aspect. Last time I checked I'm allowed to like the game.

Yes but now you’re being a bit vague. Liking something does not make it good as in well made but good as in delicious.

That’s the core of the problem. You’re using good to mean “stuff I like” and someone else is using good to mean high quality. And then you’re complaining when they disagree with you.

Context is everything.

 

[Hussar]

I think the point of a lot of non-DnD games is that they are more focused and less about heteroglossia. That’s the strength they are relying on.

If you sit down to, say, Ironworn, you are going to get a fairly specific play experience. One would not expect high fantasy Harry Potter style stories. Nor would I expect 17th century Swashbuckling adventure.

The trade off in this design though is it is not as widely appealing.

 

[Oofta]

Yes but now you’re being a bit vague. Liking something does not make it good as in well made but good as in delicious.

That’s the core of the problem. You’re using good to mean “stuff I like” and someone else is using good to mean high quality. And then you’re complaining when they disagree with you.

Context is everything.

What is confusing about "in my opinion" and "I consider"? You may consider livers and onions a delicious meal, I'm not sure I could choke it down. That doesn't make your opinion incorrect, we just have different opinions.

So the "context" is that quality is largely in the eye of the beholder. In my eyes, 5E is a good game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think the point of a lot of non-DnD games is that they are more focused and less about heteroglossia. That’s the strength they are relying on.

If you sit down to, say, Ironworn, you are going to get a fairly specific play experience. One would not expect high fantasy Harry Potter style stories. Nor would I expect 17th century Swashbuckling adventure.

The trade off in this design though is it is not as widely appealing.

There are plenty where that's not true, though. A lot of generic and semi-generic systems are built specifically to provide a variety of experiences as built, not only in genre, but in emphasis and style (and do the latter at least as well as any D&D version would). I've seen both BRP and Hero campaigns over the years with vastly varied emphasis. This doesn't mean the mechanics don't lean one way or another, but that's every bit as true of D&D.