D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[payn]

So I totally agree that you don't need much rules support for doing a lot of interesting things in RPGs, and personally I feel that for a lot of things rules light approach is better. I don't actually want complicated personality mechanics for character drama nor extensive social combat mechanics for intrigue. So in that regard D&D's "skill + d20 to beat the DC" seems pretty sufficient amount of rules for handling lot of things.

That being said, what D&D definitely has a lot of detailed rules for is combat, so if your game is not going to feature that rather prominently using D&D seems like a waste. Generally I feel that D&D is best for running some sort of fantasy action adventure, that by no means needs to be all about combat, but it should still contain good amount of it.

In another thread, I mentioned how adventures can be a real good place to expand on D&D's murderhobo default. In the PF1 era (I havent been following PF2 APs) it wasnt just a series of campaign modules. It was a series of themed campaign modules complete with subsystem mechanics. So, for example, if folks do want "extensive social combat mechanics for intrigue" they can choose the adventure path that focuses on it. Others leaned into action sequences like chase scenes, or expanded on traps with haunts, etc.. If you dont like the flavor of the current variety, just hang on for a few months and there might be something that does appeal to you.

Of course, WotC doesn't cater to this in variety or frequency. I do believe it would have been a good way to deliver modularity, but with 5E's wild success all the need unfortunately evaporated. Which is why you have disgruntled players and GMs asking for more. I think WotC is leaving a lot on the table in this regard. Something im sure Paizo is happy they dont figure out.

 

[CleverNickName]

I strongly disagree with you here. Most of the things you've listed aren't actually supported by D&D. At best they're freeform which is system independent.

For example:

1. Problem Solving - D&D actively works against this. The magic system allows the players to bypass so many problems without actually taking any time to directly try to solve a problem. Why bother working out the combination lock on that lost tomb when you can simply use any of fifteen different magic effects to bypass it?

2. Character Driven - very little in D&D actually supports this. The skill system is so basic that it's largely pointless. The system does not reward any character growth at all. Falling in love and getting married, for example, is entirely free-form. Nothing in the system actually supports or rewards this.

3. Political - again, nothing in D&D supports this. Your character wants to win over the population of the town to get elected. What in D&D actually allows you to do this? This is all freeform or ad hoc DM fiat to resolve.

4. Historical Simulation? Seriously? In a game where 30 of the 36 base classes in the PHB all have spells? You'd have to slice out about 4/5ths of the rules just to start doing something like this. My next question would be, why on earth would you even begin to use D&D for this? I couldn't even imagine where you'd start trying to do something like this.

I want to agree with you, but I think we have to define what you meant by "supported by D&D" first. Because it's not really a question of whether or not a playstyle is supported at all, but a question of how much it is supported. It's not an on/off toggle switch; it's a dial that goes from 0 to 11.

• Hack & Slash: it varies by edition, but I'd say the "Support Dial" would be at least 7 or so. Meaning at least 70% of the game's rules are dedicated to combat. Seriously, I know people who play this game purely as a combat simulator.
• Problem Solving: again, varies by edition. With 5E pushing the rules minutiae back onto the DM (unlike 3.X, which tried to make rules for every situation), I'd say that the Support Dial would be on 2 or 3 for this kind of play--and that's a good thing.
• Character Driven: 5E would put this dial right in the middle, around 5 or 6. Backgrounds, multiclassing, Ideals/Flaws/Bonds, alignment, there are a lot of choices and options that deliberately put the player in "story mode." I think that's one of the strengths of the system, but even so: I wouldn't want the dial any higher than that.
• Historical Simulation: Yeah, this is all on the DM. I agree completely; the Support Dial is firmly at zero and always has been.
• Slapstick: Again, set that Support Dial to zero. It's a valid style of play (and fun, besides!) but it's more of a "chosen by the players" situation...it isn't really something that gets "supported" by the rules.
• Monty Haul: say what you want about D&D, but if you enjoy this style of play, D&D has it in spades. It's actively encouraged at all tiers of play, starting at character creation (start with max hp! Don't like your stats? just pick them instead! Can't find the magic item you needed for your 'build'? buy it, or craft it yourself!) This Support Dial has been steadily turning clockwise since the 1980s, and 5E puts it at 10 or 11.
• Tactical: earlier editions of D&D didn't really need much tactical stuff...BECM, B/X, 1E were all mostly "theater of the mind" stuff. (Sure, there was Chainmail, the tactical wargame that started it all, but I think we all agree that is a different game entirely.) Then 3E came along and turned D&D into a weird board game, with 'moves' and everything, and we've been there ever since. TSR-era? Support dial at 2 or 3. WotC-era? Dial at 8 or 9.
• Political: If you enjoy this kind of game, you probably appreciate how 5E made Charisma more important, and gave us the optional Renown and Honor rules in the DMG. The Support Dial starts out at 2 or 3, but it can go all the way to 10 or 11 with those optional rules.
• Mixing It Up: definitely on the high end, probably around 7 or 8. 5th Edition D&D was built with house-ruling in mind, especially since "just ask the DM" has been codified on friggin' page one of the rules. I have borrowed (stolen) things from all kinds of games--Call of Cthulhu, Final Fantasy, Stardew Valley--and plugged them into my 5E D&D campaign with very little effort.

 

[Sacrosanct]

LOL no. You just aren't setting up the right kind of problem or letting people getting long rests whenever they want. Need to solve that combination lock? Well, if you cast knock you've just rang the dinner bell because everything within 300 feet just heard you. Besides, any complex door lock worth it's salt is simply going to be unaffected because it's not mechanical or held close with an arcane lock spell.

I admit I always take umbrage at claims that D&D's rules make spells as auto-wins in scenarios. Why? Because D&D rules, the actual rules, do have plenty of mitigations to prevent that. Spell slots, prepared spells, knowing the spell in the first place, time constraint, or things like you say with knock. Sometimes, sure. But always or almost always? If someone's experience is that the player always has a spell to overcome every challenge, I strongly suspect they are ignoring many of the rules that mitigate that.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

The only ones missing are the checks 5e states there are but lack skills.

Gather Info
Streetwise/Local
Etiquette
Endurance
Weightlifting/BendbarsLiftgates
Merchant/Appraisal

 

[Laurefindel]

• Slapstick: Again, set that Support Dial to zero. It's a valid style of play (and fun, besides!) but it's more of a "chosen by the players" situation...it isn't really something that gets "supported" by the rules.

I wonder if any game actively supports that. Paranoia certainly encourages it but I don't know it well enough to tell if the rules supports it beyond the "extra life" clones.

What "slapstick" requires is tough characters and the ability to be a threat regardless whether you have a bomb or a broomstick in your hands. D&D characters can do that, the rest is in the description.

You can play like your character took a fireball in the face and emerges charcoal-black and hair on fire but otherwise very much alive and able to keep on going. You can take a sword trough your chest and pull it back out complaining on the hole it made in your shirt. You can fall 30 feet on your face, be 1hp away from death and keep on running as if nothing happened. You can walk on lava going "ouch! ouch! ouch!" and survive the ordeal; the rules all support it. D&D characters can go down and get back up again, die and be raised back to life with a single (and relatively easily available) spell. Heck, sometimes the challenge of D&D is NOT to make too slapstick-y...

When it comes to slapstick RPG style, D&D is among the best equipped games to support it, even if the game is not presented as such.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

People sometimes claim that Dungeons & Dragons only supports a narrow range of play styles, but that is not my experience. I've seen the D&D rules used to support a variety of games, and as a DM, you should comprehend this versatility and use it to your advantage.

Good article, and one that I agree with. That said, I do think that there is a slight difference in saying that the "D&D rules {are} used to support a variety of games," and "the D&D rules support a variety of games." It's a subject I've touched on several times in past essays, but I'll briefly recap the ideas here.

When you read books like The Elusive Shift, one thing that stands out is how people latched on to the original OD&D rules and used them to make all sorts of different games- from historically accurate ones to super hero games. This is why OD&D was often thought of as more of a "toolkit" to make games as opposed to a finished product for gaming. Going into the late 70s and early 80s, people would still debate whether or not you even needed other game systems, or if D&D could simply handle it all.

That history, and especially that DIY history, still informs the culture of D&D play. So when people talk about "D&D," they are actually talking about a bunch of different concepts-

1. The current rules. In other words, the 5e written ruleset.

2. What the written rules don't cover. For example, while D&D has had various levels of rules regarding social encounters, there has usually been at least some amount of space and allowance for roleplay.

3. The influence of the past. The current edition of D&D is always in a conversation with the conventions and attitudes of past editions, and with people who play the current edition (or modify it) to be like past editions.

4. 3PP and homebrew. The DIY nature of the game is evidence thorough commercial (and non-commercial) rules and lore.

4. The community. The large community of D&D is always in a conversation about the game, and its uses.

For that reason, D&D can be used in a variety of ways, and often is. I think it is often helpful to contrast D&D with other games, many of which are superior in providing a specific experience. For example, if you wanted to play a game about heists in a cinematic style, you'd be better off playing BiTD than D&D. However, D&D still allows you to engage in heists. Or politics. Or combat. Or any one of a number of different other activities, within the same campaign or even the same session.

It's not as good as a game that is purpose-built for a specific purpose, but because of the factors listed above, it is reasonably good at a number of different things.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Good article, and one that I agree with. That said, I do think that there is a slight difference in saying that the "D&D rules {are} used to support a variety of games," and "the D&D rules support a variety of games." It's a subject I've touched on several times in past essays, but I'll briefly recap the ideas here.

When you read books like The Elusive Shift, one thing that stands out is how people latched on to the original OD&D rules and used them to make all sorts of different games- from historically accurate ones to super hero games. This is why OD&D was often thought of as more of a "toolkit" to make games as opposed to a finished product for gaming. Going into the late 70s and early 80s, people would still debate whether or not you even needed other game systems, or if D&D could simply handle it all.

That history, and especially that DIY history, still informs the culture of D&D play. So when people talk about "D&D," they are actually talking about a bunch of different concepts-

1. The current rules. In other words, the 5e written ruleset.

2. What the written rules don't cover. For example, while D&D has had various levels of rules regarding social encounters, there has usually been at least some amount of space and allowance for roleplay.

3. The influence of the past. The current edition of D&D is always in a conversation with the conventions and attitudes of past editions, and with people who play the current edition (or modify it) to be like past editions.

4. 3PP and homebrew. The DIY nature of the game is evidence thorough commercial (and non-commercial) rules and lore.

4. The community. The large community of D&D is always in a conversation about the game, and its uses.

For that reason, D&D can be used in a variety of ways, and often is. I think it is often helpful to contrast D&D with other games, many of which are superior in providing a specific experience. For example, if you wanted to play a game about heists in a cinematic style, you'd be better off playing BiTD than D&D. However, D&D still allows you to engage in heists. Or politics. Or combat. Or any one of a number of different other activities, within the same campaign or even the same session.

It's not as good as a game that is purpose-built for a specific purpose, but because of the factors listed above, it is reasonably good at a number of different things.

I think there is definitely a difference between a game built from the ground up to do ancient rome and a D&D campaign where the rules are tweaked to fit Rome. Still D&D can be great fun across lots of different kinds of settings, in part because the underlying structures of the game work really well in my opinion. So you are often bending the concept to fit the D&D framework, but it is still enjoyable. I kind of want both to flourish. There are games that technically do classic and gothic horror better for example, and I played a bunch of horror RPGs growing up but I find Ravenloft still provides the most enjoyable experience for me with Horror. It is classic/Gothic fit to the D&D framework, but it somehow works for me

 

[Maxperson]

Most social interactions boil down to no roll at all, because two people talking to each other does not necessarily involve conflict.

Yeah. The DMG guidance says that you should only roll if the outcome is in doubt and there is a meaningful consequence for failure. Most social interactions fail to have one or both of those circumstances.

 

[MichaelSomething]

D&D doesn't support different styles of play, an empowered DM does!

 

[CleverNickName]

D&D doesn't support different styles of play, an empowered DM does!

That's an excellent point, also.