D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[bloodtide]

But why doesn't that swing the other way? Why is it wonderful and amazing to have a "dense section of rules" for combat, "when we are perfectly fine managing that without it, or with a much smaller set of mechanics"?

Because what this seems to be saying is that combat is somehow radically different from other forms of challenge someone might face, and that's an assertion very much lacking in the proof department. Particularly if we're going to be disparaging one as "dense"--cumbersome, unwieldy, overly-elaborate--while the other is seemingly only positive!

It does not work so well for Combat or even in more general terms Action.

It is simple and easy to role play a character talking their way past some guards. This does not quite work with a character swinging a sword and killing a dragon. The rules ground the game and give it a base line. You want to take an action, you must use this rule.

Combat rules..at there very best...give gamers an illusion of choice. They "think and feel" they can take an action in the game......they can "best the rules" and "win". The dice alone give the feeling of chance. If you have played a couple rpg games you should have seen at least one amazing roll. Once...a small dragon set a trap for some characters...and they fell for it. While stuck in the trap the dragon breathed..............and I rolled a "1", ten times....so for only 10 points of damage. A famous one was the lich battle on the mountian top. Big battle and the PCs nearly loose, all being near death. As the lich telekinickly tosses the paladin off the mountain...he makes one last attack. Throwing his holy dagger at the lich.......and rolls a 20. And does a bare 11 points of damage.....to the lich with 9 hp left.

There are RPGs with simple combat. "ok roll an 11 to kill the dragon".

 

[Hussar]

No they don't. They say "these are the types of games I have observed people playing". They don't say D&D is good at doing any of them.

So why all the pushback about me saying that DnD isn’t particularly good at a number of these things?

Seems there are a number of people who insist that DnD is actually a very good system for doing these different kinds of games.

 

[Hussar]

SHOCKING NEWS ... AFTER A DECADE MINOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE D&D BOOKS WILL BE MADE ... NEWS AT 11 ... REPEAT ... SHOCKING NEWS ...

So why the pushback when people say that 5e currently doesn’t support things well? Are you saying that the 2014 DMG is perfect? That it supports all things?

 

[Hussar]

.

The absence of system is not in itself a system? Can't agree on that one.

Then we are at an impasse. The usual one that typically comes up in these discussions. The absence of rules is not a strength of a system.

 

[Oofta]

So why the pushback when people say that 5e currently doesn’t support things well? Are you saying that the 2014 DMG is perfect? That it supports all things?

If it weren't for the forum I wouldn't know anybody cared. But this is kind of like yelling "Fire!" and then asking "If there is no fire why are people yelling fire?"

It has support for all the things you claim it does not, you just don't care for the support they provide. It's worked for the dozens of people I've ever played with over the past decade. As far as the DMG, just about everyone admits it needs an upgrade. I just don't think it's going to be what you want.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Then we are at an impasse. The usual one that typically comes up in these discussions. The absence of rules is not a strength of a system.

I agree it is an impasse. But I think a lot of us can see your point of view. I understand why you want more system there. I think we are just taking the position that this isn't an objectively better way to do it than no system. That for a lot of folks, no system or less system around social interaction is more ideal than a social combat system or other more comprehensive approach. I think it is okay for these things to both be the case in design depending on who you are designing for and what your goals are.

 

[Minigiant]

The absence of a system can be a strength. But it also can be a hindarance. It depends on the group.

The only real issue is the dismissal of playstyles.

And playstyles with noncombat subsystems were often dismiss and gaslit as always inferior because D&D started its first 2 editions without them. So many fans defaulted to thinking that their way was superior or even that no one played the other way.

You see it in the 2014 and 2024 versions of D&D.

Jeremy Crawford displayed shook that some players had sessions of DND without combat? Well what would the Fighters, and Barbarians do if they were designed to only be good in combat and design to be overshadowed in everything outside of combat? So the D&D team are adding Tactical Mind and Primal Knowledge to boost the effectiveness of those classes if the group was running a Historical, Intrigue, or Mystery game.

Just like some fans who say the only good way to play is to run Zero to Hero and not Hero to Bigger Hero or Hero to Zero or Big Damn Heroes.

ENWorld isn't too bad at this. However the D&D community as a whole is very toxic about the "My way is best. Your way is dumb" mentality. It's not everyone but the numbers is uncomfortably high and now they have social media and algorithms to spread their bias and influence newcomers.

 

[Hussar]

If it weren't for the forum I wouldn't know anybody cared. But this is kind of like yelling "Fire!" and then asking "If there is no fire why are people yelling fire?"

It has support for all the things you claim it does not, you just don't care for the support they provide. It's worked for the dozens of people I've ever played with over the past decade. As far as the DMG, just about everyone admits it needs an upgrade. I just don't think it's going to be what you want.

Hang on. I just got told repeatedly that it is freeform for most of this things I'm claiming that 5e doesn't support (or support very well).

So, which is it? Is it freeform or does it have support? See, you're the one who keeps trying to claim that the support is "good" or not. I'm not talking at all about whether or not I like the support. I'm talking about whether or not the support exists. And, since I've repeatedly been told that the support consists of "freeform" play, then, I can safely conclude that no, the support does not exist.

But here you are telling me that there's all sorts of support. So, I'm very confused. Perhaps you could argue with those who keep claiming that free form play is support and then come back and let me know which it is.

 

[Hussar]

I agree it is an impasse. But I think a lot of us can see your point of view. I understand why you want more system there. I think we are just taking the position that this isn't an objectively better way to do it than no system. That for a lot of folks, no system or less system around social interaction is more ideal than a social combat system or other more comprehensive approach. I think it is okay for these things to both be the case in design depending on who you are designing for and what your goals are.

Again, this has nothing to do with what I want. ZERO. Zip. Nada. It's about whether or not support actually EXISTS. People don't like the 4e skill challenge rules. That's fine. No worries. But, they can't then argue that the system doesn't exist. They can't claim that the system isn't trying to create mechanical support for out of combat play. Because it factually IS trying to do that. Whether it succeeded or not is a separate issue and has far more to do with people grinding the edition war axe than anything else.

The fact remains that 5e does not support out of combat actions very well. The skill system and the ability check system is anemic and actually doesn't support a lot of different actions. There's nothing in the system that supports a number of the Styles of Play listed in the OP. It freeforms most of these things. And free form is not support. I don't see how it could be. Again, it's like claiming Chess is a great role playing game because it freeforms making horsey noises when I move my knight.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Hang on. I just got told repeatedly that it is freeform for most of this things I'm claiming that 5e doesn't support (or support very well).

So, which is it? Is it freeform or does it have support? See, you're the one who keeps trying to claim that the support is "good" or not. I'm not talking at all about whether or not I like the support. I'm talking about whether or not the support exists. And, since I've repeatedly been told that the support consists of "freeform" play, then, I can safely conclude that no, the support does not exist.

But here you are telling me that there's all sorts of support. So, I'm very confused. Perhaps you could argue with those who keep claiming that free form play is support and then come back and let me know which it is.

I think people are just taking your arguments on this for granted, that for you it isn't adequately supported by the rules. But plenty of people have pointed out that various editions of D&D do in fact have mechanics for social interaction. But if those are insufficient for some people, they are insufficient