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. Along the way, you should figure out not only your preferred style but also your group's preferences. In this article, I'll explain some of the different styles of play I've encountered.
The thing is that there's a difference between "The game makes it easier to do this", "You can do this and the mechanics do nothing to help.", and finally "You can try to do this but the game mechanics will fight you every step of the way." To most people something is only
supported if it is in the first category. And if freeform does it better and the rules get in the way I'd consider D&D hinders it.
Hack-and-Slash
In this popular style of play, the game centers around combat. Characters battle one monster after another, with little thought given to the non-martial elements of the game. It's thrilling for players who love battle scenes and immediate action, and this style is often where younger players begin with D&D. However, it can become monotonous over time, and most experienced players seek deeper experiences.
This is clearly a
supported play style. About half the D&D character sheet is about combat.
Problem-Solving
This style of play is aimed squarely at the thinkers. It encourages players to employ problem-solving skills to overcome various intellectual challenges. These could include things such as mysteries, logic puzzles, and riddles. Problem-solving can also include circumventing lethal traps, neutralizing weird tricks, and locating valuable items or important places. One standard framing device is the so-called "funhouse" dungeon, full of puzzles and tricks.
This is clearly a
possible play style. How much having ready made solutions in the form of spells supports problem solving and how much it hinders it by making certain problems irrelevant is an interesting question - but in general when you are problem solving you are ignoring almost all the rules of D&D, making it effectively little more than freeform other than some codified tools.
Character Driven
Here, the social or role-playing aspects of the game are at the forefront. Players immerse themselves in their characters, prioritizing character development over killing monsters, gaining loot, and leveling up. Many sessions can pass in such games without a sword drawn or a blow struck. Players often devise dramatic arcs for their characters and spend the sessions progressing this arc by interacting with each other and various NPCs.
This is clearly a
possible play style which D&D does very little to support other than providing classes, subclasses, and a randomiser. Freeform is in general better. Meanwhile there are games that support characters leaning into their flaws much more by making it other than something that you are doing knowing it's stupid rather than are being tempted to do so.
(Edit: There is an almost vestigial ideals/flaws/bonds/whatever system that shows one of the many things that could support character driven play - but as mentioned it's almost vestigial and doesn't in my experience have nearly enough weight to not be swamped by everything else).
Historical Simulation
This style focuses on recreating specific historical periods, often with minimal supernatural elements. Players might experience medieval England, ancient Rome, or even World War II! The session's goal is often to experience a critical historical moment, such as the assassination of Caesar or the D-Day landings. This style, though rare in my experience, is enjoyed by those already steeped in the history of an era. I've also seen it used in educational settings.
Things like Hit Points allowing consequence-free violence, and Magic are written deeply into the rules of D&D. Historical Simulation is possible, but the D&D rules actively get in the way. This is a
hindered playstyle.
Slapstick
This style of play is light-hearted and humorous, filled with anachronisms, satire, and dreadful puns. It features bizarre scenarios and characters that often parody contemporary culture. While enjoyable in short bursts, this style can soon overstay its welcome.
This I would say is a
tone not a play style. D&D does however lightly support slapstick because unless someone dies the violence is largely consequence free - but it
also hinders slapstick by being a slow and complex game. I would say it is a
possible playstyle.
Monty Haul
In a Monty Haul game, characters receive vast amounts of loot or levels with little correlation of risk to reward. Characters advance rapidly during these games and soon find themselves capable of facing mighty foes. This style appeals to some players, especially those with limited time and a desire to experience the game's higher levels. However, such easy advancement can cheapen the gaming experience, and "Monty Haul" has historically been used as a term of derision.
This is a
supported play style; D&D contains a whole lot of loot for no other purpose than to give out to players.
Tactical
This style is about employing optimal strategy and tactics within a well-defined rules framework. Players who favor this type of play often spend much time optimizing their character builds, and games consist of a series of set-piece battles. Tactical games are similar to hack-and-slash games, but differ in their focus on rules mastery.
This is a complex one - and I'm going to judge it
possible in 5e although I would have said that all editions before 5e
support one of two styles of tactical play.
- Tactical within the fight is supported by 3.X and 4e with a focus on tactical positioning and where you are with respect to each other and how you move. 5e deliberately deprecates this to make theatre of the mind easier.
- Tactical in setting up the fight is supported by 3.X and earlier where hit points were much lower and the reward for getting off the first attack was much higher. The tactics were about setting up the ambushes and getting advantages before the fights start - but 4e and 5e have bloated hit points to minimise random deaths and in 4e's case to support tactics within the fight
Political
This game style involves players in political intrigue and power struggles. Scenarios can range from momentous events, such as negotiating treaties between empires, to minor conflicts, like settling disagreements between market vendors. Characters spend sessions interacting with NPCs, researching background information, and devising ways to create leverage in negotiations.
5e does absolutely nothing at all to support this - and has significant numbers of rules that at least weigh things down. Freeform does it better - so
hindered.
Mixing It Up
It is standard practice to borrow elements from multiple styles for your game, using variety to maintain interest and keep things fresh. For example, the best classic dungeon crawls contain hack-and-slash, problem-solving, and even political elements (such as negotiations between dungeon factions). Even when the group prefers a play style, it is a good idea to switch things up with a different style occasionally. For example, after your tactical group completes a long adventure involving numerous set-piece battles, you might have a session featuring a banquet and focused purely on character development.
This I'm rating as unclassified.
Each style has its unique charm and challenges. As a DM, you should strive to understand and use these different types of play to ensure a fulfilling and enjoyable gaming experience for all players.
And there's a reason that I'm not running 5e with either of my gaming groups at the moment. There are some playstyles (such as escalating chaos) that 5e is worse than useless for because everything is on a pass/fail scale, and the amount of playstyles actively
supported is minimal. You
can do a lot of playstyles in 5e but you're doing them despite the rules rather than actively supported by them.
