D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Micah Sweet]

I don’t think an optional subsystem would. I do think a core default system would because that would make it the official way of playing. But optional rules that are truly modular have not historically presented big issues

Then what's the problem? As I've said above, no one is asking for the default to be replaced here.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Questions to people who want more involved social mechanics. What do you actually mean by this? Have you used the rules from DMG? Why are these not sufficient? What are the aspects you wish more rules support on? How do you envision your ideal social mechanics working, and how do they integrate with roleplay?

The thing about this question is "More involved social mechanics for what purpose?" Because I can think of a number of games with very good social mechanics, starting with Monsterhearts and Smallville - but the reason those social mechanics work is that they are integrated with the setting and the social mechanics of Monsterhearts' backbiting high school cliques are not at all what would work for travelling adventurers while Smallville makes relationships and values the core of its rules which is not D&D at all and that's a very different game from D&D.

I think my ideal D&D-style social mechanics would probably be lifted from Apocalypse World with fairly forceful social interactions that fit roving violent adventurers most of the time, although the best generic ones probably belong to Fate, mostly by tying in to the character's values and abilities and where they spend fate points.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Then what's the problem? As I've said above, no one is asking for the default to be replaced here.

I have said throughout this thread, I have no issue with an optional modular system for this

 

[Micah Sweet]

The thing about this question is "More involved social mechanics for what purpose?" Because I can think of a number of games with very good social mechanics, starting with Monsterhearts and Smallville - but the reason those social mechanics work is that they are integrated with the setting and the social mechanics of Monsterhearts' backbiting high school cliques are not at all what would work for travelling adventurers while Smallville makes relationships and values the core of its rules which is not D&D at all and that's a very different game from D&D.

I think my ideal D&D-style social mechanics would probably be lifted from Apocalypse World with fairly forceful social interactions that fit roving violent adventurers most of the time, although the best generic ones probably belong to Fate, mostly by tying in to the character's values and abilities and where they spend fate points.

I can see something like Fate's aspect system working as an optional subsystem for D&D. Not for me personally (I really don't like Fate), but for those that want it.

 

[Oofta]

I don’t think an optional subsystem would. I do think a core default system would because that would make it the official way of playing. But optional rules that are truly modular have not historically presented big issues

But optional rules are not free. It means less effort and investment in other areas.

There are plenty of optional rules for this, they just aren't published by WOTC.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But optional rules are not free. It means less effort and investment in other areas.

I don't but this at all. I think you can easily look to 2E or other editions and see all the optional books they were able to put out, all the optional rules. Especially with D&D being as big as it is. It isn't that difficult to have a designer dedicated to a subsystem or for the design team to build a whole game with optional subsystems in mind.

There are plenty of optional rules for this, they just aren't published by WOTC.

Sure and that seems to have been the 5E model: outsource it to fans or small publishers. That can work. I think the people in this thread though want more official support (which I think is totally understandable as official stuff is often more reliably consistent in terms of quality---at the very least in terms of presentation). If they are saying they don't want it to be default, they just want an optional add on; what is the problem? I can definitely see fighting over what the default should be, because that matters in terms of how the game will play at most tables and how the culture of play will develop. But options are just that. Options.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But optional rules are not free. It means less effort and investment in other areas.

There are plenty of optional rules for this, they just aren't published by WOTC.

And what effort and investment are they making now? In any area? They're currently planning a re-release of their existing system where the primary "updates" are in layout and art. Is that what you mean by "effort and investment"?

 

[Oofta]

I don't but this at all. I think you can easily look to 2E or other editions and see all the optional books they were able to put out, all the optional rules. Especially with D&D being as big as it is. It isn't that difficult to have a designer dedicated to a subsystem or for the design team to build a whole game with optional subsystems in mind.

TSR never really did cost benefit analysis, it's one of the reasons the company failed. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Sure and that seems to have been the 5E model: outsource it to fans or small publishers. That can work. I think the people in this thread though want more official support (which I think is totally understandable as official stuff is often more reliably consistent in terms of quality---at the very least in terms of presentation). If they are saying they don't want it to be default, they just want an optional add on; what is the problem? I can definitely see fighting over what the default should be, because that matters in terms of how the game will play at most tables and how the culture of play will develop. But options are just that. Options.

I'm just stating my opinion that I'd rather have them spend time, effort and surveys on building the best classes, feats and monsters that they can. They have $X budget, I don't a significant amount (and I think it would require a significant effort to implement) to something only a small percentage of people want as far as I've ever seen.

 

[Oofta]

And what effort and investment are they making now? In any area? They're currently planning a re-release of their existing system where the primary "updates" are in layout and art. Is that what you mean by "effort and investment"?

You do understand how companies work, right? That the D&D team has a budget? That even if the developers thought there was a demand or a need for something that they can't always do what they want? Every company I've ever worked for has things that people would like to do, that perhaps would help the company if it was done but it didn't happen because we didn't have the manpower or budget. It's just reality, if you do X you don't have as much to spend on Y.

 

[Bedrockgames]

TSR never really did cost benefit analysis, it's one of the reasons the company failed. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

I don't know that we are going to be able to sort that one out, but I don't think optional NWPs or complete books, or even the settings are why they failed (it was more bad book keeping, bad business decisions and a rise in very unexpected forms of competition IMO). But the narrative that things like the settings fragmented the base just didn't ring true in my experience (I was in groups where we were all buying and playing multiple setting materials). Either way, a free social interaction system isn't going to make WOTC fail.

I'm just stating my opinion that I'd rather have them spend time, effort and surveys on building the best classes, feats and monsters that they can. They have $X budget, I don't a significant amount (and I think it would require a significant effort to implement) to something only a small percentage of people want as far as I've ever seen.

I don't know the size of this audience, but again I really don't think this is going to task their design team that much. They would need to fit it in a budget, but the game has long needed at the very least a series of GM books anyways that really help inspire GMs (one massive failing of WOTC D&D is it is all so player facing and you need excited GMs who feel inspired to want to run the game). These books by the way wouldn't have to be sleek and the same level of production as the core books. They could emulate the old complete books from the 2E line which were much more stripped down. But I would personally love to see GM guidebooks on a range of styles. I can easily see a D&D Sandbox guide, a D&D guide to social interaction, A D&D Guide to monster hunts, etc. Those are valuable tools that will give fuel to campaigns and make the brand stronger, not weaker.