D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Oofta]

I'm sorry but it's kinda hard to maintain a friendly, smiling background when I have to repeatedly state the same thing over and over again, and it STILL gets misinterpreted. I mean, we're just shy of a thousand posts into this thread, not a SINGLE POSTER has suggested, or even hinted, that adding additional mechanics into the core game is a goal, and yet... and yet, it's still being repeated that people want to change the core game. I mean, the post I quoted to respond to was specifically talking about changing the core game. And that's just shy of the 800th post in the thread.

So, you'll excuse me if I get a tad exasperated.

Maybe instead of chiding me for being less than friendly, perhaps you could take the people who insist on repeating the same mistaken interpretations over and over and over again to task?

Nobody, other than you, is saying the core game should be changed as far as I know or that anyone is even proposing it.

 

[Hussar]

Ah, I was thinking of TSR days because I happened to glance through th Wilderness Survival Guide the other day. One of the books I bought and then never really had a use for. At least I resisted buying The Complete Book of Woodchucks.

But flooding the market with books didn't exactly help the bottom line in 3.0 or 3.5 either.

Nowadays they leave it to 3PP and you have more options than ever if it's something you want and they can instead focus on their core competencies. I neither agree nor disagree with their business model, but it seems to be working last time I checked.

The list of options that they could provide isn't endless, but it is very large. It's also likely not particularly profitable and may even be detrimental because people can get overwhelmed with too many choices.

But it's not like I have any say in it, I just think it's a sound business decision.

Well, yes. That's certainly true. If I want to get around the gatekeepers of D&D who insist that D&D supports all play styles, so long as I only want to free form, I certainly can go to 3rd party publishers to get my fix.

But, I have a serious suspicion that come the release of the 5e (2024) DMG, you are going to be REALLY disappointed when we get a book that actually delivers on the 2014 promise of modularity. We've already got Bastion rules. And the promise of the meatiest DMG ever. Do you really think they aren't going to add in all sorts of optional modules? What do you think is going to be in that book?

 

[Hussar]

Nobody, other than you, is saying the core game should be changed as far as I know or that anyone is even proposing it.

See, @Bedrockgames, THIS is what I am talking about. At no point in this thread have I even HINTED at wanting to change the core game. Not once. Yet, here we are, hundreds of posts in, and I'm STILL having to correct people's mistaken interpretations and assumptions. I have REPEATEDLY stated that all I want is an optional module. Not one single time in this whole thread have I suggested any changes to the core game.

And you wonder why I'm a bit tetchy?

 

[Minigiant]

So now you want options that make it almost a different game as well? That's fine, but just proves my point that even if more optional rules were provided there's always more.

I didn't say I wanted this playstyle. Too much pressure DMing it.

Just that it isn't supported well now.

3e and 4e both had action point rules as well as Cinematic oriented PrCs/PPs.
5e's Hero points are a pale imitation. And none of the subclasses are cinematic.

Yet another "Used to be supported well, now supported poorly" playstyle

 

[Bedrockgames]

For an IP with many movies, D&D doesn't support Cinematic play well either.

There are no Action Hero, Legendary Gladiator, Master Spy. Dagger Master, Angel Summoner, Blood Mage, and Sorcerer Supreme,subclassses.

There's hero points but it pales to the cinematic power of cinematic action points.

The number of powerful McGuffin artifact magic items is low. Infinity gems or Chaos Emeralds.

Again optional cinematic rules would be fine. But the default game is meant to capture a broad audience. A game focused on bringing cinematic play isn't going to get the broadest D&D fanbase I don't think, since a good chunk of players aren't looking for cinematic play. What D&D does generally do well, varying by edition of course, is provide a kind of mean. I can't do Feng Shui level cinematic with D&D, but you can throw in some cinematic elements and cinematic logic. Just like you can veer into naturalism, but the game isn't intended to be a gritty foray into that either. D&D is very much a middle ground system, it isn't meant to be focused.

I'm sorry but it's kinda hard to maintain a friendly, smiling background when I have to repeatedly state the same thing over and over again, and it STILL gets misinterpreted. I mean, we're just shy of a thousand posts into this thread, not a SINGLE POSTER has suggested, or even hinted, that adding additional mechanics into the core game is a goal, and yet... and yet, it's still being repeated that people want to change the core game. I mean, the post I quoted to respond to was specifically talking about changing the core game. And that's just shy of the 800th post in the thread.

So, you'll excuse me if I get a tad exasperated.

Maybe instead of chiding me for being less than friendly, perhaps you could take the people who insist on repeating the same mistaken interpretations over and over and over again to task?

Pay attention to my posts. I have said to people on the opposite side of this than you, that the request for optional rules is reasonable.

 

[Bedrockgames]

See, @Bedrockgames, THIS is what I am talking about. At no point in this thread have I even HINTED at wanting to change the core game. Not once. Yet, here we are, hundreds of posts in, and I'm STILL having to correct people's mistaken interpretations and assumptions. I have REPEATEDLY stated that all I want is an optional module. Not one single time in this whole thread have I suggested any changes to the core game.

And you wonder why I'm a bit tetchy?

And I have debated Oofta on this point. But I don’t think a poster not agreeing with you or not understanding your position warrants getting touchy with others

 

[Bedrockgames]

Ah, I was thinking of TSR days because I happened to glance through th Wilderness Survival Guide the other day. One of the books I bought and then never really had a use for. At least I resisted buying The Complete Book of Woodchucks.

But flooding the market with books didn't exactly help the bottom line in 3.0 or 3.5 either.

Nowadays they leave it to 3PP and you have more options than ever if it's something you want and they can instead focus on their core competencies. I neither agree nor disagree with their business model, but it seems to be working last time I checked.

The list of options that they could provide isn't endless, but it is very large. It's also likely not particularly profitable and may even be detrimental because people can get overwhelmed with too many choices.

But it's not like I have any say in it, I just think it's a sound business decision.

I think a key difference with 3E books is they were written with players in mind. Arguably that just made the gm’s job harder. What I liked about TSR era is the supplements were written with the Gm in mind. Opinions vary on them but I found many helpful gif improving my campaign and forming long term campaigns. 3E I didn’t have that experience. Campaigns felt like a slog to me

 

[Minigiant]

Again optional cinematic rules would be fine. But the default game is meant to capture a broad audience. A game focused on bringing cinematic play isn't going to get the broadest D&D fanbase I don't think, since a good chunk of players aren't looking for cinematic play. What D&D does generally do well, varying by edition of course, is provide a kind of mean. I can't do Feng Shui level cinematic with D&D, but you can throw in some cinematic elements and cinematic logic. Just like you can veer into naturalism, but the game isn't intended to be a gritty foray into that either. D&D is very much a middle ground system, it isn't meant to be focused.

Yes. I mentioned all optional rules from before.

A full cinematic game would have to be built that way like Feng Shui, Exalted, or the upcoming MCDMRPG.

But D&D could use optional cinematic rules.

To me, core D&D is boring and isn't the best at its brand of play.
However it is best suited to be flavored. As @Maxperson says, it's not great at anything but good at a lot of things.

IMHO, the best way to play D&D is with some extra rules to push it closer to another style.

D&D with Monty Haul treasure tables
D&D with Tactical optional rules.
D&D with Political house rules and setting based factions.
D&D with Cinematic subclasses and Boss monsters.

 

[Minigiant]

I think a key difference with 3E books is they were written with players in mind. Arguably that just made the gm’s job harder. What I liked about TSR era is the supplements were written with the Gm in mind. Opinions vary on them but I found many helpful gif improving my campaign and forming long term campaigns. 3E I didn’t have that experience. Campaigns felt like a slog to me

I believe this was also a key to TSR's failure.

TSR tried to crank out book after book to mostly DM's who were a smaller percentage of the customer base. And then they narrowed it down to only certain types of fantasy and play a smaller subgroup loved. So TSR was trying to make all their money off maybe 10% of the consumer base.

WOTC went the other way and catered to the bigger population. For the good and ill of that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I believe this was also a key to TSR's failure.

TSR tried to crank out book after book to mostly DM's who were a smaller percentage of the customer base. And then they narrowed it down to only certain types of fantasy and play a smaller subgroup loved. So TSR was trying to make all their money off maybe 10% of the consumer base.

WOTC went the other way and catered to the bigger population. For the good and ill of that.

I don’t think this was the problem. That is a common narrative but I really think bad book keeping, done bad product choices, a noticeable decline in quality, competition from WW, then WOTC and online multi player games all had a bigger impact that Gm friendly supplements or setting material