D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[Lanefan]

D&D has been in print continually for 50 years. It's had multiple different editions, with considerable variation in mechanics and playstyle, yet for each of those 50 years (barring potentially a short period in the 90s vs Vampire and potentially a short period in the early 2010s vs Pathfinder) D&D been inarguably the most popular RPG, by a considerable margin. Whatever else was going on in the industry, whoever owned D&D, whoever wrote D&D, whoever drew the pictures in D&D, it was always (or practically always) number one.

Your position is that each one of these different versions and editions of D&D happened to be the best designed, written, and produced RPG of its era?

Or could some other factor have contributed?

One other contributing factor, slowly built up over time, is legacy players from earlier editions who still consider themselves "D&D players" and yet are not running or playing the current edition. I am one such.

Another - and much bigger - contributing factor is the long-lasting influence of early-days mainstream media coverage. Stupid though it was at the time, the whole Satanic-panic thing put "Dungeons and Dragons" into the mainstream both as a brand and as a generic term for RPGs. It's the generic-term-for-RPGs piece that matters now: when someone unfamiliar with RPGs thinks of such, it's D&D that comes to mind as that's what they've vaguely heard of in the mainstream media either back then, more recently, or both. And so, if-when that person gets interested in RPGs it's D&D they'll seek out.

 

[Blue]

I think often we confuse the two. Obviously some mechanics support a playstyle better than others but you can do a lot of playstyles with a game like D&D.

Which, depending on the table, can be a good thing and a bad thing.

D&D is often described as a big tent game. It supports a lot of different styles of play. Mostly by only lightly mechanically supporting any styles of play. Yes, it's best for heroic fantasy, with the power curve and survivability and heroic nature and the types of abilities. But mechanically it's a light touch.

Now, we all know we can roleplay without any rules whatsoever. So why do we play D&D? Because we like rules. They give us a shared understanding, they help us understand the type of conflicts and resolutions, they give us expectations and get us on the same page.

And there are game systems that do that so, so much better that D&D, like ridiculously better. But they are aiming at something, so it's a much more narrow game playstyle.

Blades in the Dark is a great example. It's got a very specific setting, basically narrowing the focus to one paranormal^3 pseudo-Victorian city, where you are part of a crew that does crime, and you run short (much shorter than D&D) "heists", though it could be an assassination or whatever, it's still narrow. And mechanically it has absolutely fabulous mechanics that strongly support that playstyle. You would be doing your entire table a disservice trying to use the rules to play a standard-D&D-like campaign, because mechanically it's steering it towards specific, narrow playstyle. And giving a huge amount more mechanical and rule support for that playstyle, at the cost of not fitting other playstyles particularly well.

Again, neither is better, just what the table wants. But playstyle and mechanics being only loosely linked isn't a general statement -- it's true for some game systems, and very not true for other game systems.

Let me give a superhero example:
Hero System, originally Champions back when I started playing back in the 80s, is a superhero game. The system has since been expanded out to be a universal system. You can do lots of different styles of play, and the common chassis - "superheroic world physics" is there, but you can do whatever you want within that. I played over a decade and have super fond memories of it.

Masks: A New Generation is a PbtA (Powered by the Apocalypse) game that is laser focused on teen superteam drama. Mechanically you can't play Justice League or Avengers with it, like really there would be a much of mechanics that didn't make sense like why does every adult have influence over Batman? But if you want to play Young Justice or Teen Titans, you've got a heck of a lot more mechanical support than Hero System. You use the same mechanics trying to deal with Dr. Gorilla kidnapping a busload of schoolchildren or with the Homecoming Queen bulling your bestie at Prom. You can become insecure, or guilty, or whatever, with strongly defined mechanical means, not just "I'll roleplay it". And remember, the reason we play D&D over just roleplay without any rules is because we like having things defined. So if that experience is part of what you want from the game, that's a good thing.

And even more, PbtA games are generally Story Now - they give the GM very specific guidance, and then tell them to get out of the way. They often will show the fronts or tensions or that, but they don't even plan like a D&D DM, and the story unfolds more from what they players choose to do. Which is also a big playstyle change, and again both (neo)traditional prep GM games like D&D and Story Now games both have the people who like them or don't, and each table needs to figure out what their preference is for their next campaign -- and it can (and maybe should) swap after that.

So in my view, D&D being the flagship 2nd favorite game of so many people, should provide the least objectionable mechanics possible because their fans will force fit their playstyle onto flexible mechanics. I think WOTC hasn't always chosen that path.

This makes a lot of sense and I agree with you. WotC (and TSR before) wanted the biggest possible audience, and with their legacy and market dominance, having a big tent game that doesn't support specific playstyles but doesn't get in the way of tables playing in a varity of them works well.

 

[Lanefan]

As for the OP... I'm not sure if there's as strong a distinction between "playstyle" and what the mechanics produce. I would think that for the most part, the mechanics of a game are going to produce a playstyle. If they allow for multiple playstyles, it sounds like the mechanics are very loose.

The mechanics of the game are at minimum going to suggest a playstyle and at maximum will outright force it.

My preference is for a system that, while it suggests a playstyle and works well for such, is also able to handle other playstyles without really putting up a fight. If nothing else, this flexibility allows for broad changes of playstyle within the same ongoing campaign as players' tastes change (or as different players come and go), without having to switch rule-sets on the fly.

But I suppose it depends on what we mean when we say "playstyle". I mean, it's a word I've used, but I don't know if I would divorce it from mechanics like this.

All combat all the time, no talking ever - that's a playstyle.
Survival-first and the whole world is out to get you - that's a playstyle.
Courtly intrigue-diplomacy-romance where actual combat is very rare - that's a playstyle.
Sandbox or hexcrawl setting exploration - another playstyle.
Hard-line adventure path start to finish, no deviations - another...well, you get the picture.

And this is before even getting to player-directed vs DM-directed, story-emergent vs story-now vs story-preplanned, and all those other variables.

 

[Shiroiken]

I would wonder actually how many people with good grounding in at least a few other RPGs (of any sort) would still rate D&D 5e/5.5 as their #1 favorite, based on any metric other than its general popularity.

I'm late to the party, but you can add me to the list. I've played about a dozen or two non-D&D RPGs and generally find them lacking. One advantage they have is that they're designed around a specific style of game, whereas D&D has generally tried to be as broad as possible. My top 5 RPGs:

1. 5E D&D - by far the best edition of D&D. It takes some of the better elements of 3E and 4E, while returning the DM flexibility of AD&D and earlier. I just wish it didn't take so much of its core from 3E, which I had significant issues with.
2. 2E Deadlands - a wonderful system that utilized dice, cards, and poker chips. The biggest downside of the system (besides the fact that so many horrible things can, and probably will happen to your beloved character) is that it's limited to running a spaghetti western game. They made a "modern" version based in an alternate near future dystopia, but the gun rules were way too strong (full automatic was basically an auto-win).
3. Legend of the Five Rings (no specific edition) - I love the setting and really like the concept of the d10 system. However, I find the 1E of the game to be a bit too simplistic, and 3E and 4E to be way to crunchy (2E is just bad overall), leaving no specific edition worth the slot. I'd probably make my own version if I ever returned to it.
4. BECMI D&D - way better than it gets credit for. The Rules Cyclopedia is probably the best single RPG rulebook I've seen. Hard to go back to from 5E, but I enjoy the simplicity. If I wanted to teach D&D to kids, I'd probably use this edition.
5. AD&D amalgamation - in college I played a 2E game that incorporated a ton of stuff from 1E, making it more of a 1.5E type game. Like 5E, the goal was to take the best from each edition. Unfortunately I no longer have the notes we used, so I probably couldn't reconstruct it if I tried.

 

[Mort]

I would wonder actually how many people with good grounding in at least a few other RPGs (of any sort) would still rate D&D 5e/5.5 as their #1 favorite, based on any metric other than its general popularity.

You can add me to that list as well. I've played MANY other RPGs, quite a few on a consistent, even campaign basis. I'd still rate 5e as my favorite.

Does that mean I don't want to play or run other RPGs? Not at all, my group takes detours into Gamma World, various Savage Worlds games, did blades in the dark (though that went badly, I suspect we could have all bought in a bit better) heck even did a stint of RIFTS (Old School and a bit of the savage rifts version) and others. But personally, I like 5e best.

Edit: my favorite one shots have been Low Life, but not quite enough to make a campaign out of it.

 

[Clint_L]

I remind all my children that "second-favorite" isn't a bad place to be.

Unless you only have one...

 

[Clint_L]

One other contributing factor, slowly built up over time, is legacy players from earlier editions who still consider themselves "D&D players" and yet are not running or playing the current edition. I am one such.

Another - and much bigger - contributing factor is the long-lasting influence of early-days mainstream media coverage. Stupid though it was at the time, the whole Satanic-panic thing put "Dungeons and Dragons" into the mainstream both as a brand and as a generic term for RPGs. It's the generic-term-for-RPGs piece that matters now: when someone unfamiliar with RPGs thinks of such, it's D&D that comes to mind as that's what they've vaguely heard of in the mainstream media either back then, more recently, or both. And so, if-when that person gets interested in RPGs it's D&D they'll seek out.

I dunno if it's just down to the Satanic Panic, though that was surely a factor, but there's no doubt that the brand is far, far better known than any other TTRPG. Like, it's not even a conversation. The reason D&D Club is D&D Club is because it's the only name students will know. And their parents, who, somewhat ironically, have done a full 180 since the Satanic Panic days. These days, most parents are thrilled that their kid is playing D&D.

I use 5e because I like the edition, but also because DnDBeyond makes it soooo much easier to run games and for the kids to then break off into their own campaigns. But the serious ones inevitably start experimenting with other TTRPGs, and sometimes with older editions (one group, who recently graduated, even decided to try 1e, which I was pretty chuffed about).

So I don't think of D&D as everyone's second favourite RPG. I think of it as the RPG gateway drug.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I would wonder actually how many people with good grounding in at least a few other RPGs (of any sort) would still rate D&D 5e/5.5 as their #1 favorite, based on any metric other than its general popularity.

When 5e first came out in 2014, I looked at it as a breath of fresh air. I had become pretty dissatisfied with our games, and 5e was enough of a change to improve things a bit. But it was pretty temporary. And I realized that's because we were mostly playing Pathfinder. So 5e was good for me when compared to Pathfinder.

But it wasn't long before some of the same issues came up. Which is why I started actively looking at other games beyond the D&D sphere, especially based on input from folks here who had advice and suggestions about other games. That really helped me examine my games and the reasons I was at times dissatisfied with them.

So after all this time, I don't dislike 5e... I'll happily play in a game if one of my friends is running it. I'm not too keen on running it again. I do plan on doing so to wrap up the campaign we started... but other than that, it's not something that excites me very much.

The mechanics of the game are at minimum going to suggest a playstyle and at maximum will outright force it.

My preference is for a system that, while it suggests a playstyle and works well for such, is also able to handle other playstyles without really putting up a fight. If nothing else, this flexibility allows for broad changes of playstyle within the same ongoing campaign as players' tastes change (or as different players come and go), without having to switch rule-sets on the fly.

I think the idea of this being a range is interesting. I don't know if I agree or not. It's possible... but when I look at games, I generally find that they tend to promote a primary playstyle. By playstyle here, I'm thinking more the experience of play. What is produced by following the rules and processes of play.

All combat all the time, no talking ever - that's a playstyle.
Survival-first and the whole world is out to get you - that's a playstyle.
Courtly intrigue-diplomacy-romance where actual combat is very rare - that's a playstyle.
Sandbox or hexcrawl setting exploration - another playstyle.
Hard-line adventure path start to finish, no deviations - another...well, you get the picture.

And this is before even getting to player-directed vs DM-directed, story-emergent vs story-now vs story-preplanned, and all those other variables.

Right... but I would think that most of us can agree that to achieve any of those playstyles, there needs to be rules and processes in place to promote them.

Can there be one system that potentially delivers all those playstyles in an effective way? I'm not at all sure of that. Certainly, some of them are pretty much at odds with one another.

This is why I don't know if we can separate mechanics and playstyle in the way suggested in the OP. Because I think the absence of mechanics in a given sphere... that leads to another play style which is essentially shared storytelling at best, or GM as storyteller at worst.

 

[Lanefan]

I think the idea of this being a range is interesting. I don't know if I agree or not. It's possible... but when I look at games, I generally find that they tend to promote a primary playstyle. By playstyle here, I'm thinking more the experience of play. What is produced by following the rules and processes of play.

I think the experience of play (which I'll differentiate from playstyle, see below) is more produced by the people at the table and their approach than anything else.

Playstyle is sandbox or all-combat or mystery or railroad or whatever etc., as noted above. But, different groups of players can (and do) approach any one of these in different ways - one group might approach a mystery-style (or sandbox, or big-heroes, or whatever) game in a serious angst-and-drama way while another might approach the same style of game in a whimsical lets's-have-a-laugh way, and that approach is what'll determine the play experience that we remember the next day.

And the approach isn't - with rare exceptions - system dependent. I mean, something like Toon is designed for the laughs and approaching it as a serious angst-and-drama game likely won't work out that well. But more broad-based games can (or should, if they hope to meet their goal of being broad-based) work just as well with serious drama as with laughs and whimsy.

Put another way, the game rules can't really tell us we're not allowed to laugh, nor can they tell us we have to laugh. Perhaps more importantly, the game rules can't (or IMO certainly shouldn't) tell casual players to take a hike, and "casual" is a very common approach to play.

Right... but I would think that most of us can agree that to achieve any of those playstyles, there needs to be rules and processes in place to promote them.

Can there be one system that potentially delivers all those playstyles in an effective way? I'm not at all sure of that. Certainly, some of them are pretty much at odds with one another.

Only if you try to do them both (or several) at once. But if a ten-year campaign starts out as courtly intrigue and diplomacy, then a few years later moves into an all-combat-all-the-time phase, then morphs into a rogue-like fight for survival for a time, then becomes Big Damn Heroes in its end phase, there's no reason why a system can't be designed to handle all those phases and - very important! - handle them in whatever sequence they might appear, if at all.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I personally just don't rank my game preferences in the first place.

I play those games that I'm in the mood for or for which people I like are willing to run. That's way more important than any sort of comparison to other games. A game I am actually playing and enjoying with my friends will always be "my favorite" more over than any sort of ranking of games I am not.