D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[FrozenNorth]

That almost certainly goes back to the source material genre monks are pulled from. Doing that would charge into demonic cultivator territory.

So you agree with me that the mechanics of earlier D&D editions restricted playstyles by limiting how players could roleplay their characters?

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I don't mean the social aspect of play... that's something that depends entirely on the people involved and not the rules.

I'm looking at play experience to be related to the play... is it challenge based play, is it collaborative, does play evoke a specific genre, and things like that.

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.

I think that it's a real challenge from a design standpoint to do what you're describing here and have any of those given playstyles provide a satisfying version of that playstyle.

For instance, B/X D&D isn't well suited to courtly intrigue and diplomacy. And I think most versions of D&D will perform poorly if not outright fail at delivering satisfying versions of those types of play.

 

[tetrasodium]

So you agree with me that the mechanics of earlier D&D editions restricted playstyles by limiting how players could roleplay their characters?

Umm...... Noooooot entirely.... The monk is a special case because it's a fish so far out of water that it should have died long before reaching the shores of Greythawk & Toril. Coleville did a great video recently (which I can't find) about how PCs need to fit the game they are being played in & that means fitting setting as well as system. One example he gave was tolkein style "generic fantasy" tropes not being universally applicable to any game despite so much of tolkein's stuff being used as the defacto template for generic fantasy. Monk shares a similar & maybe even more extreme mismatch problem because it comes from a genre so far from almost any of the settings d&d is built for.

True, it my response I assumed no rule modifications, but there are quite a few fairly simple rules changes to make game more deadly. To be honest, I would have no issues if the 2024 DMG had a sidebar summarizing 5 rules to make the game deadlier.

Agreed! it would have been incredibly valuable simply to allow the conversation to start from a point of "this kind of play is ok & valid, lets talk about the merits"had it been included. One of the biggest hurdles in making the game more deadly lies with players who started with 5e & have never played anything else is that they have no other experience. To a lot of those players it looks like some kind of cruel sadism is being suggested or forced upon the game should they come up in discussion or play.

 

[Oofta]

I don't mean the social aspect of play... that's something that depends entirely on the people involved and not the rules.

I'm looking at play experience to be related to the play... is it challenge based play, is it collaborative, does play evoke a specific genre, and things like that.

But if I had rules for something called "influence points" and there were specific ways of gaining or losing those influence points, would that impact the style of play? Many people would be more concerned about gaining points than exploring a character's personality.

I think that it's a real challenge from a design standpoint to do what you're describing here and have any of those given playstyles provide a satisfying version of that playstyle.

For instance, B/X D&D isn't well suited to courtly intrigue and diplomacy. And I think most versions of D&D will perform poorly if not outright fail at delivering satisfying versions of those types of play.

I disagree. I have had plenty of fun with courtly intrigue and diplomacy in my D&D in games I've run or played in. They just don't necessarily follow written rules known by the players. Sometimes we've had a transparent influence score (hence my comment above) but when I run it, it's all hidden from the players unless they learn information via their character. For me there's not a lot of intrigue if I know exactly where I stand with every NPC and organization.

 

[Emerikol]

All solid signs of a skill play focus. Nothing wrong with that, but a lot of players felt exhausted by it. Every corner has some type of trap that will sap your strength, destroy your gear, or just straight up kill the PC. There isnt a moment to just explore or god forbid kick in the door and mop the floor with the baddies. Also, some folks prefer the challenges in other aspects such as decisions that impact the setting and factions over time which is hard to accomplish if the PC will likely be dead at any given moment. Which is also highlighted by the shift away from XP entirely into the popular milestone philosophy.

I think any style can have great story elements. And I don't put a trap on every door. You just have to worry about a trap on every door. There was a lot of kicking in the door and mopping the floor with baddies as you say. Tactics though were still required. You can't just stand in the middle of the room and get surrounded and hope to survive.

While im not big on survival sim, I do like resource management when it comes to character abilities. PF1 is my jam to this day. I like how they use the adventuring day, but also round resource management. Its up to you, the player, to manage those pools efficiently and effectively to get through the adventure. Also, cantrips are unlimited, but they cant keep up with a fighter past like level 2. Returning the idea of using your spell allotment wisely.

Though, 3E/PF1 biggest sin, in my opinion, was spell in a can. It basically allows a group to bust out of resource managment. A stingy GM, can lock down the reins, but a generous one can allow the PCs to decide. Its an example of the mechanics being flexible to playstyle, although an inelegant one I would say.

These are great thoughts on your OP though and I think it demonstrates the idea behind playstyle and mechanical support/flexibility. I think sometimes there are relief values added to the design, whether intentional or not, and other times the playstyle is rigidly enforced. D&D often has wiggle room because its the biggest RPG and benefits from a casual and flexible, yet unfocused approach to playstyle.

For me 5e's biggest mistake was hardcoding their healing and recovery philosophies so tightly into the game that any other approach was hard to implement without major surgery.

 

[payn]

For me 5e's biggest mistake was hardcoding their healing and recovery philosophies so tightly into the game that any other approach was hard to implement without major surgery.

Sure, everybody wishes 5E was a little less something and a bit more something else.

 

[niklinna]

As an astute reader, when you see someone make an obviously farcical statement, it's on you to try to determine the subtext of what's really meant. Assuming that statement is literal and is being made in bad faith should be one of the last options considered.

Assuming a reader is astute is a big ask, apparently!

 

[niklinna]

Sure, everybody wishes 5E was a little less something and a bit more something else.

Well come now, surely you can't literally mean everybody. Some people might want 5E to be a lot less something, and others might wish it were a smidge more something else (rather than a bit more), and many but not most might wish it were a whole lot more of exactly what it is because it's the worlds greatest roleplaying game, and just a few might just not care about 5E (or surfboards for that matter), and I could go on but my fingers are getting tired.

It helps to be clear and specific so as not to offend.

 

[payn]

Well come now, surely you can't literally mean everybody. Some people might want 5E to be a lot less something, and others might wish it were a smidge more something else (rather than a bit more), and many but not most might wish it were a whole lot more of exactly what it is because it's the worlds greatest roleplaying game, and just a few might just not care about 5E (or surfboards for that matter), and I could go on but my fingers are getting tired.

It helps to be clear and specific so as not to offend.

Just drink your purple stuff and be happy.

 

[niklinna]

Just drink your purple stuff and be happy.

I must, sadly (and to my mild horror, looking back), inform you that I was a Sunny Delight kid.

Okay, okay, it was worse than that. Although I'd drink either, I was actually a Capri Sun kid.