D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[payn]

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.

Your parents let you have Capri Sun? Them straws are like daggers!

 

[niklinna]

Your parents let you have Capri Sun? Them straws are like daggers!

Yes.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

IME tthose kick-in-the-door moments certainly do exist, but they require throwing caution to the wind and soaking up whatever hazards might be present.

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.

Switch the focus away from "individual PC" making the decisions and toward "party" making the decisions and this problem goes away.

PCs come and go all the time but IME it's very hard to kill a whole party.

Which is also highlighted by the shift away from XP entirely into the popular milestone philosophy.

Your bias is clearly shown by your inclusion of the word "popular" in there.

 

[Lanefan]

Which goes back to the original point: I cannot play a chaotic monk, for whatever value of chaotic the DM may apply, regardless of whether I agree with it or not.

Correct. The requirement to be lawful is an intentionally-limiting drawback, in return for which you get the various benefits of being a Monk that other classes don't get.

If you're not willing to accept the drawback then you don't get the benefits: no Monk for you.

 

[mamba]

5e doesn't make my top 5 even when I limit it to "games that are like D&D." And it's my second favorite edition!

now I am curious about your top 5…

 

[payn]

IME tthose kick-in-the-door moments certainly do exist, but they require throwing caution to the wind and soaking up whatever hazards might be present.

Switch the focus away from "individual PC" making the decisions and toward "party" making the decisions and this problem goes away.

PCs come and go all the time but IME it's very hard to kill a whole party.

Your bias is clearly shown by your inclusion of the word "popular" in there.

These are really good highlights worth looking at. In this instance, a particular play style is the only way to play correctly and if anybody does differently they are doing it wrong or are biased. As opposed to expecting the mechanics to support a different preference altogether.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Not really.

The written word is not a medium for mind-reading. Primary responsibility for making their points intelligible sits with the author, not the reader.

Otherwise, we get into floopdiddly wangscupple digit. And it is your fault you don't understand me.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Exactly, and the social aspect represents a very large proportion (if not the entirety) of the play experience as felt by the participants.

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.

Even there, the influence of the social side will trample any differences between, say, challenge-based play and collaborative play.

Whether mechanical play is challenge-based or collaborative, etc., is influenced by the rules to a greater or lesser extent depending on what said rules actually say, which is what the original discussion is-was about. The rules can't tell the social side what to do, however, which means their influence on the actual play experience is, at best, very limited.

And when it comes to evokation of genre the setting is going to trump the rules every time, in that if one is inappropriate to the other it'll be the rules that give way rather then the setting.

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.

If one uses a heavy hand when designing, this is true. But a light hand on the helm and a willingness to let some things be more freeform can open up a lot more space for different styles...

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.

...and here's a good example. BX and 1e D&D don't have much by way of rules for social anything, and yet - ironically enough - that lack of rules IMO and IME means you can still do intrigue-style play in those systems simply by going freeform.

 

[Lanefan]

These are really good highlights worth looking at. In this instance, a particular play style is the only way to play correctly and if anybody does differently they are doing it wrong or are biased. As opposed to expecting the mechanics to support a different preference altogether.

Huh? Wha?

Not sure how this relates to what you quoted.

 

[mamba]

And that’s precisely why “everyone’s 2nd favorite game” isn’t an insult.

Everyone has a game that would probably fit their preferences better, but the opportunity cost to find it is generally too high.

D&D being my second favorite implies that there is one I know and like better, not just that there is one I would like better if only I even knew about it and had actually played it to find out