D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

Emerikol

Legend
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.

I think I've been playing my playstyle in D&D all the way through 3e and into 4e. I've really never played a different playstyle.

Mechanics though have changed greatly. And I realize that most of my deal breakers are mechanics. I can usually fit my playstyle onto the game if the mechanics aren't objectionable in some fundamental way.

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think what D&D has generally done is combine mechanics that are actually quite focused on one playstyle with playing and GMing advice that (falsely) claims to support a variety of playstyles. I think people have largely bridged that gap by retroactively finding justifications for the mechanical dissonance (e.g. 'Of course Tolkienesque fantasy should have regular TPKs') or more likely by changing and/or ignoring large parts of the rules or simply relying on a lot of GM fiat.

Of course, many people want what [current edition of D&D] supports and enjoy playing it as is, so for them there is no gap to bridge.

I'd love to see an edition of D&D that either overtly stated what it's mechanically supported playstyle is (like 4e) or in fact embraced it's place in the market as everyone's second choice and provided dials to mechanically support different playstyles (as 5e playtests falsely said it would).

I do think the playstyle D&D mechanically supports has changed over the years, in particular TSR to WotC is an absolute sea change.
 

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.

I think I've been playing my playstyle in D&D all the way through 3e and into 4e. I've really never played a different playstyle.

Mechanics though have changed greatly. And I realize that most of my deal breakers are mechanics. I can usually fit my playstyle onto the game if the mechanics aren't objectionable in some fundamental way.

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.
I feel like we’ve played the same way from 1e all the way through 5e. Though I admit we skipped 2e and 3E. It just feels we play the way we want to play and the mechanics either work or we change them!
 

I think what D&D has generally done is combine mechanics that are actually quite focused on one playstyle with playing and GMing advice that (falsely) claims to support a variety of playstyles. I think people have largely bridged that gap by retroactively finding justifications for the mechanical dissonance (e.g. 'Of course Tolkienesque fantasy should have regular TPKs') or more likely by changing and/or ignoring large parts of the rules or simply relying on a lot of GM fiat.

Of course, many people want what [current edition of D&D] supports and enjoy playing it as is, so for them there is no gap to bridge.

I'd love to see an edition of D&D that either overtly stated what it's mechanically supported playstyle is (like 4e) or in fact embraced it's place in the market as everyone's second choice and provided dials to mechanically support different playstyles (as 5e playtests falsely said it would).

I do think the playstyle D&D mechanically supports has changed over the years, in particular TSR to WotC is an absolute sea change.
The best thing about 4e IMO is that it was clear about what kind of playstyle it supported, something neither its predecessor nor its successor accomplished (although 5.5 is better on that score than 5.0 was).
 

I think 4E supported a very narrow and specific playstyle, one which in the long run I didn't care for. You had to buy into the whole "everyone is an anime character" to me. It was good if you happened to like that playstyle.

Meanwhile for me the rules for most editions are just there for me to tell stories where I embody some fictional PC, frequently shaped by the fantasy novels I read when I was a kid. I was a big fan of Lieber, so Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser will always to a certain degree define the core fantasy archetypes. Probably why I like playing fighters, barbarians and rogues so much.

No game can cover every genre, but all you have to is read a few of the threads around here to realize that it does support, perhaps with a bit of house ruling here and there, a fairly wide swath of fantasy fiction. We don't necessarily need to have a game set in the World of Darkness, although Ravenloft leans in that direction. We aren't always fighting some eldritch horror awaiting our endless doom like Chthulhu or tied to heists or any other formula.

It will never be great at all genres, I don't think any system as relatively rules heavy as D&D could be. But I've been playing a variety of character tropes for decades now having a very similar experience over multiple editions.
 

I think what D&D has generally done is combine mechanics that are actually quite focused on one playstyle with playing and GMing advice that (falsely) claims to support a variety of playstyles. I think people have largely bridged that gap by retroactively finding justifications for the mechanical dissonance (e.g. 'Of course Tolkienesque fantasy should have regular TPKs') or more likely by changing and/or ignoring large parts of the rules or simply relying on a lot of GM fiat.
<snip>
It's kind of funny but other than non-human races using the iconic Tolkien ones including culture (somewhat), I never thought D&D was ever claiming to be simulating a Lord of the Rings experience.

To me the original game was dungeon wargaming which was player skill based and involved tactics and exploration. In a short while, world building came in which involve campaign/domain mechanics at higher levels. Life was fairly cheap including character life.

That is what I think the core of D&D historically. I think since then it has branched away from that though it still supports that style too.
 

I'd love to see an edition of D&D that either overtly stated what it's mechanically supported playstyle is (like 4e) or in fact embraced it's place in the market as everyone's second choice and provided dials to mechanically support different playstyles (as 5e playtests falsely said it would).
It is a forum expression that D&D is "everyone's second choice." IMO, this was never meant to be taken seriously and is certainly not something WotC (or anyone else) would design around. It's a farcical statement. D&D is pretty obviously the first and often only choice for the vast majority of TTRPGers, given its absolutely gigantic market dominance.

The extent to which mechanics determine play style is never going to be cut and dry in a TTRPG, simply because the medium is built around the core notion that each group has final say over their interpretation of the rules and how they will be expressed in play. Even a game as simple as Dread can vary greatly from table to table. In general, the more codified the rules system, the more play style can be controlled, but if a TTRPG is over-codified, it stops being an RPG and becomes a complex boardgame (e.g. Gloomhaven).

4e is probably the farthest D&D has gone in terms of trying to mechanically codify the play experience, and this received significant backlash. 5e went in the other direction, leaving significant space open to player and DM interpretation. I prefer the latter.
 

It's kind of funny but other than non-human races using the iconic Tolkien ones including culture (somewhat), I never thought D&D was ever claiming to be simulating a Lord of the Rings experience.

To me the original game was dungeon wargaming which was player skill based and involved tactics and exploration. In a short while, world building came in which involve campaign/domain mechanics at higher levels. Life was fairly cheap including character life.

That is what I think the core of D&D historically. I think since then it has branched away from that though it still supports that style too.
Personally I've never had a lot of interest in moving outside that core experience.
 

It is a forum expression that D&D is "everyone's second choice." IMO, this was never meant to be taken seriously and is certainly not something WotC (or anyone else) would design around. It's a farcical statement. D&D is pretty obviously the first and often only choice for the vast majority of TTRPGers, given its absolutely gigantic market dominance.
While this could be true, I don't think market dominance eliminates the idea that D&D could be everyone's second choice. If the group all likes different things, then they settle on an acceptable D&D versus playing one of the others favorites.

And I am more nitpicking your argument than your conclusion. I suspect as you seem to that many people don't even know other games exist. I call them the filler players. They don't go to enworld. They don't read hobby sites. They just know D&D and they buy whatever they need to buy to play. This is why WOTC can get away with practically murder. They will always keep the fillers and there is always at least one group for the murder.


The extent to which mechanics determine play style is never going to be cut and dry in a TTRPG, simply because the medium is built around the core notion that each group has final say over their interpretation of the rules and how they will be expressed in play. Even a game as simple as Dread can vary greatly from table to table. In general, the more codified the rules system, the more play style can be controlled, but if a TTRPG is over-codified, it stops being an RPG and becomes a complex boardgame (e.g. Gloomhaven).

4e is probably the farthest D&D has gone in terms of trying to mechanically codify the play experience, and this received significant backlash. 5e went in the other direction, leaving significant space open to player and DM interpretation. I prefer the latter.
I think the degree you like DM adjudication and open ended action taking is one of those knobs that determines your playstyle.

Personally I've never had a lot of interest in moving outside that core experience.
Not for any sort of extended campaign for sure.
 

It's kind of funny but other than non-human races using the iconic Tolkien ones including culture (somewhat), I never thought D&D was ever claiming to be simulating a Lord of the Rings experience.

It wasnt a Tolkien simulator at all, its whole focus was on pulp fantasy dungeon skirmishing and I think that pretty much remains the style of play for DnD, just with a much broader view of what can be a dungeon and how challenges can be overcome.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top