D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[Imaro]

If it had the D&D name on it it'd still sell like hotcakes, at least for a while.

We've historical proof of this.

Where do we have historical proof of this? Also I don't think it would given the ease at which reviews and social media would call out the differences in this particular version.

 

[Mort]

Where do we have historical proof of this? Also I don't think it would given the ease at which reviews and social media would call out the differences in this particular version.

Yeah, I think social media (and WoTCs initial wholly lackluster approach to it) hurt 4e a lot. It would be even more extreme now. In today's environment, WoTC works be raked over the coals and I think the "there's no such thing as bad publicity..." (Supposed) aphorism would be thoroughly tested.

 

[Imaro]

Yeah, I think social media (and WoTCs initial wholly lackluster approach to it) hurt 4e a lot. It would be even more extreme now. In today's environment, WoTC works be raked over the coals and I think the "there's no such thing as bad publicity..." (Supposed) aphorism would be thoroughly tested.

Well the funny thing is that WotC did alot of marketing around "Ze game remains ze same" which was aimed squarely at convincing people 4e was the same D&D they knew and loved playing... whether that was misleading or not I'll leave for individuals to decide, but...

1. If mechanics don't matter why was this a key part of their marketing to the lead up of 4e's release?
2. There are much more influencers, channels, and interest around D&D now than there was during 4e so it would definitely be scrutinized more than it was then.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well the funny thing is that WotC did alot of marketing around "Ze game remains ze same" which was aimed squarely at convincing people 4e was the same D&D they knew and loved playing... whether that was misleading or not I'll leave for individuals to decide, but...

1. If mechanics don't matter why was this a key part of their marketing to the lead up of 4e's release?
2. There are much more influencers, channels, and interest around D&D now than there was during 4e so it would definitely be scrutinized more than it was then.

It was misleading for me, because the parts of ze game that I cared about most did not remain ze same.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well the funny thing is that WotC did alot of marketing around "Ze game remains ze same" which was aimed squarely at convincing people 4e was the same D&D they knew and loved playing... whether that was misleading or not I'll leave for individuals to decide, but...

1. If mechanics don't matter why was this a key part of their marketing to the lead up of 4e's release?
2. There are much more influencers, channels, and interest around D&D now than there was during 4e so it would definitely be scrutinized more than it was then.

On a side note, I sometimes wonder how much all those influencers actually...influence the bulk of the customer base (from which WotC's D&D profits chiefly come)? Are a whole lot (like, a significant percentage) basing their decision to spend money on D&D on what these people say? I don't know.

 

[mamba]

Well the funny thing is that WotC did alot of marketing around "Ze game remains ze same" which was aimed squarely at convincing people 4e was the same D&D they knew and loved playing... whether that was misleading or not I'll leave for individuals to decide, but...

1. If mechanics don't matter why was this a key part of their marketing to the lead up of 4e's release?

I guess to get people to become aware of an buy the new books. Presumably they focused on 'remains the same' because the people enjoying the current game were their main audience for this.

I'd say the game did not remain the same however, not even close.

2. There are much more influencers, channels, and interest around D&D now than there was during 4e so it would definitely be scrutinized more than it was then.

maybe, but how much influence would this actually have? Most people never heard of the OGL debacle, chances are they will not hear about this either, given that it is coming from the same sources

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Would it impact play? Probably. I don't know that such an impact would need to be at the expense of exploring a character's personality.

But I think it also depends on whether exploring a character's personality is the focus of play. Is that more important to play than the intrigue? And is it as supported by the rules?

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.

I'm sure you've had fun with that kind of game. I have, as well. But I don't pretend that handling things that way is anywhere near as robust and complete an experience as playing a game that is designed to deliver courtly intrigue and diplomacy.

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

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

But as I said, I'm not worried about the social element of play. That will be what it is, and is something the participants bring, and has nothing really to do with mechanics. That's what I'm interested in focusing on... the interaction of mechanics and playstyle.

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.

I disagree. Because I am not talking about the social element. I am talking about what play is like. Chess is different from Monopoly which is different from basketball which is different from charades. Those games deliver a certain kind of experience, separate of the social element.

The same is true of RPGs.

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.

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...

...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.

Yeah, freeform isn't much of a game, though. And any game can include that. Again, this isn't really about mechanics interacting with playstyle... it's about the absence of mechanics.

And that's fine... perhaps that may suit some games or some areas of play to have that kind of freeform element in place... but I think if it's an area that's meant to be important, the absence of rules is a detriment. Like, freeform may be good for a game to have moments of courtly intrigue... but if the focus of play is meant to be courtly intrigue? Then that's a bad approach.

 

[Lanefan]

Where do we have historical proof of this?

Starting in 2008......

 

[MichaelSomething]

FKR! FKR! FKR!

 

[Oofta]

Would it impact play? Probably. I don't know that such an impact would need to be at the expense of exploring a character's personality.

For me it is. If social activities have rules, it becomes gamified. I will think strategically in metagame terms instead of just envisioning my character in the fiction.

But I think it also depends on whether exploring a character's personality is the focus of play. Is that more important to play than the intrigue? And is it as supported by the rules?

Role playing and intrigue go hand in hand to me. To me "intrigue" just becomes the equivalent of a board game if there are a transparent set of rules and reactions. That's not necessarily a bad thing, I enjoy board games. But it's a different mindset.

I would also note that "exploring" my character may not be the best word to use. Inhabiting? Assuming the identity of?

I'm sure you've had fun with that kind of game. I have, as well. But I don't pretend that handling things that way is anywhere near as robust and complete an experience as playing a game that is designed to deliver courtly intrigue and diplomacy.

Having a set of concrete rules makes the experience less robust and complete to me. There's no limit to the mysteries a DM can think up, no restriction on how we can pursue the resolution of the mystery, no known structure to follow. Just like real life, which to me is far more engaging.

But as I said, I'm not worried about the social element of play. That will be what it is, and is something the participants bring, and has nothing really to do with mechanics. That's what I'm interested in focusing on... the interaction of mechanics and playstyle.

Are you talking about social element around the table or social interaction in the fictional world? In either case I think the rules definitely affect things. In my D&D games it's quite normal for us to interact as our characters. If we're aware of the metagame we'll be far more likely to interact as players of the game.

I disagree. Because I am not talking about the social element. I am talking about what play is like. Chess is different from Monopoly which is different from basketball which is different from charades. Those games deliver a certain kind of experience, separate of the social element.

The same is true of RPGs.



Yeah, freeform isn't much of a game, though. And any game can include that. Again, this isn't really about mechanics interacting with playstyle... it's about the absence of mechanics.

And that's fine... perhaps that may suit some games or some areas of play to have that kind of freeform element in place... but I think if it's an area that's meant to be important, the absence of rules is a detriment. Like, freeform may be good for a game to have moments of courtly intrigue... but if the focus of play is meant to be courtly intrigue? Then that's a bad approach.

Some of the most important decisions about game design revolve around what to include and what to leave out. I prefer a freeform approach with guidance and a few tools to fall back on for pretty much everything other than combat.