D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

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.



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? :unsure:



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.



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.



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.
But that really isn't what D&D 5e offers though, is it? There are plenty of rules in those books outside of combat.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

There is, of course, a bit of a chicken and egg issue. But, I'll agree with @tetrasodium , people stick with level based games more/longer - even when new to the hobby.
I mean, more than anything, the idea of a persistent avatar that progressed was THE idea that made RPGs so popular.
 

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.

Well, yeah. It’s a game. Why shouldn’t it be gamified? Why would someone in a diplomatic situation, performing intrigue not be thinking strategically?

I don’t see the conflict you’re describing here.

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? :unsure:

I’m not sure what kind of mechanics you’re thinking of, but again, I don’t see this issue. Why can’t you inhabit your character if there are rules involved?

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.

I don’t feel that mechanics limit things in this way. Why is the DM somehow restricted in coming up with scenarios? Or challenges that can be engaged in a meaningful way if there are rules for this stuff instead of just leaving it to freeform RP?

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.

When I originally mentioned the social element of the game, I was talking about the social element at the table. The camaraderie and kidding around and so forth. I’m not really worried about that.

The social element in the game, though… for the players to navigate as their characters… that’s absolutely something I’m interested in as a player and as a GM. If the game is about political machinations then why wouldn’t I want there to be rules that support that?

It’s not like D&D has lacked any such rules. Different versions of the game have had different ways to handle social interactions, depending on the kind of social interactions expected in play. Why shouldn’t a game design toward that instead of away from it?

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.

That’s fine as far as preferences go. I find freeform to be fine to a point… but I also want there to be a game to play and not have the game be freeform collaborative storytelling.

And I think you’re kind of touching on my point here… D&D has a lit of rules about combat because that’s a huge part of its focus. That’s what the game is about

Let me ask you, though… what is it about combat that makes you okay with having many rules? Does that likewise impair your ability to inhabit character?
 

That’s fine as far as preferences go. I find freeform to be fine to a point… but I also want there to be a game to play and not have the game be freeform collaborative storytelling.
True, but a lot of the player base does absolutely prioritize freeform thespianism as the point of play.

I mean, look at Critical Role. A majority of the participants in that game would be totally happy simply having an image and concept of their character, never picking up a die, and letting the GM handle any and all adjudication.

And even before CR, simply pushing away the rules and being the character was held up as the pinnacle of play for a lot of '90s era games. That "tradition" (npi) is still quite prevalent.
 

True, but a lot of the player base does absolutely prioritize freeform thespianism as the point of play.

I mean, look at Critical Role. A majority of the participants in that game would be totally happy simply having an image and concept of their character, never picking up a die, and letting the GM handle any and all adjudication.

And even before CR, simply pushing away the rules and being the character was held up as the pinnacle of play for a lot of '90s era games. That "tradition" (npi) is still quite prevalent.
Just look at all the objections that crop up when anyone suggests using rolls--especially gameable rolls--to work out what happens in a social situation.
 

But that really isn't what D&D 5e offers though, is it? There are plenty of rules in those books outside of combat.

Compared to some other games? It's pretty minimal. We have some structures in place with skill checks and whatnot but there is no metacurrency with the exception of inspiration which is a pretty minor benefit. But it more than OD&D where we basically had nothing.
 

Well, yeah. It’s a game. Why shouldn’t it be gamified? Why would someone in a diplomatic situation, performing intrigue not be thinking strategically?

I don’t see the conflict you’re describing here.



I’m not sure what kind of mechanics you’re thinking of, but again, I don’t see this issue. Why can’t you inhabit your character if there are rules involved?



I don’t feel that mechanics limit things in this way. Why is the DM somehow restricted in coming up with scenarios? Or challenges that can be engaged in a meaningful way if there are rules for this stuff instead of just leaving it to freeform RP?



When I originally mentioned the social element of the game, I was talking about the social element at the table. The camaraderie and kidding around and so forth. I’m not really worried about that.

The social element in the game, though… for the players to navigate as their characters… that’s absolutely something I’m interested in as a player and as a GM. If the game is about political machinations then why wouldn’t I want there to be rules that support that?

It’s not like D&D has lacked any such rules. Different versions of the game have had different ways to handle social interactions, depending on the kind of social interactions expected in play. Why shouldn’t a game design toward that instead of away from it?



That’s fine as far as preferences go. I find freeform to be fine to a point… but I also want there to be a game to play and not have the game be freeform collaborative storytelling.

And I think you’re kind of touching on my point here… D&D has a lit of rules about combat because that’s a huge part of its focus. That’s what the game is about


If it's gamified then I'm thinking of the metagame not how my character would handle the situation. I go into boardgame logic mode instead of RP mode. If I earn tokens or influence points for scoring certain political wins, if I know what my political standing is with every group because there's the equivalent of a scoreboard it's not nearly as engaging. It's the issue I had with some DMs that overused (and were not flexible with) skill challenges in 4E. Too many times it felt like there was no need for me to interact with the campaign world, I would just figure out what choice made the most sense mathematically.

If you don't get that I don't know how else to explain it.

Let me ask you, though… what is it about combat that makes you okay with having many rules? Does that likewise impair your ability to inhabit character?

I know how people interact. I can model political intrigue and mysteries based on books I've read, movies or TV series I've enjoyed, not to mention real life politics. I would have no way of knowing how to resolve combat without rules.
 

True, but a lot of the player base does absolutely prioritize freeform thespianism as the point of play.

I mean, look at Critical Role. A majority of the participants in that game would be totally happy simply having an image and concept of their character, never picking up a die, and letting the GM handle any and all adjudication.

And even before CR, simply pushing away the rules and being the character was held up as the pinnacle of play for a lot of '90s era games. That "tradition" (npi) is still quite prevalent.
Which is why none of that really works for me. I want to play a game with rules, in a world defined by rules. You can and should roleplay on top of that.
 

Just look at all the objections that crop up when anyone suggests using rolls--especially gameable rolls--to work out what happens in a social situation.
I've never really agreed with that philosophy. Social situations in game can use rules just as much as combat does. The stakes certainly can be just as high. If you're going to gamify social skills (which I think a lot of us do) ending it there is confusing and unrealistic, especially if PCs and NPCs for some reason follow different rules.
 

Compared to some other games? It's pretty minimal. We have some structures in place with skill checks and whatnot but there is no metacurrency with the exception of inspiration which is a pretty minor benefit. But it more than OD&D where we basically had nothing.
So when you say rules, you mean metacurrency? In what way is that the end all and be all of non-combat mechanics?
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top