D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

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.
Yup, and using rules for social situations means it's an actual chargen-level choice to be good at it, not a charming-player-level thing; how much that will matter will vary by table, of course.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yup, and using rules for social situations means it's an actual chargen-level choice to be good at it, not a charming-player-level thing; how much that will matter will vary by table, of course.
Yup, it sure will. And since you're playing a character, shouldn't that character's abilities and talents count just as much as mine? In my view what the players wants to do is filtered through what the PC is capable of, mediated by the dice.
 

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.

Yeah, for sure! I just struggle a bit to think of that as a “play” style… there’s no real play happening.

Play in those kinds of games seems to consist mostly of freeform RP with some small instances of GM adjudication interspersed with combat, which then becomes much more gamey. The freeform RP stuff seems to mostly set up the context for the battles.

And of course, with a production like Critical Role, the performance element is paramount. They’re entertaining folks other than themselves and making money doing so.

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.

Absolutely. And I played that way for many years. The formative years for me as a GM and for my group was that era.

These days, I much prefer something that’s less focused on me as the GM being the primary storyteller. I want to be surprised much more often through play. Which, to my mind, is much more likely the more game that’s involved.
 

I mean, more than anything, the idea of a persistent avatar that progressed was THE idea that made RPGs so popular.

Yes, but it's not like non-level based games don't have progression. Your GURPS character gets "better" as does just about any other system. But, from what I've seen, the Level based systems tend to have people more wanting to keep going.
 

Yeah, for sure! I just struggle a bit to think of that as a “play” style… there’s no real play happening.
Well, "play" is a stretchy word. If my daughter is playing "House" with a friend, that's still play, just not play in a game theory sense.

Play in those kinds of games seems to consist mostly of freeform RP with some small instances of GM adjudication interspersed with combat, which then becomes much more gamey. The freeform RP stuff seems to mostly set up the context for the battles.
And this is a guess, but I imagine that for a lot of the groups, the combat is something to be fast-forwarded or avoided as much as possible, so as to maximize the thespianism.

(And likewise, plenty of groups fast-forward the freeform to get to the next battle.)
 

Well, "play" is a stretchy word. If my daughter is playing "House" with a friend, that's still play, just not play in a game theory sense.


And this is a guess, but I imagine that for a lot of the groups, the combat is something to be fast-forwarded or avoided as much as possible, so as to maximize the thespianism.

(And likewise, plenty of groups fast-forward the freeform to get to the next battle.)
This is why I believe that games should be designed with a point on that spectrum in mind.
 


Yup, it sure will. And since you're playing a character, shouldn't that character's abilities and talents count just as much as mine? In my view what the players wants to do is filtered through what the PC is capable of, mediated by the dice.
Yes, exactly.

However, while just about all DMs (IME) have no problem separating the physical attributes of the player from those of their character, way too many can't seem to separate the mental attributes (INT, WIS, CHA) and expect the player to be charming, intelligent, etc. as opposed to treating what they say/do through the Lense of the character's stats.
 

Yes, exactly.

However, while just about all DMs (IME) have no problem separating the physical attributes of the player from those of their character, way too many can't seem to separate the mental attributes (INT, WIS, CHA) and expect the player to be charming, intelligent, etc. as opposed to treating what they say/do through the Lense of the character's stats.
This might be exacerbated if a given DM doesn't bother tracking the PCs' stats. On the other hand, I'm unafraid to ask for their stats and proficiencies, and/or to call for a roll.
 

Well, "play" is a stretchy word. If my daughter is playing "House" with a friend, that's still play, just not play in a game theory sense.


And this is a guess, but I imagine that for a lot of the groups, the combat is something to be fast-forwarded or avoided as much as possible, so as to maximize the thespianism.

(And likewise, plenty of groups fast-forward the freeform to get to the next battle.)
You wouldn't expect a cool book or etiquette∆ book to cover the baking and "tea party" that your daughter might engage in though because their purpose is to set an expected structure. She might vaguely care to pretend very seriously, but there's a reason why you can't really make tea in kids play tea sets and easy bake ovens cook(ed?) with a light bulb. It's not reasonable for a ttrpg rulebook to do heavily concern itself with writing rules for people who are just going to freeform dismiss them because it results in failing to support people who want the structure of those rules.

∆seems like an etiquette thing. Imay drink tea, but I don't even know if tea parties or whatever are still a thing people do across the ocean.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top