D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Paul Farquhar]

A game that lacks a social combat system does not really support social interaction all that well, no?

So you consider all social interaction to be combative? So if you want to chat to an NPC about the weather that's equivalent to killing a monster and taking it's treasure.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's also difficult to design a political system without making political value judgments.

I would agree

I think the issue with these kinds of subsystems is they grate against certain play styles. I made a mafia game many years ago and had a system for managing rackets in the background and for managing crime. It worked great, until you had players who really wanted a 1:1 management of those things. Then the abstraction became an instruction. Many players liked it just fine, but you would always run into players where the subsystem would fall apart. I updated it many times and reworked it, with those specific players in mind and it still managed to present an issue. I am not arguing against these kinds of subsystems but with RPGs I think it is a mistake to equate 'more system' with support, given how vital free form is in many areas of the game for certain players. I had the same issue by the way with sect management rules in wuxia campaigns. If you get players who are willing to engage the subsystem or abstraction this stuff works great. If you have players who want to play out the details or don't want a system interfering with their RP and actions for those sorts of things, they become an impediment

 

[hgjertsen]

That would be a good example of a system that actually supports that style of play. A game that lacks a social combat system does not really support social interaction all that well, no? If social interaction is simply freeform, then that system isn't supporting anything. Which isn't to say you cannot do these things freeform. That's obviously true.

I'm arguing about the point that the SYSTEM is supporting play. Freeform is not a system.

Well sure, I think what the system does and does not cover is distinct from what is possible within the game itself, and I do actually understand why some might wish to see a more mechanically abstracted form of social combat in the game. After all, not all of us are charismatic knaves who can discern a character's motivations within an instant, and having little more than charisma and wisdom checks contesting each other to abstract more intelligent and discerning intrigue is definitely something that is lacking in terms of the ruleset.

If you are, as I believe I understand now, separating the system from the game in that the system makes explicit recommendations as to how to resolve issues in the narrative, then yeah DnD has no good social interaction system.

 

[Minigiant]

The issue is though this is a very contentious topic in RPGs. For a lot of people, social combat doesn't support social interaction, it interferes with it (because I think for many gamers, freeform RP is the optimal way to manage social interaction).

That said most forms of D&D have some amount of social rules, even if it is just stuff like CHR and reaction adjustment.

The issue is that it doesn't have to be all or nothing.


D&D is a game of patchwork rules. The rules for social combat or running a business don't have to be core rules. However there is plenty of wasted space in the DMG and many setting and options books have been thin.


I don't think anyone is asking for them to be core rules. However after 10 years, each edition should have a well designed optional rules variant for each suggested playstyle.

 

[hgjertsen]

The issue is that it doesn't have to be all or nothing.


D&D is a game of patchwork rules. The rules for social combat or running a business don't have to be core rules. However there is plenty of wasted space in the DMG and many setting and options books have been thin.


I don't think anyone is asking for them to be core rules. However after 10 years, each edition should have a well designed optional rules variant for each suggested playstyle.

To be a bit snarky, it is a "role playing game", not an immersive sim where you can unlock extra dialogue options by having a higher charisma point value. I think that an optional rule could be nice but it just seems sort of unnecessary for most tables. How likely are you to bribe a guard? I guess it comes down to DM fiat on what the guard's motivations are or else a persuasion check.

 

[Oofta]

It seems that some people want rollplay to drive everything outside of combat instead of roleplay. I don't. We tried that in 4E and it sucked the soul out of the game, especially initially.

Spoiler: Brief explanation of skill challenges

• Roll for initiative and go in order, everyone has to participate.
• There were primary skills with a DC of easy or moderate to pass, and you couldn't repeat a skill.
• The DM told you what skills were primary
• If you thought up something that wasn't on the list and could justify it, it became a hard DC.
• You had to succeed on X number of skills before Y failures depending on the complexity.
• There was no way to shortcut a skill challenge, you had to keep going until you had X number of successes.
• Appropriate powers could potentially count as a success.

If you really want details: https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-L3dYW-IFahTdYhpPtyH

The main takeaway is that it really didn't matter what you said or how you said it. Saying "I'm going to use diplomacy" had the same result as a detailed and convincing argument. There was no way to bypass the skill challenge through a clever ideas or creative play, in fact thinking outside the box was penalized. The DM basically had a script in mind and you had to follow the script to the point they were satisfied. It was a terrible system as far as I was concerned, a prime example of how not to resolve non-combat encounters.

I still use something like skill challenges now, following the style they give in the 5E DMG example of chase rules, although I try to be flexible and encourage creativity. So in social encounters I don't expect the player to be silver tongued but I do expect them to explain what they are saying and judge that by content. If I'm uncertain if what is said is unconvincing I'll ask for a roll. But I also love when the players come up with a creative solution that totally bypasses things and gives the group an easy success that bypasses what I thought they needed to do.

So I think the attempt at a generic out of combat system was a failure. I think some of the ideas behind it can be used, and they give an example in the DMG. I just don't want to ever go back to gamifying things that I think are best left up to judgement and creative solutions. Could they come up with a dozen different subsystems to cover the majority of scenarios? I suppose. But to get them right to have things that worked better than 4E skill challenges (which took several pages to explain) there would have to be significant effort. In addition if you don't have a generic framework you have to have several subsystems, but then if you lack a subsystem for some type of play for some people it would indicate you can't do that with D&D. When only a small percentage of people think any of this is necessary it just isn't going to happen.

On the other hand, a quick google search will bring up several options and suggestions in blogs or videos for most of the styles listed by the OP. I don't see why this is a bad thing, people who have issues running a political campaign can do some googling and find multiple options, then use ideas they like.

Other games may have subsystems people feel work well. I just don't see how you could have a system significantly rule driven without it resulting in rollplay. Which, there's nothing wrong with that style of game it's just not what I want when I play D&D. But I would also assume that those games are generally more focused than D&D.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Beyond the core books he said there is support for just about any style of game from some 3pp. So he believes 5e at least has support for lots of play styles.

But this is precisely the unassailable claim I noted previously (perhaps in a different thread). On the one hand, if the system doesn't tell you what it was designed for, then whatever you do with it is necessarily what it is for, and thus the system supports all possible uses; or if you find something you can't do that with, well, you just apply a sufficiently large amount of elbow grease (or find someone else to do it for you) and thus the system supports it.

"Someone could write 3PP for it, therefore the system supports it" is a pretty clear surrendering of the key claim. If it needs 3PP to support something, at the very least the game isn't actually supporting that thing by itself. Politics is pretty clearly in that direction.

The issue is though this is a very contentious topic in RPGs. For a lot of people, social combat doesn't support social interaction, it interferes with it (because I think for many gamers, freeform RP is the optimal way to manage social interaction).

That said most forms of D&D have some amount of social rules, even if it is just stuff like CHR and reaction adjustment.

And to me, I think this is you projecting your own preference for freedform RP onto a set of players you don't actually know much about. We would need actual data to know this. And guess what, the vast majority of players have never even tried "social combat" type rules, so they cannot meaningfully answer the question in the first place! "Do you prefer curry over hamburgers?" is a worthless survey question if most people you ask have never eaten curry. They cannot make a comparison.

And there are many ways to do "social combat." Consider, for example, the extremely popular "Mafia" or "Werewolf" games, which rose to a frenzy of popularity with Among Us. Secret Hitler, for example, has actual mechanics for how the players interact. Or the actually quite challenging Coup, a game of influence, lies, money, and assassination. Its specific techniques may or may not be applicable to D&D itself, but it shows that "social combat" can look radically different from what stuff D&D generally offers, and can be both actually quite challenging and more involved than "I make up stuff and the DM vetoes anything they don't like."

It's also difficult to design a political system without making political value judgments.

Not at all. Coup has no concept of parties or political philosophy in it, it is meant to represent Italian Renaissance noble families ruthlessly crushing one another. It is a very political game that makes no political statements at all.

A set of rules for engaging with political situations need not make any political claims. If it provides well-structured resolution systems and tools for interesting tactical or strategic interaction, it has done all it need do.

Your claim is equivalent to saying that you can't have a game like Civilization without explicitly supporting every horrible deed every past or present civilization has ever committed. That you can't have a grand strategy game like Crusader Kings III without openly supporting monarchism or anti-Semitism (since medieval Europe was ruled by monarchs and virulently anti-Semitic.)

Presenting a rules structure where interesting political conflicts can play out is not at all the same as supporting any specific goal, intent, or philosophy a faction within those conflicts might espouse.

 

[Minigiant]

To be a bit snarky, it is a "role playing game", not an immersive sim where you can unlock extra dialogue options by having a higher charisma point value. I think that an optional rule could be nice but it just seems sort of unnecessary for most tables. How likely are you to bribe a guard? I guess it comes down to DM fiat on what the guard's motivations are or else a persuasion check.

Yeah sure but like my niece said

"Mary is 500 years old and super smart and has super vision and read a lot of mystery books so Mary knows who did it. So Uncle we are gonna turn this 3 into a 19."

And now this 10 year old has a separate character sheet of all the books her elf wizard read over her 500 years of life to prevent the "Uncle's Cheating" dance.

THERE'S NO SUCH RULE AS TRIPLE ADVANTAGE, SKY!

 

[Bedrockgames]

And to me, I think this is you projecting your own preference for freedform RP onto a set of players you don't actually know much about. We would need actual data to know this. And guess what, the vast majority of players have never even tried "social combat" type rules, so they cannot meaningfully answer the question in the first place! "Do you prefer curry over hamburgers?" is a worthless survey question if most people you ask have never eaten curry. They cannot make a comparison.

Except I am talking about people who have eaten curry. I am basing this on what I have seen at the table from actual players and from my own experience. Social combat rules are hardly new. I don't pretend to know what the hard numbers are on preference (I doubt anyone has done an objective measurement or 'taste test' of any real scale. But if you play games you have all met players for whom social combat rules enhance social interaction in games, and those for whom it detracts. I think an even handed assessment like this isn't projection at all. It is more projection to assume that one or the other is some kind of panacea that would work for everyone.

And there are many ways to do "social combat." Consider, for example, the extremely popular "Mafia" or "Werewolf" games, which rose to a frenzy of popularity with Among Us. Secret Hitler, for example, has actual mechanics for how the players interact. Or the actually quite challenging Coup, a game of influence, lies, money, and assassination. Its specific techniques may or may not be applicable to D&D itself, but it shows that "social combat" can look radically different from what stuff D&D generally offers, and can be both actually quite challenging and more involved than "I make up stuff and the DM vetoes anything they don't like."

No one is denying this. And I am not attacking social combat systems. I am just pointing out for some people social combat will make D&D better for RP and social interaction, for others it gets in the way. And obviously there are all kinds of social combat systems, so there is that to consider too.

 

[Minigiant]

• Roll for initiative and go in order, everyone has to participate.
• There were primary skills with a DC of easy or moderate to pass, and you couldn't repeat a skill.
• The DM told you what skills were primary
• If you thought up something that wasn't on the list and could justify it, it became a hard DC.
• You had to succeed on X number of skills before Y failures depending on the complexity.
• There was no way to shortcut a skill challenge, you had to keep going until you had X number of successes.
• Appropriate powers could potentially count as a success.

That's uh not how skill challenge worked in 4e.

The DM is only obligated to get you 2 skills which work. Part of the point of skill challenges is that many of the skills and their usages are hidden and some are even unknown to the DM. It was to encourage players of PC not talented in the common skill or ability score to think outside the box. To get the half orc barbarian's player to talk.

And if they roll Intimidation and get a bonus for being big and strong, they might get 2 success or outright win the challenge when the DM declares the merchant is a scaredy cat yellow bellied wimp and 3 words from a big tusked boy gets him to sell you his boat.