D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

"the only way to win is to ruthlessly crush your opponent" is absolutely a political statement.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

That's why there should be optional social, mystery, and management rules for those who want them.

WOTC is adding Bastion Rules to the 2024 for those who want them. That's great.

What people are saying. 5th edition was published in 2014. Why did it take 10 years to print a decently focused on optional rule to support a playsytle better?

 

[hgjertsen]

That's why there should be optional social, mystery, and management rules for those who want them.

WOTC is adding Bastion Rules to the 2024 for those who want them. That's great.

What people are saying. 5th edition was published in 2014. Why did it take 10 years to print a decently focused on optional rule to support a playsytle better?

Well, because there are a lot of playstyles, the "social combat" one likely being less popular, and WotC seems very much concerned with minimizing the possible adverse effects of its suggested rules. Those featured in Xanathar's are so basic that they can't lead to unintended oversights, and that consistent refusal to publish optional rules which might split the playerbase (especially with the advent of organized DnD) seems like a new WotC policy.

That isn't to say that their overall balancing is good though, some of the subclasses from Xanathar's are absolutely nutty.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Also, I recommend that people who want more involved social interaction rules actually read the rules that exist for it in the DMG. Because in these discussions it often seems that most people haven't. They're more detailed than one might imagine.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That's why there should be optional social, mystery, and management rules for those who want them.

WOTC is adding Bastion Rules to the 2024 for those who want them. That's great.

What people are saying. 5th edition was published in 2014. Why did it take 10 years to print a decently focused on optional rule to support a playsytle better?

I am not objecting to this. I certainly have no issue with more optional rules. I am talking more from a design standpoint in response to the points people made. So my point is simply social combat rules or similar rules, can be good for the people who want them. I just take issue with the point that more system equals more support or more system equals better. I think there are valid reasons why a lot of games have more rules for things like combat but less for social interaction (which isn't to say that the best design choice for every game).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Also, I recommend that people who want more involved social interaction rules actually read the rules that exist for it in the DMG. Because in these discussions it often seems that most people haven't. They're more detailed than one might imagine.

Can someone re-iterate the social interaction rules here?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, because there are a lot of playstyles, the "social combat" one likely being less popular, and WotC seems very much concerned with minimizing the possible adverse effects of its suggested rules. Those featured in Xanathar's are so basic that they can't lead to unintended oversights, and that consistent refusal to publish optional rules which might split the playerbase (especially with the advent of organized DnD) seems like a new WotC policy.

That isn't to say that their overall balancing is good though, some of the subclasses from Xanathar's are absolutely nutty.

This would be my guess. Sometimes your preference just isn't popular enough to make the cut. I won't be getting 6E, and I didn't even make the jump to 5E. I pretty much stopped playing WOTC era D&D actively after 4E came out. 5E had a lot of stuff that appealed to me, but I realized I'd much rather just play older editions or retroclones that fit my personal taste than core D&D. I still think it is fair to advocate for what you want though. Minigiant is just asking for optional rules that expand on a particular area of the game. That isn't an unreasonable request at all.

 

[Minigiant]

Well, because there are a lot of playstyles, the "social combat" one likely being less popular, and WotC seems very much concerned with minimizing the possible adverse effects of its suggested rules. Those featured in Xanathar's are so basic that they can't lead to unintended oversights, and that consistent refusal to publish optional rules which might split the playerbase (especially with the advent of organized DnD) seems like a new WotC policy.

That isn't to say that their overall balancing is good though, some of the subclasses from Xanathar's are absolutely nutty.

Also, I recommend that people who want more involved social interaction rules actually read the rules that exist for it in the DMG. Because in these discussions it often seems that most people haven't. They're more detailed than one might imagine.

Well no one reads the DMG anyway and its so disorganized, it is hard too.

But the point is that these rules would be optional. There is nothing to split as there is no assumption that they would be used useless you ask the DM or if the DM is promoting that style of game.

However it's all beside the point if the rules given to other playstyles are bad.

I am not objecting to this. I certainly have no issue with more optional rules. I am talking more from a design standpoint in response to the points people made. So my point is simply social combat rules or similar rules, can be good for the people who want them. I just take issue with the point that more system equals more support or more system equals better. I think there are valid reasons why a lot of games have more rules for things like combat but less for social interaction (which isn't to say that the best design choice for every game).

And I take issue with the suggestion that no system is better.

But that's beyond the point if WOTC prints 4 thin books with useless pages but doesn't support a playstyle they suggested exists with optional system support.


That's like saying D&D has vampires but putting no vampire in the MM and saying "design your own vampire or reskin the zombie with more HP"

 

[Minigiant]

Can someone re-iterate the social interaction rules here?

5e's

1. Choose Starting Attitude
   1. Friendly
   2. Indifferent
   3. Hostile
2. Conversation
   1. Change Attitude?
   2. Determine characteristics
3. Charisma Check
   1. Aid the check
   2. Multiple checks?... sike
4. Repeat?... sike

 

[hgjertsen]

Well no one reads the DMG anyway and its so disorganized, it is hard too.

But the point is that these rules would be optional. There is nothing to split as there is no assumption that they would be used useless you ask the DM or if the DM is promoting that style of game.

However it's all beside the point if the rules given to other playstyles are bad.


And I take issue with the suggestion that no system is better.

But that's beyond the point if WOTC prints 4 thin books with useless pages but doesn't support a playstyle they suggested exists with optional system support.


That's like saying D&D has vampires but putting no vampire in the MM and saying "design your own vampire or reskin the zombie with more HP"

I feel like this logic can apply to anything though, you could just as easily complain that the DMG outlines what a Sword and Sorcery campaign is but gives us nothing in the vein of Conan the Barbarian in terms of premade adventures.

Similarly, there are suggested rules for point based spellcasting rather than slots, but we have seen little official support for that either.

I am not opposed to WotC publishing something like what you're looking for, I'm not a purist by any means, I just wouldn't buy that book, but I simply don't think WotC is ever going to publish rules like that nor are they really obligated to cater to every playstyle, the optional rules in the DMG are more meant to inspire your own homebrew than serve as alternate ways to play RAW.