D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Bedrockgames]

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

I didn't say no system is better. I said for many no system is better. And for many a social combat system is better. I think that is not just fair, it is more accurate than claiming one approach is the best. Especially around this issue because it is clear some people really want and need more system here, and it is equally clear some people need the game to step out of the way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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"

It isn't because you need vampires for there to be vampires in the game. You don't need social combat for social interaction to be in the game. This is the crux of the debate. An impartial response is to recognize there are valid points of view on ether side here because we are just talking about what people need to feel most comfortable making social interaction work in their campaign (and for some that will mean more system, for others, less)

 

[Maxperson]

Fair enough. My point was that the only system that even nudges up against personality, relationships and player-defined goals are the skill system. Which, as you rightly point out, doesn't really have much to do with about driving character.

This doesn't take into account what the player-defined goals are, though. If one of my goals is to unite the northern barbarian tribes under my leadership, then there will be many social, combat and exploratory situations that all fall under that personal goal, which means there will be much support for me in the game. What systems are involved in character driven play will vary quite a bit from game to game and PC to PC, as will the amount of support given to it by the game.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I reviewed my list from my old 4E books, it's how the rules were written even if it wasn't how you used it. It was how it worked when I played. If you altered the system, good for you; they also kept tweaking it since it had not been thoroughly play tested.

 

[Maxperson]

Again gotta push back against the community bias toward Freeform Roleplay and against Game Mechanic Rollplay.

Politics, Diplomacy, and Mystery at times can work very well or even better with more game mechanics.

The weakness of Freform is the limitations of the player's and DM/Gm's acting.

"Rollplay" can allow you to roleplay something you can't act.

You don't need to be an actor in order to roleplay well. One of the groups I played in for about 25 years was run by a guy who has been in huge streaming and venue D&D events. He's a voice and mocap actor, and as you would expect, a lot of those he brought into the game over the years were people he worked with. Their D&D acting was great. Mine was not so great.

I have my moments, but I'm not trained actor good. Didn't matter. They all understood what I was saying and trying to get across and translated that into "good acting" in their heads and responded to it. There was an award for best roleplaying at the end of each session and I won quite a few, because what I was trying to do was good enough, even if my skill wasn't.

You don't need rollplay to roleplay.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

I do complain about that.

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

I think that is changing.

I think that WOTC finally realized how much money they gave up to 3PP and kickstarters.

 

[Minigiant]

I reviewed my list from my old 4E books, it's how the rules were written even if it wasn't how you used it. It was how it worked when I played. If you altered the system, good for you; they also kept tweaking it since it had not been thoroughly play tested.

No that's the 4e rules.

You don't give players all the skills. That's the point because some skill are hidden instant fails or secret unlocks on attempt.

Like most of 4e, it wasn't explained well.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The main takeaway is that it really didn't matter what you said or how you said it.

Then you were simply using skill challenges incorrectly. Both of those things should always matter when running a skill challenge. A wisely-chosen turn of phrase or clever action should earn a success without rolling; a truly self-sabotaging action should earn a failure without rolling. The state of play should change from one action to the next, that's the whole point of having initiative involved. As others have said, there may even be cases where a particularly clever/foolish or complete response just ends the challenge one way or the other; this should be rare but hardly impossible.

No wonder you hate skill challenges so much.

It doesn't take several pages to explain skill challenges in an effective and productive way. I could easily do it in just two. (Not counting space eaten up by art or things like tables of difficulty values or the like, of course.)

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

Okay. Is that somehow advocating that people do that thing? Because that's very clearly the point you want to make: having political content of any kind is endorsement of certain kinds of behavior. Does that mean having dating mechanics in a game is endorsement of cheating, since players can cheat on their SOs? Does that mean D&D endorses violence because the vast majority of its rules are about how to make others die in violent combat?

The core point does not hold. A game where you play a ruthless, scheming noble cannot be equivalent to saying that assassination is a good and noble thing that people should totally do. The very notion is ludicrous.

(Also, "the only way to win is to ruthlessly crush your opponent" is not actually true of Coup. You can also win by simply outlasting your enemies. It is more difficult, to be sure, but if you play the long game and simply survive long enough, you can win by buying off those who support your rivals, until you are the only one left with supporters. It's a risky strategy, since assassination is an available tactic in play, but luck and skill might get you through. Much of your ability to win will rest on your poker face and your ability to see through others' deceptions, as the best "honest" ways to strip someone of their support are to successfully challenge a lie and to prove that you did not lie when challenged.)

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Ok, put it another way.

The downtime rules in teh DMG or Xanathars that cover stronghold type scenarios is about a page long. Maybe two? Certainly no more than that.

The rules for creating a monster in the DMG is over ten pages long.

Which would you say is more supported by the rules?

The discussion, as I see it, has been if things are supported or not. In fact, I noted from the start the support for combat is far greater. However, that doesn't mean there is no support for other playstyles and it doesn't mean the support provided isn't enough for some, while also being to little for others. Heck, the same can be said of the combat and monster creation rules.

If I wanted to determine how likely it was for one of the guards guarding your stronghold could be bribed, what mechanics in 5e would I use for that? How would I determine the loyalty of your staff?

That is a DM question, but it sounds to me like you could use the renown system, the social interaction system, the morale system, simple ability checks, or roleplaying. Again, this is all 5e. Other editions had other systems for handling these questions.

To give another example, in Waterdeep Dragon Heist, there are rules for running a business. That's true. There are rules. The rules consist of a random table where you make xdx gp per week depending on what you roll on the table. There are a couple of modifiers for the table but that's about it. You could fit the entire ruleset on a file card. That is the sum total of rules for running a business. It's quick, easy and, if you're not terribly concerned about it, they do work.

But, I'd hardly call that support by the system.

But I would call that support. Heck, I could use a combat system that simple too.

 

[Maxperson]

Which is the point I'm making. The OP is claiming that D&D is good at dealing with politics. You just said that you'd use a different system to handle a political campaign.

The OP made no such claim. It listed a few of the playstyles that people use with D&D and said each had its own charm and challenges, but that was it. It also claimed that people used the D&D rules to support the various styles, which is also true. There is at least minimal support via rules that can be used for each playstyle.

Hack-and-Slash: Combat rules
Problem Solving: various skills, ability checks, spells, magic items and class abilities.
Character Driven: Depends on PC goals, ability checks, various skills, classes and subclasses, etc.
Historical Simulation: DMG guidelines on setting creation and running the game.
Slapstick: Bards
Tactical: Combat Rules, spells, class and subclass abilities, etc.