D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Bedrockgames]

The absence of a system can be a strength. But it also can be a hindarance. It depends on the group.

The only real issue is the dismissal of playstyles.

And playstyles with noncombat subsystems were often dismiss and gaslit as always inferior because D&D started its first 2 editions without them. So many fans defaulted to thinking that their way was superior or even that no one played the other way.

You see it in the 2014 and 2024 versions of D&D.

But this happens both ways. I try to be polite and understanding of differences in taste in these threads. I think people generally should be when it comes to game design as the stakes are incredibly low. But I have seen that kind of dismissal on both sides of the argument

FOr me I am not defaulting to that way being superior simply because that is how I started. What I learned after years of playing 3E, was going back to the approaches laid out in 1E and 2E (and in basic) just work better for me.

ENWorld isn't too bad at this. However the D&D community as a whole is very toxic about the "My way is best. Your way is dumb" mentality. It's not everyone but the numbers is uncomfortably high and now they have social media and algorithms to spread their bias and influence newcomers.

I agree but again it swings both ways. I think all of us have encountered that kind of abrasiveness from people who don't share our gaming preferences or dislike an edition we love

 

[Oofta]

Hang on. I just got told repeatedly that it is freeform for most of this things I'm claiming that 5e doesn't support (or support very well).

So, which is it? Is it freeform or does it have support? See, you're the one who keeps trying to claim that the support is "good" or not. I'm not talking at all about whether or not I like the support. I'm talking about whether or not the support exists. And, since I've repeatedly been told that the support consists of "freeform" play, then, I can safely conclude that no, the support does not exist.

But here you are telling me that there's all sorts of support. So, I'm very confused. Perhaps you could argue with those who keep claiming that free form play is support and then come back and let me know which it is.

Round and round and round we go. You know the answer. How much it's freeform, how much it is rollplay is largely up to the DM. The DM can call for ability skill checks for everything or do everything role play and people never touch a die. The support is in the skills PCs use in combination with background features and various rules in the DMG and other books.

Being deliberately obtuse when you know the answer if you've ever actually played the game or read the books doesn't help your argument.

 

[Hussar]

I think people are just taking your arguments on this for granted, that for you it isn't adequately supported by the rules. But plenty of people have pointed out that various editions of D&D do in fact have mechanics for social interaction. But if those are insufficient for some people, they are insufficient

True. And plenty more people have insisted that these things are done through free form play. So, which is it? Is it well supported mechanically or is it free form?

I mean, look at it this way. How much Xp did you award to the players in the last three times you awarded XP? How much of it was from kill xp and how much of it was from role play awards? I'll bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority of tables awarded significantly more kill XP than role play XP. Three or four times as much if not more. Because the system in 5e D&D has no real way to award xp for role play. It's all DM fiat and whatever the DM feels is appropriate.

That is not mechanical support. That's what free form looks like. So, if the system has all this fantastic support for role play, why can't it tell me how much xp I should get for getting information from the bath house attendant leading to me discovering a secret door to the lair of the cultists beneath the bathhouse? (To use an example from Descent to Avernus)

 

[Hussar]

How much it's freeform, how much it is rollplay is largely up to the DM.

So, zero mechanical support then. If it's largely up to the DM, then the system isn't doing very much here is it?

Thank you. That's what I was asking. A nice direct, clear answer.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

So, which is it? Is it freeform or does it have support? See, you're the one who keeps trying to claim that the support is "good" or not. I'm not talking at all about whether or not I like the support. I'm talking about whether or not the support exists. And, since I've repeatedly been told that the support consists of "freeform" play, then, I can safely conclude that no, the support does not exist.

I have repeatedly told you it exist and even pointed to were it is in the books (for 5e at least).

One can always choose to do it freeform, even if there is extensive support. In 4e we ditched powers and did it freeform for an adventure is it was pretty awesome

being able to do something freeform =/= no support

 

[Hussar]

I have repeatedly told you it exist and even pointed to were it is in the books (for 5e at least).

I agree. Now, go argue with the people who are telling you that it doesn't exist and that these things are all free form. After all, @Oofta just said that the system is largely free form with the DM determining things.

When you folks figure out which it is, let me know.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Again, this has nothing to do with what I want. ZERO. Zip. Nada.

happy to have a conversation with you Hussar, but just FYI, this post is coming off to me as kind of hostile

It's about whether or not support actually EXISTS. People don't like the 4e skill challenge rules. That's fine. No worries. But, they can't then argue that the system doesn't exist. They can't claim that the system isn't trying to create mechanical support for out of combat play. Because it factually IS trying to do that. Whether it succeeded or not is a separate issue and has far more to do with people grinding the edition war axe than anything else.

Two points. As people have said, most versions of D&D have some form of mechanical support for social interactions. From simple CHR checks to Reaction adjustments and to some of the NWPs pointed to. Not to mention a variety of skill systems under WOTC D&D. They also all have plenty of stuff for out of combat situations (it may not be the same degree of depth of combat, but I would argue combat tends to require more depth). The other point is that again, how supported something is by the system is also a product of where the system holds back. Not everything in a game needs active systematic support. Sometimes adding system, rather than supporting that type of play, takes away from it. It removes support. Again this is just a fundamental design difference. It is like playing 3E then going back to the old white box where so much of the game is open and free. One thing I realized about doing stuff like this is less is often much more for me. Sometimes you support an area of the game by making it more open

The fact remains that 5e does not support out of combat actions very well. The skill system and the ability check system is anemic and actually doesn't support a lot of different actions. There's nothing in the system that supports a number of the Styles of Play listed in the OP. It freeforms most of these things. And free form is not support. I don't see how it could be. Again, it's like claiming Chess is a great role playing game because it freeforms making horsey noises when I move my knight.

We are going in circles here, which is why I think we just need to accept there is an impasse. But the chess example is a bad one. It is exactly the same argument John Wick made to argue that D&D isn't even a roleplaying game. Which is obviously a fallacious argument. Here it is equally fallacious to say RPGs need mechanical support for things that can be adjudicated through simple interaction between GM and Players. Now I understand you want more mechanics there. That is fine. A totally valid preference. I just think your argument here is kind of flawed (especially when it isn't even the case that D&D lacks mechanics for a lot of this stuff). I would agree, 5E seems to be a take it back to basics approach here, and probably has some of the basic or white box influence I spoke about.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I agree. Now, go argue with the people who are telling you that it doesn't exist and that these things are all free form. After all, @Oofta just said that the system is largely free form with the DM determining things.

When you folks figure out which it is, let me know.

I updated my previous post, but:

freeform =/= no support.

Just because you can do it freeform doesn't mean you have to do that way. They are not mutually exclusive. You can have both. As I mentioned we ran 4e combat freeform for an adventure. Does that mean 4e didn't support combat?

 

[Bedrockgames]

True. And plenty more people have insisted that these things are done through free form play. So, which is it? Is it well supported mechanically or is it free form?

It depends on the edition. But I would say most editions that I prefer these days are lighter on mechanical support but still have it. A CHR check and reaction adjustment are mechanics. An Etiquette knowledge skill is a mechanic in support of this.

I mean, look at it this way. How much Xp did you award to the players in the last three times you awarded XP? How much of it was from kill xp and how much of it was from role play awards? I'll bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority of tables awarded significantly more kill XP than role play XP. Three or four times as much if not more. Because the system in 5e D&D has no real way to award xp for role play. It's all DM fiat and whatever the DM feels is appropriate.

I haven't played D&D since last year so I can't tell you that.

But for the record, I am fine with fairly loose XP guidelines. In the games I currently play XP is awarded based on the following criteria:

Defeating a Powerful Foe
Growing Your reputation
Performing a Great deed

There are also bonus XP criteria but I won't get into those as they are pretty genre specific

2E has this stuff quantified by class, and I think it is one of the areas of the game I like the least. But XP is always contentious so I don't know that debating it is going to shed a lot of light on this stuff.

That is not mechanical support. That's what free form looks like. So, if the system has all this fantastic support for role play, why can't it tell me how much xp I should get for getting information from the bath house attendant leading to me discovering a secret door to the lair of the cultists beneath the bathhouse? (To use an example from Descent to Avernus)

Having support for role-play doesn't mean you need to give players XP for role-play. Personally I think it is kind of dumb to award XP for good roleplaying. I don't award it for that.

 

[Hussar]

From simple CHR checks to Reaction adjustments and to some of the NWPs pointed to. Not to mention a variety of skill systems under WOTC D&D.

See, you look at that and claim, "See, there's support".

I look at that and say, "Nope. That's not support. That's barely a system."

So claiming that D&D supports this because it has a three line rule for making a reaction check when you meet random monsters in a dungeon is stretching the definition of support to the breaking point. That's very much not support. That's barely a guideline. And, I'd point out, that the OSR crowd would largely agree with me that AD&D doesn't have non-combat support. It leaves it very much up to freeform.

So, again, you folks figure it out. Does D&D support these things or not? If it does, then it's not free form.

Or, put it another way. List those classic modules in D&D that deal with Character Driven play. Or Political play. After all, if the system supports these styles of play so well, then there should be a shopping list of classic modules showcasing this support.