D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Guest 85555]

TSR tried to have a book for everything and it didn't work particularly well financially so now we have a system that supports 3PP to fill in the gaps. Just because there are no official rules that provide more support if you want it, does not mean the rules don't exist. I had a couple of the TSR era books that gave more details on this ... and never used them. I just never found them particularly useful for my game.

I loved the supplements from that era. I think the issues with tsr were deeper than too many supplements. That is a big topic though. What I will say about 2E era support: they wrote with GMs in mind. As a gm you always felt you had new material to turn to for inspiration. Even the complete books were helpful to the Gm. To me that was a golden age in terms of the amount of material that inspired and energized me to run games. Contrast that with 3E, which I liked as well, and finding Gm inspiration felt like more of a struggle (the books felt largely written for players and the flavor never quite rose to 2E era for me. Also they did have 3rd party stuff, and I made heavy use. But it was so hot or miss at that time. A lot of third party d20 was shoddy and speedily produced

 

[Minigiant]

In a game design context, allowing by keeping a an area of the game open is support in my view. In fact it is crucial for making RPGs so powerful. The ability to say what you want to do, have the gm figure out how and why, enabled you to go beyond the rules. It is what makes an rpg different from a board or computer game. In areas like social interaction, allowing space for creativity and fun is support. Again though, every version of D&D has done mechanics for this part of the game. So there is support by making space but also literal mechanical support

I agree.

That's why I think the base game should be a bare Hack and Slash.

Then all the other playstyles have an optional set of variant rules.

So you can play Character Driven with rules and Character Driven without rules. Or both, have only the rules for the shy introvert whereas the loud extravert talks it out.

Again the only issue is some fans don't want other fans to be supported officially. It's not a zero sum. TSR and WOTC waste book space.

 

[hgjertsen]

I agree.

That's why I think the base game should be a bare Hack and Slash.

Then all the other playstyles have an optional set of variant rules.

So you can play Character Driven with rules and Character Driven without rules. Or both, have only the rules for the shy introvert whereas the loud extravert talks it out.

Again the only issue is some fans don't want other fans to be supported officially. It's not a zero sum. TSR and WOTC waste book space.

I guess the issue is that players like myself struggle to see the value in making mechanically explicit the sort of social interactions already encouraged by the backgrounds and their associated personality traits, flaws, etc that are featured in the PHB. Should there actually be a huge demand for social combat systems and the like, I think WotC should publish a book on them, but if there isn't actually a huge desire for them, 3PP should cover you just fine, especially given the fact that we live in the information age and something written by a random individual online could be just as good as something published by Kobold press.

 

[Guest 85555]

I agree.

That's why I think the base game should be a bare Hack and Slash.

Then all the other playstyles have an optional set of variant rules.

So you can play Character Driven with rules and Character Driven without rules. Or both, have only the rules for the shy introvert whereas the loud extravert talks it out.

Again the only issue is some fans don't want other fans to be supported officially. It's not a zero sum. TSR and WOTC waste book space.

I have no problem with optional support. I was under the impression the original plan for 5E was to put out support books for different styles. For example a sandbox book, a genre book, a narrative book, political campaign book etc (not those specifically but stuff like that). I think that would have been a good way to go. Perhaps they did this and I missed it though

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No, the OP said that D&D supported all those different ways to play. That's what's being refuted.

The fact that D&D is observed to be played in those ways carries the implication that it is supported sufficiently to make those play styles viable.

If D&D could not be played in those ways, it would not be possible to observe that those playstyles exist.

 

[Guest 85555]

I guess the issue is that players like myself struggle to see the value in making mechanically explicit the sort of social interactions already encouraged by the backgrounds and their associated personality traits, flaws, etc that are featured in the PHB. Should there actually be a huge demand for social combat systems and the like, I think WotC should publish a book on them, but if there isn't actually a huge desire for them, 3PP should cover you just fine, especially given the fact that we live in the information age and something written by a random individual online could be just as good as something published by Kobold press.

I have to say, while I probably share your sensibilities with social interaction, minigiant expecting purely optional rules for people who want them isn’t that big of a request. 2E excelled at offering options. I think optional rules and optional support books are a great way to give people more mechanical support where they want it and can also energize the Gm.

 

[hgjertsen]

The fact that D&D is observed to be played in those ways carries the implication that it is supported sufficiently to make those play styles viable.

If D&D could not be played in those ways, it would not be possible to observe that those playstyles exist.

This entire discussion just comes down to a disagreement over what "supports" means, Minigiant is aware of this distinction as is Micah Sweet, they simply think that "supports" means more than, for example, "supports modding" in that it actually has a set of rules dedicated to it and is regularly maintained, rather than simply not disallowed.

 

[hgjertsen]

I have to say, while I probably share your sensibilities with social interaction, minigiant expecting purely optional rules for people who want them isn’t that big of a request. 2E excelled at offering options. I think optional rules and optional support books are a great way to give people more mechanical support where they want it and can also energize the Gm.

I don't disagree at all to be honest, I am just uncertain whether or not the 5E crowd has a significant number of players who would want those rules. I personally haven't bought a 5E book since descent into Avernus and I never cared what they published, so I am very much open to WotC publishing alternate rules for other players, and I hope they do in 5.5e.

 

[Minigiant]

I guess the issue is that players like myself struggle to see the value in making mechanically explicit the sort of social interactions already encouraged by the backgrounds and their associated personality traits, flaws, etc that are featured in the PHB. Should there actually be a huge demand for social combat systems and the like, I think WotC should publish a book on them, but if there isn't actually a huge desire for them, 3PP should cover you just fine, especially given the fact that we live in the information age and something written by a random individual online could be just as good as something published by Kobold press.

Well for the Character Driven mechanics, IMHO the official ones are bad if you choose to focus on that playstyle. AND almost no 3PP got it right because most 3PP are headed with people with the same mindsets.

You don't ask a vegan how to grill steak.

A lot of the 3PP heads are like you and don't get the point. And some have other core goals elsewhere which conflict

 

[hgjertsen]

Well for the Character Driven mechanics, IMHO the official ones are bad if you choose to focus on that playstyle. AND almost no 3PP got it right because most 3PP are headed with people with the same mindsets.

You don't ask a vegan how to grill steak.

A lot of the 3PP heads are like you and don't get the point. And some have other core goals elsewhere which conflict

Sure, I do sincerely hope you get an option that accommodates what you're looking for in 5.5e, I'm not the type to care that much about a book "going to waste" because it's not for me, I just don't see the point. Not really going to bat for 5e either, just interested in discussing the merits of the idea.