D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[FrogReaver]

IMO taking a word that at this time has no antonymic denotations and using it to mean the precise opposite of its usual meanings is guaranteed to lead to absurd results. If "a lack of support" for a thing is the same as "supporting" a thing, then I guess Tetris "supports" roleplaying.


Expanding on @Aldarc, here's an example:

Dread has no detailed rules for intricate tactical combat, at all. By @EzekielRaiden's argument, that means that Dread does not support intricate tactical combat. D&D, which does have detailed rules for intricate tactical combat, therefore does support intricate tactical combat, to some lesser or greater extent depending on edition. (I mean, even OD&D and B/X are far more detailed than Dread!)

If we take @FrogReaver's argument at face value, Dread does support intricate tactical combat by "getting out of the way" and giving people the "freedom to decide how to handle these elements". To my mind that is as nonsensical as saying that Tetris supports roleplaying.

To my mind, it's pretty obvious that, as a result of its support for intricate tactical combat, D&D is superior to Dread if one of your gameplay experience goals is to engage in intricate tactical combat.


To my mind, you literally cannot play D&D without adopting a fictional persona and then making decisions on behalf of that persona as they navigate the in-game fiction, however minimally you do so. That is, D&D must be a roleplaying game, at least by my reckoning of what a roleplaying game is.

This does not mean, however, that D&D actually supports roleplaying-as-gameplay. What mechanics are there to treat the persona you have adopted as distinct from yourself? What mechanics are there to encourage or oblige you to make decisions consistent with the traits or characteristics ascribed to this persona? I think the practical experience of inspiration and traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws shows that such support is just shy of non-existent, much in the same way that the vestigial encumbrance rules and equipment lists show how D&D's support for robust survival gameplay is also just shy of non-existent.

By contrast, D&D has plentiful mechanics that encourage or oblige players to accept the results of tactical combat. A player character who is reduced to 0 hit points and collects three death saving throw failures? That character is dead unless and until other mechanics can be invoked to restore them to life. A player character in combat is subject to the bounds of action economy. I am sure other examples could be given.

To be sure, I don't think there's anything wrong with preferring D&D's lack of support for roleplaying! But I do think it's an error to try to characterise such a lack as "support", for reasons elucidated above.

IMO taking a word that at this time has no antonymic denotations and using it to mean the precise opposite of its usual meanings is guaranteed to lead to absurd results. If "a lack of support" for a thing is the same as "supporting" a thing, then I guess Tetris "supports" roleplaying.


Expanding on @Aldarc, here's an example:

Dread has no detailed rules for intricate tactical combat, at all. By @EzekielRaiden's argument, that means that Dread does not support intricate tactical combat. D&D, which does have detailed rules for intricate tactical combat, therefore does support intricate tactical combat, to some lesser or greater extent depending on edition. (I mean, even OD&D and B/X are far more detailed than Dread!)

If we take @FrogReaver's argument at face value, Dread does support intricate tactical combat by "getting out of the way" and giving people the "freedom to decide how to handle these elements". To my mind that is as nonsensical as saying that Tetris supports roleplaying.

To my mind, it's pretty obvious that, as a result of its support for intricate tactical combat, D&D is superior to Dread if one of your gameplay experience goals is to engage in intricate tactical combat.


To my mind, you literally cannot play D&D without adopting a fictional persona and then making decisions on behalf of that persona as they navigate the in-game fiction, however minimally you do so. That is, D&D must be a roleplaying game, at least by my reckoning of what a roleplaying game is.

This does not mean, however, that D&D actually supports roleplaying-as-gameplay. What mechanics are there to treat the persona you have adopted as distinct from yourself? What mechanics are there to encourage or oblige you to make decisions consistent with the traits or characteristics ascribed to this persona? I think the practical experience of inspiration and traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws shows that such support is just shy of non-existent, much in the same way that the vestigial encumbrance rules and equipment lists show how D&D's support for robust survival gameplay is also just shy of non-existent.

By contrast, D&D has plentiful mechanics that encourage or oblige players to accept the results of tactical combat. A player character who is reduced to 0 hit points and collects three death saving throw failures? That character is dead unless and until other mechanics can be invoked to restore them to life. A player character in combat is subject to the bounds of action economy. I am sure other examples could be given.

To be sure, I don't think there's anything wrong with preferring D&D's lack of support for roleplaying! But I do think it's an error to try to characterise such a lack as "support", for reasons elucidated above.

Or you just use bad analogies. Which better supports an artist, a blank canvas or a canvas with a picture already on it? I can do analogies all day too. And mine make your position look just as absurd.

Perhaps we should differentiate mechanical support and creative support. Because the nuts and the bolts are that some things I want codified in the rules, ‘do it this way’ and other things I want left open to be ‘do it however you want’. Both options support me in my endeavors as long as they are applied to the right spots for me.

 

[FrogReaver]

Fundamental premise on my part - sometimes the lack of codified mechanics for a particular part of a game can be expedient. Does anyone actually disagree with this premise?

 

[FrogReaver]

The almost instantaneous existence of either falsely-remembered or actively-changed rules for Monopoly, which actively undercut the intent for which it was designed (money on Free Parking ensures the system remains "live" indefinitely, which prevents the collapse of all but one person's budget, hence the game title), pretty conclusively proves this false. Likewise, the evolution of the rules of chess. Did you know that the game we now play was once called "Mad Queens" chess, and was considered scandalous for giving a--gasp!--female piece so much power!

Board games can be changed just as much as RPGs can.


But their tendency does not limit you, the DM, from doing as you like. That is the key point here. You are not beholden to what happens at other tables. That's a point that people on this forum have taken to drilling into my head with speed and vigor.


"Your argument sounds like a bad argument I once read" is not a very good argument.


I have made a very clear statement, with both my specific spelled-out definitions and brief summaries upthread. Support is a presence. A lack of support is an absence. Opposition is another presence--just a negative one. It is perfectly consistent and reasonable to say that, on some given topic, one considers all possible rules, no matter how well-made, to be necessarily a negative. For them, there is no such thing as "support" in that space; there is only absence or impediment. But the fact that the only states they see are "empty" or "negative" does not suddenly make emptiness full. Zero is still zero.

Or, to put this more simply: You seem to be conflating two senses of the word "positive." On the one hand, the quantitative: there are 3 (positive number) objects. On the other, the qualitative: it is beneficial that there be no objects. Support is positive in the quantitative sense. For you, and those who agree with you, a lack of support is positive in the qualitative sense. But just because zero is beneficial does not mean it is suddenly a positive number.

If we're going to define a lack of rules as "support," why? Or perhaps more importantly, how? Because "getting out of the way" isn't actually HELPING you do anything. It permits you to do something. Permission is not at all the same as assistance. Support means assistance. Like, that's literally the definition of the word: "3. to encourage, comfort, help, etc., under trial or affliction; sustain; 4. to maintain (a person, family, establishment, institution, etc.) by supplying with things necessary to existence; provide for; 5. to give financial assistance to (a person, organization, program, etc.); be a contributor to or patron of". If nothing is written, everything is permitted. But being permitted to do something cannot be the same as someone (or something) helping you do that thing.

Let me pose this question - if the game offers a rule on combat I dislike and I modify it, did that pre-modified rule provide any support to me?

Also, I think there’s a very noticeable ‘for what’ left off the end of ‘support’ as in ‘support for what’.

 

[Bedrockgames]

To my mind, you literally cannot play D&D without adopting a fictional persona and then making decisions on behalf of that persona as they navigate the in-game fiction, however minimally you do so. That is, D&D must be a roleplaying game, at least by my reckoning of what a roleplaying game is.

This does not mean, however, that D&D actually supports roleplaying-as-gameplay. What mechanics are there to treat the persona you have adopted as distinct from yourself? What mechanics are there to encourage or oblige you to make decisions consistent with the traits or characteristics ascribed to this persona? I think the practical experience of inspiration and traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws shows that such support is just shy of non-existent, much in the same way that the vestigial encumbrance rules and equipment lists show how D&D's support for robust survival gameplay is also just shy of non-existent.

What you are looking for is mechanics for characterization, not roleplaying IMO. You can play the role of a character but essentially play yourself. For me the most important thing is the feeling of being there, not the feeling of being another person.

By contrast, D&D has plentiful mechanics that encourage or oblige players to accept the results of tactical combat. A player character who is reduced to 0 hit points and collects three death saving throw failures? That character is dead unless and until other mechanics can be invoked to restore them to life. A player character in combat is subject to the bounds of action economy. I am sure other examples could be given.

To be sure, I don't think there's anything wrong with preferring D&D's lack of support for roleplaying! But I do think it's an error to try to characterise such a lack as "support", for reasons elucidated above.

D&D has support for RP. The game is structured to enable it, and it has mechanics for social elements of the game. Peopel have mentioned several times things like CHR, Reaction adjustment and other things that have appeared in the game such as the Etiquette NWP. That NWP is written specifically with leaving open space for RP in mind. And to me it creates a much different effect from some of the later editions where it becomes easier and easier to roll the interaction rather than have it (doesn't preclude having the interaction but it make it a lot easier to forgo it, and the details of the interaction can become less important than the roll).

Here is Etiquette leaving open space for RP, in fact encouraging RP:

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Whilst it initially might seem counter-intuitive that lack of mechanics can be support, in the case of freeform social roleplay this nevertheless absolutely is the case. Support is something that helps to do the thing. In this case the absence of of mechanical interference is what helps to do the thing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The almost instantaneous existence of either falsely-remembered or actively-changed rules for Monopoly, which actively undercut the intent for which it was designed (money on Free Parking ensures the system remains "live" indefinitely, which prevents the collapse of all but one person's budget, hence the game title), pretty conclusively proves this false. Likewise, the evolution of the rules of chess. Did you know that the game we now play was once called "Mad Queens" chess, and was considered scandalous for giving a--gasp!--female piece so much power!

The existence of house rules in board games doesn't disprove that board games have rules and people tend to follow them. It certainly doesn't disprove that if you sat down to play D&D for the first time, one of the first things you notice is this ability to go beyond the rules and inhabit a world. And in Monopoly you were still expected to play monopoly, being limited to the board and goals of play. In D&D and in RPGs you have a freedom you simply didn't in board games and book shelf games with clearly copied rules of play

But their tendency does not limit you, the DM, from doing as you like. That is the key point here. You are not beholden to what happens at other tables. That's a point that people on this forum have taken to drilling into my head with speed and vigor.

Yes it does. There is a culture of play around any edition. 3E is a perfect example of that. I wasn't able to achieve the kind of play I wanted for my Ravenloft campaigns until I switched back to 2E, and it was like turning on a light. That is how much the presence of absence of these mechanics mattered. And I am not knocking social mechanics here. A lot of people want them and like them in RPGs. I am just pointing out if you are very focused on in character RP and interaction with NPCs, those kind of mechanics can get in the way

"Your argument sounds like a bad argument I once read" is not a very good argument.

It is useful because some of the arguments here share a core premise with his. Which is that even though D&D literally created roleplaying, it somehow falls short in the roleplaying department. I think that is because there is a flaw in the reasoning: it assumed you need active mechanical buttressing to encourage role-play, whereas I think D&D works as a roleplaying game becuase it leaves the space for it that I have been talking about. I think if you have a game that literally defined what RPGs are, that invented the hobby, there is something wrong in any reasoning that points to it failing at the thing it introduced to the world

 

[Bedrockgames]

I have made a very clear statement, with both my specific spelled-out definitions and brief summaries upthread. Support is a presence. A lack of support is an absence. Opposition is another presence--just a negative one. It is perfectly consistent and reasonable to say that, on some given topic, one considers all possible rules, no matter how well-made, to be necessarily a negative. For them, there is no such thing as "support" in that space; there is only absence or impediment. But the fact that the only states they see are "empty" or "negative" does not suddenly make emptiness full. Zero is still zero.

Or, to put this more simply: You seem to be conflating two senses of the word "positive." On the one hand, the quantitative: there are 3 (positive number) objects. On the other, the qualitative: it is beneficial that there be no objects. Support is positive in the quantitative sense. For you, and those who agree with you, a lack of support is positive in the qualitative sense. But just because zero is beneficial does not mean it is suddenly a positive number.

If we're going to define a lack of rules as "support," why? Or perhaps more importantly, how? Because "getting out of the way" isn't actually HELPING you do anything. It permits you to do something. Permission is not at all the same as assistance. Support means assistance. Like, that's literally the definition of the word: "3. to encourage, comfort, help, etc., under trial or affliction; sustain; 4. to maintain (a person, family, establishment, institution, etc.) by supplying with things necessary to existence; provide for; 5. to give financial assistance to (a person, organization, program, etc.); be a contributor to or patron of". If nothing is written, everything is permitted. But being permitted to do something cannot be the same as someone (or something) helping you do that thing.

Again, on this stuff we are just at an impasse. We need to probably talk specifics rather than debate what support means in this context endlessly

 

[Aldarc]

Whilst it initially might seem counter-intuitive that lack of mechanics can be support, in the case of freeform social roleplay this nevertheless absolutely is the case. Support is something that helps to do the thing. In this case the absence of of mechanical interference is what helps to do the thing.

Then Dread is truly the greatest RPG of all time for everything that it supports through nothingness.

 

[hgjertsen]

Then Dread is truly the greatest RPG of all time for everything that it supports through nothingness.

I feel like that's a little uncharitable because @Crimson Longinus is likely arguing from the perspective that the best way to role-play through social interactions is in a free form way and I actually agree because you're talking over things when you role-play anyway, not trying to simulate coming to blows.

Of course opinions may vary.

 

[Oofta]

Again, on this stuff we are just at an impasse. We need to probably talk specifics rather than debate what support means in this context endlessly

I don't know how to create a definition that would be broadly accepted, but the comparison between Dread and D&D was made above. Dread supports social structures that D&D does not, D&D supports tactical combat in a way that Dread does not. The claim, therefore was that the lack of tactical combat support in Dread is just like the lack of detailed social support in D&D.

Except I reject that because I know nothing about hand tactical combat with medieval-ish weaponry and spells. It's not something I have experience with. I wouldn't have much of an idea of how to handle that or how to resolve it. It's just not in my area of expertise or knowledge.

On the other hand I know how to talk to people. I know through experience and observation how to successfully persuade, cajole or deceive others. I don't need concrete rules or guidelines to do those things in game, they come naturally as a person who lives in a social world. In fact, rules could easily become restrictions that I would run into on a regular basis.

So I need less support for the latter (and disagree that there is no support). In the same way that I don't need details for how gravity works, I don't need details to know how people interact. Comparing detailed tactical rules and social interaction rules is comparing apples and automobiles. They're just fundamentally different.