D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Retros_x]

Which skills do you see missing from 5e? I know I’m missing a gather information type skill, or some kind of courtesy/intrigue/etiquette or other « function well in society » that isn’t Persuasion or Deception.

"Gather information" is investigation in most cases in my game. Courtesy/etiquette i do no check at all. Either a character knows how to behave at court or not, there is no big uncertainty about it that provides the need for a roll. I just derive it from the characters background.

I personally would prefer even less skills than 5e or even none at all and just ability checks with bonus depending on character background/profession etc. In my experience more skills reduce roleplay and increase "scanning the character sheet for the right button to press". Systems to support politics, factions etc. should not be player-sided, but DM-sided. DnD actually already provides a lot of DM-sided sub-systems for social encounters, factions etc.

Because of the real potent and versatile ability system of DnD I agree it supports a lot of playstyles, but of course it shines in combat and dungeon crawling. I don't think I would DM or play in a DnD campaign completely without combat or dangerous environments in dungeons, because a lot of the system would feel wasted.

 

[Lanefan]

Lots to add here.

First off, there's active system support and passive system support. Not all support need be active in order to be present and effective.

Does D&D support slapstick play? Yes, passively, by simply getting out of the way and doing nothing to ban or discourage it. Same for some definitions of character-driven play.

Does D&D support tactical play? Yes, actively, by presenting rules and options to both further it and resolve it.

Second off, the OP lists 8 or so play styles and yet still misses several important ones, which may overlap with both each other and those on the original list:

Sandbox/freeform.

The DM designs or provides a setting in which the players' characters are turned loose to do whatever they want. This style greatly relies on the players to drive the bus, but they can drive it pretty much any way and any where they like.

Adventure path/railroad.

The DM provides a story, path, or series of events/adventures and the players are (sometimes self-) restrained into staying within that. This style greatly relies on the DM both driving the bus and knowing the route she intends it to take.

Big damn heroes.

Players in this style want their characters to do noble, heroic things: save the kitten, save the prince, save the city, save the country, save the world. Rewards based on in-game honour and reputation can be more appealing than gold and experience.

Mercenary.

These players want to kick in doors and then take lives and loot - usually in that order - but if they can get the loot without all that other risk that's even better. The character that dies with the most wealth wins. Any heroism is an unintentional by-product of these actions. Sometimes derisively called "murderhobo" play.

Exploration (geographical).

Where finding out what (or who) is over the next hill or around the next corner is the main reason for (and thus, focus of) play. Players in this style always have their characters on the move, rarely staying in one place for long. Resource management and tracking is often key here. DMs for these players need to be both creative and good at setting construction. Sometimes derisively called "setting tourism".

Of these, D&D actively supports the second and third, passively supports the first and fourth, and gently fights against the fifth unless the DM does some tweaking.

 

[Maxperson]

Which skills do you see missing from 5e? I know I’m missing a gather information type skill, or some kind of courtesy/intrigue/etiquette or other « function well in society » that isn’t Persuasion or Deception.

Investigation = gather information for me. That's what you do when you investigate something. You gather information from various sources, including living ones if necessary. Unlike jump, swim and climb which are all very different skills being lumped together, gather information and investigation really seem like virtually the same skill to me.

 

[Maxperson]

Lots to add here.

First off, there's active system support and passive system support. Not all support need be active in order to be present and effective.

Does D&D support slapstick play? Yes, passively, by simply getting out of the way and doing nothing to ban or discourage it. Same for some definitions of character-driven play.

Does D&D support tactical play? Yes, actively, by presenting rules and options to both further it and resolve it.

Second off, the OP lists 8 or so play styles and yet still misses several important ones, which may overlap with both each other and those on the original list:

Sandbox/freeform.

The DM designs or provides a setting in which the players' characters are turned loose to do whatever they want. This style greatly relies on the players to drive the bus, but they can drive it pretty much any way and any where they like.

Adventure path/railroad.

The DM provides a story, path, or series of events/adventures and the players are (sometimes self-) restrained into staying within that. This style greatly relies on the DM both driving the bus and knowing the route she intends it to take.

Big damn heroes.

Players in this style want their characters to do noble, heroic things: save the kitten, save the prince, save the city, save the country, save the world. Rewards based on in-game honour and reputation can be more appealing than gold and experience.

Mercenary.

These players want to kick in doors and then take lives and loot - usually in that order - but if they can get the loot without all that other risk that's even better. The character that dies with the most wealth wins. Any heroism is an unintentional by-product of these actions. Sometimes derisively called "murderhobo" play.

Exploration (geographical).

Where finding out what (or who) is over the next hill or around the next corner is the main reason for (and thus, focus of) play. Players in this style always have their characters on the move, rarely staying in one place for long. Resource management and tracking is often key here. DMs for these players need to be both creative and good at setting construction. Sometimes derisively called "setting tourism".

Of these, D&D actively supports the second and third, passively supports the first and fourth, and gently fights against the fifth unless the DM does some tweaking.

Sandbox and linear I think warrant playstyle status, but big damn heroes, mercenary and exploration are all just adventure types you can have within the various playstyles.

 

[MichaelSomething]

So not activity opposing is the same as supporting??

 

[The Soloist]

My style: Character free will within a long campaign arc, accepted by the players, and developed by the DM, taking into account the actions of the characters as the events progress. Shadow of the Demon Lord is a good example of that.

 

[Hussar]

Your point? First, there is support, just not the level or detail of support you want. Second, so what? I like the things that D&D provides, I don't want most of the things that you complain about below to have a predefined resolution system. D&D is a game of make believe, and I love that freeform aspect to it.

You cannot claim that a system supports a particular style of play if you are simply free forming play. Because I could claim that Chess is just as good as D&D for supporting these styles of play because, after all, I can simply free form in Chess just as easily as I can in D&D.

For a system to actually support a given playstyle or concept, that system needs to address that playstyle or concept.

 

[Hussar]

"Character-driven" is not about skills. It is about personality, relationships, and player-defined goals. Now, I agree that D&D doesn't give you a whole lot of mechanics around personality, relationships, and goals either.

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.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

You cannot claim that a system supports a particular style of play if you are simply free forming play. Because I could claim that Chess is just as good as D&D for supporting these styles of play because, after all, I can simply free form in Chess just as easily as I can in D&D.

For a system to actually support a given playstyle or concept, that system needs to address that playstyle or concept.

except D&D does have a resolution system that can be adapted to almost all styles of play: the ability check. Chess has no equivalent.

Heck, D&D could get rid of the complex combat rules and just use ability checks. we ran some adventures like that in 4e and it works.

 

[Oofta]

You cannot claim that a system supports a particular style of play if you are simply free forming play. Because I could claim that Chess is just as good as D&D for supporting these styles of play because, after all, I can simply free form in Chess just as easily as I can in D&D.

For a system to actually support a given playstyle or concept, that system needs to address that playstyle or concept.

There is support and examples of how to use what's basically a skill challenge. That, and I don't need, nor do I want a lot of rules for certain aspects of the game. If I wanted to play something that gamified politics I'd play something else.

Sometimes what they don't cover is just as important as what is covered.