D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[el-remmen]

No. But it certainly helps!

 

[Minigiant]

It is objectively true that social mechanics are not needed. They just aren’t necessary. The proof is in the pudding so to speak. There are certain pros and cons to including them though. Which is what most of the discussion has revolved around.

My point is that some people, including some posters, have said that social mechanics are bad, shouldnt be used, nor included even as optional just so players wouldn't even ask to use them

 

[Lanefan]

I was referring to the clergy stuff and the deific surveillance state, vs 4e's Investiture concept. You were, after all, the one who said (as I quoted) that Investiture was "the game...trying to bake in a lot of setting information in order to make these elements work as intended." But a divine surveillance state with an extensive bureaucratic apparatus geared solely to Big Brother-ing every priest with spells (and more casually monitoring all other members of the faith, clergy or layman) is somehow not that.

OK, so what drawback to divine casting would you put in to replace that Big Brother (or Sister) oversight?

 

[Lanefan]

For the record. I’m not opposed 1 bit to optional DMG rules for robust social mechanics.

The key thing here being optional DMG rules. If that's where they are, and stay, then fine.

But put 'em in the PH and it's game over.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

OK, so what drawback to divine casting would you put in to replace that Big Brother (or Sister) oversight?

Well, as noted, the 4e way was the (IMO pretty awesome) "we have a squad of Ezio Auditore assassins to deal with disloyalty." Which means you can have things like heretical branch cults, corruption in the ranks, reckonings with authority figures, etc.

But if that falls short in your eyes, then my answer would be "design it so you don't need one." There's no special drawback for Wizard magic--hasn't been one since 2e at least, AFAIK. No special drawback for whatever druids do. Why do clerics and paladins need a special limiter?

 

[FrogReaver]

My point is that some people, including some posters, have said that social mechanics are bad,

For their preferred style they are objectively bad.

shouldnt be used,

For their preferred style they objectively shouldn’t be used.

nor included even as optional just so players wouldn't even ask to use them

I’ll happily eat crow if you actually have a quote of this from this thread. Till then I think you are reading into posts something that isn’t actually there.

Note: I base this on the fact that multiple posters have came out and said optional rules about social mechanics are fine by them. You didn’t name names so I can’t say if one of them is specifically who you had in mind, But the evidence is trending toward optional rules like that are perfectly acceptable. There are still practical concerns though around highly modular pieces to create your own experience. Some modularity is good, but it presents tradeoffs. It’s not the silver bullet it’s sometimes made out to be.

 

[Maxperson]

Note I did mention other versions of DnD repeatedly and how they actively supported things like survival. But I was then told in no uncertain terms that all versions of DnD support all things equally.

Who said that? Different editions most certainly supported the styles unequally. For example, the existence of skills in 2e supported various styles better 1e that had at best a single background profession.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, as noted, the 4e way was the (IMO pretty awesome) "we have a squad of Ezio Auditore assassins to deal with disloyalty." Which means you can have things like heretical branch cults, corruption in the ranks, reckonings with authority figures, etc.

But if that falls short in your eyes, then my answer would be "design it so you don't need one." There's no special drawback for Wizard magic--hasn't been one since 2e at least, AFAIK. No special drawback for whatever druids do. Why do clerics and paladins need a special limiter?

That arcane magic has lost its drawbacks over the editions is IMO a huge failure of design leading directly to this century's constant howls that wizards are too powerful. I long ago made Druids into Nature Clerics (they were a subclass of Cleric anyway, in 1e) and with that came the Cleric drawbacks along with the benefit of being able to be any alignment.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, as noted, the 4e way was the (IMO pretty awesome) "we have a squad of Ezio Auditore assassins to deal with disloyalty." Which means you can have things like heretical branch cults, corruption in the ranks, reckonings with authority figures, etc.

But if that falls short in your eyes, then my answer would be "design it so you don't need one." There's no special drawback for Wizard magic--hasn't been one since 2e at least, AFAIK. No special drawback for whatever druids do. Why do clerics and paladins need a special limiter?

There should be limits for wizards too.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There should be limits for wizards too.

Kinda becomes rather circular, then, doesn't it? Because the claim was that divine magic was somehow out of line for having something removed. Now it's that everything needs to have extra things added on to make it the same.

Sounds to me like--as I said above, echoing back Lanefan's words--there's a thing here where you're wanting something really specific just to make something work out one specific way, and doing an awful lot of work to make it happen.

It's not interesting nor engaging to have to jump through a ton of hoops just to get to play. What is valuable is when learning, developing intuitions and skills, is rewarded with success, and when mistakes come with costs, but still offer the opportunity to learn and try again. Believe me, I'm very much of the opinion that the massive push toward ultra-simplicity in game design (not just in TTRPGs, but in video games as well) is revealing its dark side--mistaking the easy path (shallow, frictionless experiences) with the good path (accessible but deep experiences.) But bringing back tedium and annoyance is not the way to make things deeper. It just creates even more incentive to minmax away the tedium.

Real, serious game design, which offers diverse and meaningful challenges and actually makes it fun to tackle those challenges as they are rather than trying to subvert and suborn the system that presents them, is hard. Fully achievable! But hard. Tedium and triviality are the easy paths. We can, and should, expect better from game designers.