D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Minigiant]

See, I'm having a bit of trouble with this. As @Snarf Zagyg and you both mention, there's a tension in game design between freeform and structured play. But, you're saying that even though you prefer freeform play, the existence of mechanics means that you will abandon your preferred playstyle in favor of structured play, the same way that we abandoned freeform play in favor of having thieves with skills in the game.

After all, if I wanted to freeform AD&D skills, I could certainly just ignore the thief, and then freeform exploration the way it was before the thief was added to the game. Nothing is lost. And I get to pursue my freeform goals. But, according to you, the existence of structured mechanics causes players to reject freeform play.

Doesn't that kind of mean that players prefer structured play? That the only reason they are free forming is because of a lack of mechanics?

My point being, if free form play is your prefered method of play, then why can't you simply continue to free form? One could certainly play 4e without skill challenges after all. There's nothing in the game that requires you to use skill challenges. The game works perfectly fine if you never run a skill challenge but instead free form all skill tasks.

Why does a preference for free form play appear to be so fragile that the mere existence of different options results in abandoning free form play?

The conflict is the default.

The default should be: Partial Freeform.
"We make Charisma a core D&D ability score. You can't convince an NPC of something they wouldn't normally believe or change their attitude without rolling a Charisma check against a DC."

OPTIONS:
Full Freeform
"You do not need to roll Charisma Checks convince an NPC of something they wouldn't normally believe or change their attitude. You need only roleplay to affect the NPC "

Partial Freeform Alt Ability
"The DM can call for any Ability check when you convince an NPC of something they wouldn't normally believe or change their attitude"

Complex Checks
"The DM can call for multiple ability checks to convince an NPC of something they wouldn't normally believe or change their attitude"

Skill Challenge
"The DM can call for multiple ability checks to convince an NPC of something they wouldn't normally believe or change their attitude and sum the success and failures to determine success"

 

[Maxperson]

That seems like a DC issue.
There used to be a Fanatical attitude and you could roll very high checks to push enemies to Fanatic

NPCs, possibly. In 5e there is no chance. Zero. Of making someone do something that they would never do. You only get to roll if the outcome is not in doubt. No roll, no charisma or skill coming into play.

RAI, I agree that NPCs cannot force PCs to think a certian way . That's a table choice.

There's nothing in RAW that indicates that it works against PCs, either.

But I think a DM can call or secretly roll for skill checks and change the NPC's description or purposely lie on failure. The classic Passive Insight "For all you know, he's telling the truth "

"For all you know, he's telling the truth" is fine, because it leaves it open for the player to decide. "You believe him" or "he IS telling the truth" are not fine, because they tell the player what his PC thinks or believes.

 

[Minigiant]

NPCs, possibly. In 5e there is no chance. Zero. Of making someone do something that they would never do. You only get to roll if the outcome is not in doubt. No roll, no charisma or skill coming into play.

In 5e, there's no rule for it.
In 3e, it was a DC 50 check to make someone Fanatic and therefore do something their normal self wouldn;t.

And that's where the weirdness of Freeform and Mechanical comes in.

RAW, you can't make an NPC take extreme risks. You can make roll to make significant risks or sacrifices.
What about definite self harm? You can't roll to make a guard do something that will very likely or definitely cause loss of employment.

So can you Freeform Roleplay that?

There's nothing in RAW that indicates that it works against PCs, either.

I agree.

 

[Maxperson]

In 5e, there's no rule for it.

This is wrong.

The rule is in the PHB and it says very clearly that you only roll when the outcome is in doubt. No doubt, no roll. Period. It doesn't matter what the stats and skills are.

In 3e, it was a DC 50 check to make someone Fanatic and therefore do something their normal self wouldn;t.

Which is fine. You can house rule something like that in, but in 5e the DM decides what is possible and what isn't. Not possible = no roll. If someone would never do something, there is no roll since they would never do it.

RAW, you can't make an NPC take extreme risks. You can make roll to make significant risks or sacrifices.
What about definite self harm? You can't roll to make a guard do something that will very likely or definitely cause loss of employment.

It's not so clear cut as that. If you found a disgruntled guard who really hates the mayor, getting him to do something that would likely cause him to lose his job is possible. Circumstances matter a lot.

So can you Freeform Roleplay that?

You can freeform roleplay anything the DM says you can. There's even advice in the DMG for not rolling or rarely rolling the dice. 5e isn't a freeform roleplay system, though. There are rules for combat, social and exploration activities, so it's only freeform if the DM changes the default method of play, such as through the DMG optional rule or some other way.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, and it's also fairly easy to prove that it's not necessary to hard wire mechanics into the base classes. After all, there are a shopping list of 3rd party books that add a massive number of mechanics to the game without altering base classes. Or, if they do alter the base classes, the mechanics for those alterations are bundled into the optional mechanics themselves.

It's kinda like saying we cannot have psionics in the game because we'd have to change all the base classes to add psionics. But, it's been shown repeatedly that psionics can be added to D&D as a completely modular system that in no way impacts the base game and users can use it or leave it as they want.

Psionics are actually a poor use case as they are abilities that explicitly are only given to new classes/subclasses.

Try that with anything that ‘should’ impact the core classes and subclasses and things are going to be much more complicated.

Which is what’s been said, modular works for some specific use cases. I’m all for it when it does. But that it works for some use cases doesn’t show that it works or works well for all or even most.

So, yeah, I'm going to double down on this. If the presence of mechanical systems results in players abandoning free form play, then it makes some degree of sense that the only reason they were free forming in the first place is because they were not given any choice.

I think this proves something, but not that d&d players don’t prefer more Freeform even if given the choice. It proves that we don’t actually know what they prefer - because the real preference may just be playing by most of the rules - unless the edition rules change is too drastic - in which case they stay with the prior edition.

 

[FrogReaver]

See, I'm having a bit of trouble with this. As @Snarf Zagyg and you both mention, there's a tension in game design between freeform and structured play. But, you're saying that even though you prefer freeform play, the existence of mechanics means that you will abandon your preferred playstyle in favor of structured play, the same way that we abandoned freeform play in favor of having thieves with skills in the game.

This argument only really works if D&D was a single player game where tailoring it to your specific needs was all that mattered. It’s a social activity and in social interactions expectations matter! It’s why our usual diagnosis of table problems aren’t that the DM is wrong or the player is wrong, but that they have different expectations and unless those can be bridged then the game experience is going to really suffer.

Until the social aspects are considered I don’t think any of this analysis has a leg to stand on.

After all, if I wanted to freeform AD&D skills, I could certainly just ignore the thief, and then freeform exploration the way it was before the thief was added to the game. Nothing is lost. And I get to pursue my freeform goals. But, according to you, the existence of structured mechanics causes players to reject freeform play.

Due to social expectations.

Doesn't that kind of mean that players prefer structured play? That the only reason they are free forming is because of a lack of mechanics?

Not necessarily.

My point being, if free form play is your prefered method of play, then why can't you simply continue to free form? One could certainly play 4e without skill challenges after all. There's nothing in the game that requires you to use skill challenges. The game works perfectly fine if you never run a skill challenge but instead free form all skill tasks.

Technically correct, but it elides the practical considerations.

Why does a preference for free form play appear to be so fragile that the mere existence of different options results in abandoning free form play?

Why is a preference for having mechanics so fragile that you can’t invent your own if you really want them?

And actually, pretty much every argument made of this form can be applied just as readily to your preferences. Which is a bit problematic for any argument. IMO.

 

[Hussar]

If someone would never do something, there is no roll since they would never do it.

I would slightly amend that statement. If the DM feels that someone would never do something, then there is no roll since the DM has decided that they would never do it.

One must always keep in mind that you can't really claim that someone would never do something since someone doesn't actually exist anywhere outside of the DM's mind. So, it's really entirely on the DM to decide if something is impossible or not.

 

[Hussar]

Psionics are actually a poor use case as they are abilities that explicitly are only given to new classes/subclasses.

This is untrue. 5e allows psionic spells for casters after all. Mindsliver is available to numerous classes as is Synaptic Static.

This argument only really works if D&D was a single player game where tailoring it to your specific needs was all that mattered. It’s a social activity and in social interactions expectations matter! It’s why our usual diagnosis of table problems aren’t that the DM is wrong or the player is wrong, but that they have different expectations and unless those can be bridged then the game experience is going to really suffer.

Not really. If the group automatically defaults to mechanical systems if those mechanical systems exist, then it's hardly a group that is intent on freeform play. IOW, the only reason that the players are free forming is because the DM is forcing them to. And the DM can force them to because no other options exist. Once other options exist, the DM suddenly finds that the players aren't interested in playing freeform and want to use those other options.

Because let's be honest, it's NEVER the players who get to decide is it? It's the DM who makes that decision because... wait for it... DM Empowerment. If you have the power, you have to take the responsibility as well.

And, again, it's not about someone being "wrong" or "right". That's not how this should be framed. But, if the existence of alternatives causes groups to abandon free form gaming, to the point where free form gaming is not even seen as an option anymore, then free form gaming is hardly the first choice of players, now is it? It's not like players are clamoring to strip out the skill system so we can free form exploration, are they? Forty years of the Thief class and it's never even been suggested that adding thieves to the game is a bad thing. At least, not something that's been seriously entertained anyway.

If everyone in your group is firmly set in free form gaming, then it shouldn't matter in the slightest if additional mechanics exist. After all, the existence of free forming has zero impact on my table. Why should adding in a structured skill system suddenly make your group stop free forming?

See, this is where the whole "absence of mechanics is support" argument falls on its face. Because if adding mechanics causes a playstyle to be abandoned, then the only reason that that playstyle is being used is because of the lack of choice. If having a choice means that one option is no longer taken, then that option was never really the one people wanted.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The reasoning is that the players control the PCs and the DM controls everything else. The DM should never usurp that control without great reason. For example, dominate person and a failed save. High charisma won't cut it.

I was asking if they provided a reason for the ruling, which they apparently did not. Your reason is, of course, valid as the subjective personal preference it is.

 

[Lanefan]

It's essentially non-magical mind control or the DM playing the PC and deciding what it thinks and does. Those skills are not intended to work on PCs so the DM isn't playing them instead of the player. The player gets to decide if he believes or doesn't believe what the NPC is saying or whether he does or does not do what the NPC is asking.

Which is fine, but for consistency* the PC shouldn't be able to do those things to the NPC either. And thus, as now nobody can use those rules, might as well chuck 'em out.

* - unless the specific intent is that PCs become special snowflakes simply due to the fact they have players attached; which, while it might work for some, is a complete non-starter for me.