D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Oofta]

Who said primary?

One of the goals was advertising. Direct profit was likely the primary.

It was an advertisements for TTPRGs in general I suppose, but if that's the only thing you can come up with, I think it's a bit of a stretch. In any case, doesn't matter. If someone is interested in optional rules for D&D it's a google search away. Far, far easier than it used to be.

 

[Lanefan]

I agree to an extent. Some of those drawbacks for arcane magic weren't all that fun for some people then and also now. However, I'm also of the opinion that while many of those drawbacks were removed, not a lot else was done for the overall power scope of mages to tune them down, and I don't necessarily think - and I understand here that your opinion differs from mine - that the solution rests in returning things to how they once were.

Well, the other option (and the one they've generally taken) is to tone down what their spells are capable of doing, which IMO is the dull boring route.

I would generally prefer Druids to be their own thing apart from Wizards and Clerics. But I would also prefer Clerics (or their equivalent) to use Charisma rather than Wisdom.

Hmmm...OK. In my 1e-adjacent I've already started leaning toward some Clerical things working on Charisma and am seriously thinking of having revival-from-death effectiveness (i.e. the old resurrestion survival roll) be based on Cha - spiritual strength - rather than Con, in order to cut Con's importance a bit and boost Cha.

That said, te obvious question your idea here raises - to me, anyway - is who/what would then use Wisdom as their primary, or does it become the universal dump stat?

This seems at odds with how I am repeatedly reminded of the DIY kitbashing spirit that exists in the hobby where people are constantly houseruling, tinkering, and changing the game, especially when that game is D&D. Now people care about following the rules? But not for everything else where people had no problem changing/ignoring the rules to accomodate their own preferences?

It's generally DMs who kitbash, not players; and we're mostly talking about players following rules here.

 

[Lanefan]

Random spell selection? Constantly losing spells? Having a literal "(s)he sees you when you're sleeping, (s)he knows if you're awake, (s)he knows if you've been bad or good" setup?

Yeah, I would say these things are pretty clearly annoyances implemented because the tools they impede access to are overpowered. That's the whole point of the old school spellcaster design; make it so effective play is only achievable by gritting your teeth and enduring the stuff actively preventing you from playing your class.

If random spell selection amounts to "preventing you from playing your class" then I'm not sure what I can say. As for losing spells, that's no different than a warrior losing (or breaking) her weapons or a Thief missing the tools of his trade: crap happens, deal with it.

And while the "she sees you when you're sleeping" piece might be a bit overblown, the whole point of a Cleric is to act in the interests of its deity. It should go without saying that elements either within the mortal "church heirarchy" or at the immortal/divine level are going to want to ensure this is and remains the case.

I think only once in 40 years of DMing have I ever had a deity give the ol' bolt-from-the-blue to a transgressing Cleric; the Cleric's player saw it coming a mile away but kept on regardless, to much laughter around the table.

 

[Lanefan]

?

D&D has always worked like this. There has never been a point where NPC's are not susceptible to social interaction mechanics. Even in AD&D you had reaction rolls that were adjusted by the PC's Cha scores.

Yes, and because of that PC-NPC disparity I tossed those rules decades ago.

 

[Lanefan]

Then what's the problem? As I've said above, no one is asking for the default to be replaced here.

Feats are supposedly optional in 5e but have pretty much become the default.

My concern is that "optional" social mechanics would quickly follow suit, driven by the vocal cadre of players and DMs whose main goal seems to be to skip or compress anything (other than combat) that might take a bit of time at the table.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, the other option (and the one they've generally taken) is to tone down what their spells are capable of doing, which IMO is the dull boring route.

"The dull boring route" is what I prefer in this case.

That said, te obvious question your idea here raises - to me, anyway - is who/what would then use Wisdom as their primary, or does it become the universal dump stat?

Potentially along the lines of (1) Intelligence: Wizard and Artificer; (2) Wisdom: Druid and Ranger; and (3) Charisma: Priest and Paladin.

 

[Minigiant]

Feats are supposedly optional in 5e but have pretty much become the default.

My concern is that "optional" social mechanics would quickly follow suit, driven by the vocal cadre of players and DMs whose main goal seems to be to skip or compress anything (other than combat) that might take a bit of time at the table.

Feats are being core because the majority want them.

I'd take a bet that 50% of the humans on DNDB are variant.

Social mechanics will not hit that point if optional. That requires reading the rules and following them. And "just rolling CHA once" is popular.

But if Freeform is so much better as it is constantly said, social mechanics would never become default.

 

[Lanefan]

"The dull boring route" is what I prefer in this case.

Fair enough...but still less fun.

Potentially along the lines of (1) Intelligence: Wizard and Artificer; (2) Wisdom: Druid and Ranger; and (3) Charisma: Priest and Paladin.

In that case, couldn't Paladin just be folded into Cleric as a War Cleric variant, or subclass?

Also, for me Rangers are supposed to be hardy resilient outdoors-y types for whom Con would be the logical primary. More warrior than caster, if caster at all.

 

[Older Beholder]

One could make the argument that Monty Haul is not supported, at least not in 5E.
Things like attunement slots and a de-emphasise on the need for magical items work against the play style.

The thing is that doesn’t mean you won’t see people playing a Monty Haul game supported by the rules as well. I think that was the point of the original post, that you can do a lot of different play styles in D&D, which I think is a huge part of its continued success.

 

[Hussar]

Again I think a modular optional approach is the best one here. /snip

One thing this doesn't do is get too deep into social interaction because they were taking pains not to have anything interfere with RP. But you can easily imagine a layered social combat system presented in an optional chapter or a separate "Complete" book. But even so, there are lots of things on this list that can come up as part of social interaction

You do realize that I have repeatedly stated that I want a more layered social system to be an optional module right? That that's all ANYONE has been asking for?