D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes. It teaches that is the way to do win, just as The Prisoner's Dilemma is set up to make a certain behaviour optimal.

So: D&D teaches us to be violent?

 

[Guest 85555]

Yes. It teaches that is the way to do win, just as The Prisoner's Dilemma is set up to make a certain behaviour optimal.

There is no such thing as an apolitical political simulation game, because unlike the real world the game designers set the parameters.

If, in your game, "each innocent life saved earns you ten years off purgatory", then you are promoting a different winning strategy to "buy up all the property you can".

I think we are taking the game way too seriously here. It isn't necessarily advocating anything. You set those parameters for fun, often also for humorous effect, and there is also quite often a dose of irony in games. That doesn't mean the parameters of the game are something the designers are advocating for in politics or society. I can make a fun game about being the most powerful barbarian tribe who destroys the other barbarian tribes to conquer territory and be a complete peacenik in real life.

 

[Minigiant]

SHOCKING NEWS ... AFTER A DECADE MINOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE D&D BOOKS WILL BE MADE ... NEWS AT 11 ... REPEAT ... SHOCKING NEWS ...

The issue is that it took a decade but they knew but did nothing out of 2 sources of greed,

 

[Lanefan]

That would be a good example of a system that actually supports that style of play. A game that lacks a social combat system does not really support social interaction all that well, no? If social interaction is simply freeform, then that system isn't supporting anything. Which isn't to say you cannot do these things freeform. That's obviously true.

And if the system doesn't oppose these things then it by default supports them, as in this case doing nothing is (tacit, passive) support under the mantra of "you can do it until a rule says you can't".

This is in stark contrast to, say, 3e which ran more under the "you can't do it unless a rule says you can" banner.

I'm arguing about the point that the SYSTEM is supporting play. Freeform is not a system.

The absence of system is not in itself a system? Can't agree on that one.

 

[Lanefan]

I think we are taking the game way too seriously here.

Some days I think this pretty much sums up the entire forum.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And if the system doesn't oppose these things then it by default supports them, as in this case doing nothing is (tacit, passive) support under the mantra of "you can do it until a rule says you can't".

Again: no, it does not. Simply not getting in the way cannot possibly be "support," whether passive or active. It's simply permitting.

This is in stark contrast to, say, 3e which ran more under the "you can't do it unless a rule says you can" banner.

Sure! That's what we call opposing.

Opposing, permitting, passive support, and active support are all different things.

Opposing means the rules actually interfere with or impede, as 3e's (and 5e's) spells interfere with the "survival" campaign concept. Permitting is the default state of being, neither getting in the way nor aiding in any way; the absence of content. Passive support is actual content which is helpful for, but not constitutive of, the task in question: as noted, having prices for goods and services is passive support for a game focused on economics and crafting, but by itself isn't enough to actually do that; it provides the (metaphorical) raw materials for someone to then go through and create the active design. Active support is that design, rules, guidelines, tools, etc. which directly achieve the intended goal, e.g. the many random tables (particularly monster and treasure tables) which help in the creation of random dungeons as one is exploring the world, which are direct and active support for such exploration.

The absence of system is not in itself a system? Can't agree on that one.

Correct: it is not in itself a system. Unlike choice, where you are embarked (the absence of a choice certainly is still a choice), the absence of a system is not a system. It's simply existing. There are plenty of things that work like that. The absence of nutrients is not itself a nutrient. The absence of a pattern is not itself a pattern (a truth the entire field of statistics depends upon). The absence of a meal is not itself a meal.

It's the "embarked" bit that matters for this distinction. Things where participation (representation, etc.) is truly obligate require that the absence of an X is still an X, e.g. when you are already participating in a conversation, the absence of spoken expression is still expression--whatever you do, it will be understood within the light of that conversation. Conversely, if it isn't actually obligate, then the absence is simply that, an absence. "I didn't eat dinner" does not mean you somehow ate a meal comprised of void; it means you didn't eat any meal. Or, for a more scientific example, the absence of light is not, itself, a color (though "black," being a pigment rather than a frequency of light, is a color in that sense.)

 

[Guest 85555]

That would be a good example of a system that actually supports that style of play. A game that lacks a social combat system does not really support social interaction all that well, no? If social interaction is simply freeform, then that system isn't supporting anything. Which isn't to say you cannot do these things freeform. That's obviously true.

Part of design is knowing when to hold back, and not add mechanics. I am not saying this is the only way. Clearly there are plenty of games that have rules for things like social interaction. But there is a design choice in some games to hold back because the designers feel the best thing they can do to support social interaction is not interfere with it.

That said most forms of D&D have some kind of rule for this. Whether it is CHR and reaction adjustments, NWPs like Etiquette, or the more robust skill system in 3E on. I am not as familiar with 5E's approach so perhaps that edition isn't as deep here. But it still seems to have mechanics in place. I think in all these cases it is a question of what the designers felt was the appropriate amount. In the case of Etiquette in 2E that was specifically designed to not interfere with or replace RP. That is a design choice. It isn't failure to support something. Doesn't mean it is the one and only approach, or the best, or the one you ought to do.

 

[bloodtide]

I think the twist here is many people are crossing over the D&D game with role playing.

First off, D&D is not and has never been a game where you role play out a life of an imaginary character. Yes, the game says that in commercials and buzz lines. They print 'role playing game' right on everything. The term role playing game is D&D. Though it is a bit like taking any random liquid and saying that liquid is "milk".

D&D is a roll playing game. I know many hate those words....so maybe we will say "mechanical combat adventure game". That is just about all that D&D even has rules for. Like sure the D&D books have like five pages that say "oh give your character a personality"......and then they have 500 pages of mechanical combat adventure rules.

There are tools in D&D to support virtually any playstyle you can imagine. That's why I say, and I'm saying it for the second time in this thread, D&D's strength is in doing virtually any playstyle decently to well. It just doesn't do any of them great. If you want great, you need to go to a different game whose focus is on that one playstyle or few playstyles that you like best.

Very much agreed. I have run D&D in lots of different play styles. But there is the twist here....

Technically you do "any style" by not "playing D&D": you just Role Play. When a PC in a D&D game wants to be elected mayor of a town....there are no D&D rules for this. You take the books, rules and dice and just brush them off the table and Role Play the mayor's race.

A RPG about becoming mayor would have each play taking 'campaign turns' and spending 'political points' to try and get the most 'vote points'. And the player with the most vote points gets to become mayor. Or in other words: have deeply detailed mechanical rules.

D&D does do a sad toe dip from time to time into "other" stuff. Like a dumb rule of "oh just roll Charisma and the highest gets to be mayor". But that is nothing but fake gaming. Would you play D&D if combat was "oh just roll two d20, higher one wins the whole combat"?

I can continue on and on and on and on, but I think you probably get the point. Problem solving is far more than mental problems. There are physical problems to overcome as well and just about every ability in the game will be useful at various points. This sort of thing applies to most playstyles. There are a great many more tools available than you guys are giving credit for.

Guess I have to agree twice. I have long, long, long pushed the limits of D&Ds skills and abilities. I run a very detailed, very immersive game. A player makes a swashbuckling sailor, but with no rules support, they just play as themselves "whatever". I try hard to get such a player to use say preform for actions: they just don't get it. Though I also still use some ancient swashbuckling rules from Dragon to help out too.

The big part here though is to take a step back from the game. The average player knows nothing about swashbuckling or sailing. Or even life before the 20th century. So, I make a big point to teach players. At least the ones willing to learn. I give them books to read and tv shows and movies to watch. And real history stuff too.

This gives players a lot more tools too.

We're speaking to a difference in content here (different sorts of fictional content). Not a difference in style. There is literally nothing here that speaks to how a GM prepares and runs their game, what the priorities of the other players are, how we determine what actually happens. It does not speak to the actual disciplines involved.

This really is taking a big step back. This is where the "real" style comes in.

My game is a fast paced unfair hard fun epic adventure. It's really the only type of game I mostly run. And I look for (or create) players just for this type of game. It's a very unique style: most other games are nothing like it.

They ruined the Beholder 5E to make it super week, but the classic beholder (1-3E) encounter is a perfect example:

Other games: The beholder uses telekinisis to throw a rock at a PC for 1d6 damage. And the beholder "randomly" targets The Tank with cause wounds for like 11 damage. Or the beholder tries sleep on a immune or high save character.

My game: The most powerful looking spellcaster is distengerated: zap dead character. The 2nd most one is turned to stone. And the beholder has a magically poisoned thorn to shoot with telekinises.

1. Problem Solving - D&D actively works against this. The magic system allows the players to bypass so many problems without actually taking any time to directly try to solve a problem. Why bother working out the combination lock on that lost tomb when you can simply use any of fifteen different magic effects to bypass it?

This is not a problem with the game. This is a problem with the DM. It is beyond easy to block nearly everything. And it's all right there in the rules. You just need a DM with the ability and will power to do so.

And beyond the written rules...you have imagination. No "rules" cover everything....that is why a DM can imagine up things. D&D 5E core rules don't have 'time' spells. But say a player gets some. They try and do a Time Heist....and fail. Because the DM has thought of that and added in time defenses. So the DMs Protection from Time, smacks down the players idea. You just need a DM with the ability and will power to do so.

NOTE: This is NOT to say no player can ever do anything ever in a game. It's saying the game NEVER "has to be" the DM just sitting there and watching the players Easy Button play and bypass everything in the game world

2. Character Driven - very little in D&D actually supports this. The skill system is so basic that it's largely pointless. The system does not reward any character growth at all. Falling in love and getting married, for example, is entirely free-form. Nothing in the system actually supports or rewards this.

True, D&D does not support this. But if it did it would need 500 pages and be another game.

Of course, you can just Role Play. With no rules or system.....

3. Political - again, nothing in D&D supports this. Your character wants to win over the population of the town to get elected. What in D&D actually allows you to do this? This is all freeform or ad hoc DM fiat to resolve.

True, D&D does not support this. But if it did it would need 500 pages and be another game.

Of course, you can just Role Play. With no rules or system.....

4. Historical Simulation? Seriously? In a game where 30 of the 36 base classes in the PHB all have spells? You'd have to slice out about 4/5ths of the rules just to start doing something like this. My next question would be, why on earth would you even begin to use D&D for this? I couldn't even imagine where you'd start trying to do something like this.

Ok....agreed here.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

First off, D&D is not and has never been a game where you role play out a life of an imaginary character.

I beg to differ. Certainly, we do not examine every possible moment of that person's lifetime (how often do characters go to the bathroom proverbially "on camera"?), but that's just literary devices talking. I have in many cases used both the crunch and the fluff of D&D to role play out the life of an imaginary character. That's part of why I care so much about things like character race, class, background, personal history, personality, etc. Even when those things have zero impact on the crunchy rules bits, they are essential to my experience when playing D&D.

 

[Guest 85555]

I think the twist here is many people are crossing over the D&D game with role playing.

First off, D&D is not and has never been a game where you role play out a life of an imaginary character. Yes, the game says that in commercials and buzz lines. They print 'role playing game' right on everything. The term role playing game is D&D. Though it is a bit like taking any random liquid and saying that liquid is "milk".

D&D is a roll playing game. I know many hate those words....so maybe we will say "mechanical combat adventure game". That is just about all that D&D even has rules for. Like sure the D&D books have like five pages that say "oh give your character a personality"......and then they have 500 pages of mechanical combat adventure rules.

I am sorry but this just doesn't match how I have seen the game played over decades, nor how most of the rulebooks and supplements approached things. For sure there is and can be an element of 'roll'. It is a game after all. But you can definitely play a character. The point of contention is whether you need mechanics as robust as there are for the combat system for social occasions in the game. Some say yes, some say no. Some version of D&D have more rules for this, some less. But you can very easily role-play a character without mechanics.

I think for a lot of people like myself, who enjoy the the playing a character part. The last thing we want is a dense section of rules comparable to combat, when we are perfectly fine managing that without it, or with a much smaller set of mechanics.

Again I get that there is an alternative viewpoint, and I think that viewpoint is to be respected. Clearly there are people who want and need more mechanics for social interaction. I just think it isn't true that if the game has robust rules for combat but few to none for social interaction, that it means the game is only about combat adventure.