D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Maxperson]

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"?

It's not just pure roleplay or else just roll charisma and highest gets to be mayor. There are whole swathes of middle ground where you roleplay a bunch, but you also engage performance checks here and there, persuasion checks now and then, and deception checks when appropriate. Or whatever else comes from the roleplay and efforts to become mayor.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

But why doesn't that swing the other way? Why is it wonderful and amazing to have a "dense section of rules" for combat, "when we are perfectly fine managing that without it, or with a much smaller set of mechanics"?

Because what this seems to be saying is that combat is somehow radically different from other forms of challenge someone might face, and that's an assertion very much lacking in the proof department. Particularly if we're going to be disparaging one as "dense"--cumbersome, unwieldy, overly-elaborate--while the other is seemingly only positive!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But why doesn't that swing the other way? Why is it wonderful and amazing to have a "dense section of rules" for combat, "when we are perfectly fine managing that without it, or with a much smaller set of mechanics"?

Because what this seems to be saying is that combat is somehow radically different from other forms of challenge someone might face, and that's an assertion very much lacking in the proof department. Particularly if we're going to be disparaging one as "dense"--cumbersome, unwieldy, overly-elaborate--while the other is seemingly only positive!

We don't need detailed rules for combat. Many games don't have that. Now we probably need some rules for combat, as that is not something we can do in reality, so we need to abstract it somehow. We however are perfectly capable of having in character conversations in reality, so no abstraction for that is necessary.

Now D&D is an action adventure game that evolved from a tabletop tactics game, and as such has detailed rules for combat. It a big part of its heritage and thus unlikely to change.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But why doesn't that swing the other way? Why is it wonderful and amazing to have a "dense section of rules" for combat, "when we are perfectly fine managing that without it, or with a much smaller set of mechanics"?

Because what this seems to be saying is that combat is somehow radically different from other forms of challenge someone might face, and that's an assertion very much lacking in the proof department. Particularly if we're going to be disparaging one as "dense"--cumbersome, unwieldy, overly-elaborate--while the other is seemingly only positive!

Personally I prefer lean rules on combat too. But I think the answer is pretty obvious. It is the problem of 'bang bang, your dead' when we were playing cops and robbers on the playground. It just succumbs to conflict and dispute so you need a system to help arbitrate it. Combat is different than other area of the game. It is really hard to have a functioning campaign if there isn't a resolution system for combat. You can do it, but I am guessing very few people would find it satisfying. On the other hand, you can easily run a campaign with zero rules for social interaction. Doesn't mean that is the best way. Doesn't mean you are wrong to want another way. But it is pretty clear you can run it that way and you won't have the same level of dissatisfaction you would with zero rules for combat.

Also my post wasn't intended to disparage dense rules. You are reading into what I was saying. That was merely about my preference. But throughout my posts I have been clear that I think people wanting a more robust system for social interaction is a perfectly valid preference. And I have been clear lots of people want and need that. My only real point is that there are also lots of us, for which that can present an impediment. This isn't a case of this way is better than that. It is that there are two fundamentally different sets of taste and ways of thinking about social interaction in an RPG,.

 

[Oofta]

But why doesn't that swing the other way? Why is it wonderful and amazing to have a "dense section of rules" for combat, "when we are perfectly fine managing that without it, or with a much smaller set of mechanics"?

Because what this seems to be saying is that combat is somehow radically different from other forms of challenge someone might face, and that's an assertion very much lacking in the proof department. Particularly if we're going to be disparaging one as "dense"--cumbersome, unwieldy, overly-elaborate--while the other is seemingly only positive!

Because combat is radically different from social encounters? I've never tried to stab anyone, but I have social encounters all the time. I can understand how people think, feel and my react. You may not like the lack of concrete rules for things outside of combat but saying they're the same is pretty nonsensical.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Personally I prefer lean rules on combat too. But I think the answer is pretty obvious. It is the problem of 'bang bang, your dead' when we were playing cops and robbers on the playground. It just succumbs to conflict and dispute so you need a system to help arbitrate it.

I don't see how non-combat stuff does not do exactly the same thing. Isn't that right at the heart of the "I'm so sick of my players just saying 'I persuade the King'" type stuff? Because that sounds to my ear 1:1 identical with "bang bang you're dead" and "I put up my infinity shield."

Because combat is radically different from social encounters? I've never tried to stab anyone, but I have social encounters all the time. I can understand how people think, feel and my react. You may not like the lack of concrete rules for things outside of combat but saying they're the same is pretty nonsensical.

I didn't say they were the same. I said they weren't radically different. You have "social encounters" with people, yes. Do you persuade monarchs? Do you bribe guards? Threaten folks into silence? Explore tombs?

If "we have experience of it in our daily lives" is the standard, then 90% or more of what D&D skills do should be having just as extensive rules as combat. And it's not like we can't understand how people think and react when they're fighting. If that were true, vast swathes of human entertainment would never have occurred in the first place. Indeed, one could argue that it is precisely from our knowledge of social interactions that we get a pretty good idea of how people would behave in combat situations.

 

[Minigiant]

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 don't think anyone here has asked for a social, exploration, survival, political, mystery, or management as complex or detailed as the combat system.

I think fans are saying the D&D has many playstyles, WotC says D&D has many playstyles, so D&D should have optional subsystems for these playstyles greater than the "Roll 1d20 + Ability mod vs DC once" for people who want to engage in that.

Maybe Roll 1d20 + Ability mod vs DC twice. Or Thrice. Or 1/4th the challenges level. Or roll on this table of complications first. Or every pick a thing of a chart and if this is the situation,you don't have to roll at all or have advantage if it's deemed difficult. Or switch to this d6 chart like the old school days.


One table could use Combat + Intrigue rules + Complex Charisma rules + Expanded Intelligence rules
One table could use Combat + Bastion rules.
One table could use Combat + Survival rules + Crafting Rules.
One table could use Combat + Comedy Fumbles charts.
And another table could just use Combat rules and roleplay everything else without dice.

 

[Oofta]

I don't see how non-combat stuff does not do exactly the same thing. Isn't that right at the heart of the "I'm so sick of my players just saying 'I persuade the King'" type stuff? Because that sounds to my ear 1:1 identical with "bang bang you're dead" and "I put up my infinity shield."


I didn't say they were the same. I said they weren't radically different. You have "social encounters" with people, yes. Do you persuade monarchs? Do you bribe guards? Threaten folks into silence? Explore tombs?

If "we have experience of it in our daily lives" is the standard, then 90% or more of what D&D skills do should be having just as extensive rules as combat. And it's not like we can't understand how people think and react when they're fighting. If that were true, vast swathes of human entertainment would never have occurred in the first place. Indeed, one could argue that it is precisely from our knowledge of social interactions that we get a pretty good idea of how people would behave in combat situations.

I persuade people, I occasionally bribe people with cookies or an exchange or services. I've threatened cats, not that they listen. I have explored areas unknown to me, including areas with potential dangers. But there's simply no comparison. I can think of how to do all the things I just mentioned in inventive, creative and engaging ways with an occasional skill check or three. I wouldn't know how to do that with combat.

 

[bloodtide]

It's not just pure roleplay or else just roll charisma and highest gets to be mayor. There are whole swathes of middle ground where you roleplay a bunch, but you also engage performance checks here and there, persuasion checks now and then, and deception checks when appropriate. Or whatever else comes from the roleplay and efforts to become mayor.

I agree. This is my play style. Tons of deep immersion and detailed story plot with a framework background of rules.

Though a great many people would say if your not doing the pure mechanical rules your just doing mindless fluff and "not playing the game".

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.

This is the big thing that has keep D&D alive forever. But your still not using D&D rules to role play.

The bulk of the things like character race, class, background, personal history, personality do not matter to the D&D rules at all. At worst they are just ignored, but at best your "background" gives you a +1 on charisma checks for something something. So, nothing.

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.

I agree. I dislike most such rules.

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.

I agree....I'm just looking the other way.

I don't say that D&D is all and only about mindless endless combat adventure roll playing in a bad way. I like D&D. When my group and I "play D&D" it is a whole other experience Beyond "just playing D&D". Nearly all of the D&D rules only cover "my character does a standard move and makes a standard attack on the orc guarding the chest." If you do too much more then that, your not "really" playing D&D...your doing something "beyond D&D".

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't see how non-combat stuff does not do exactly the same thing. Isn't that right at the heart of the "I'm so sick of my players just saying 'I persuade the King'" type stuff? Because that sounds to my ear 1:1 identical with "bang bang you're dead" and "I put up my infinity shield."

I don't see these as the same at all. I do think disputes over this can arise. But I think it is a lot easier for GMs and Players to be on the same page in terms of whether someone made a persuasive argument to the king. In social interactions you don't just say "I persuade the king". You say how, preferably by saying the actual world your character uses to persuade him. And the GM figures out whether you succeeded based on what he or she knows about the king's motives, wants, needs, goals, personality etc.


And the proof is in the pudding. Many groups are fully able to have an interaction with the king, and be satisfied with it, than are groups able to have a combat encounter with no combat mechanics and be satisfied. Obviously not everyone is going to want no rules for social interaction. It is just clearly something people can and have done.