D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Oofta]

I think that the problem is the desire here to view and label these things outside of your stated preference as "rollplay" rather than different approaches, priorities, and mechanical procedures for "roleplaying," which is what they are. Labeling them as "rollplaying" is othering them as not being "roleplaying." Therein is the problem. The solution is not to look for another "acceptable term" you can use to other them. The solution is to understand and accept that there are other forms of roleplaying found in games you may not like that approach play differently than your preferred mode of roleplay or mechanical involvement.

I guess we're at an impasse then. I don't consider combat or, for example, trying to escape a complex trap roleplaying. Saying they aren't roleplaying is in no way derogatory in my opinion.

 

[hgjertsen]

I guess we're at an impasse then. I don't consider combat or, for example, trying to escape a complex trap roleplaying. Saying they aren't roleplaying is in no way derogatory in my opinion.

I guess I don't see why combat can't be roleplaying. It's arguably not roleplaying at tables where combat is viewed as a mini-game where everyone thinks as intellectually and tactically as possible, but if you're role-playing as your character even in combat you might not think to flank an enemy if you're a barbarian with anger issues, or you might run and hide if you're a cowardly rogue at half his HP, even though the cleric could heal you next round.

 

[GrimCo]

I'll preface this post by saying that it's just my opinion.

Of the play styles listed in OP, i wouldn't really call most of them play styles. For example, political campaign could well be character driven role play intensive or it could be tactical ( or strategic) with mass combats as primary focus, with a bit of hack & slash when PC-s go on special missions. It could event include some PvP action if everybody is ok with it. It's more setting or tone of campaign than actual play style imho.

Slapstick is also more game tone than play style. You can have slapstick hack&slash games for example.

Historical simulation is also more setting or campaign tone than actual play style.

With 5th ed approach of rulings, not rules, D&D is decent enough for most of play styles, although mechanics tend to be rather simplistic for some. It's solid jack of all trades.

Where i think d&d falls apart is on specific settings. If you try to use for modern/SF, anything with guns involved, it just isn't that good. Same with survival/ horror. One thing that d&d does very good is action packed heroic high fantasy.

 

[Oofta]

I guess I don't see why combat can't be roleplaying. It's arguably not roleplaying at tables where combat is viewed as a mini-game where everyone thinks as intellectually and tactically as possible, but if you're role-playing as your character even in combat you might not think to flank an enemy if you're a barbarian with anger issues, or you might run and hide if you're a cowardly rogue at half his HP, even though the cleric could heal you next round.

You can roleplay and add other descriptive elements during combat but the resolution of the combat is basically unaffected by the roleplay. A PCs personality can affect it to a certain degree, but it's minimal. Same with 4E skill challenges.

 

[hgjertsen]

You can roleplay and add other descriptive elements during combat but the resolution of the combat is basically unaffected by the roleplay. A PCs personality can affect it to a certain degree, but it's minimal. Same with 4E skill challenges.

I mean I guess?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Where i think d&d falls apart is on specific settings. If you try to use for modern/SF, anything with guns involved, it just isn't that good. Same with survival/ horror. One thing that d&d does very good is action packed heroic high fantasy.

Everything you run in D&D does get D&D-ified. That is a bonus or minus depending on what you want (I kind of like fitting genres to D&D conceits). But it is true, D&D as a system is going to feel very different than a game built specifically for a setting. I will say though as much as that is the case, I still find 2E Ravenloft to be my favorite gothic/classic horror RPG (really my favorite horror RPG). They tweaked the system enough but it was still D&D underlying it. There are games that do specific horror genres and horror better in terms of being closer to the source material with the mechanics, but I would take a good Ravenloft campaign over them (though I quite enjoy Cthulhu and TORG's Orrorsh)

The only gun mechanics I ever liked for D&D were the the ones from Masque of the Red Death. But it has been forever since I played that so not sure how well they hold up. I remember A Mighty Fortress being interesting but can't recall their mechanics for that off hand

 

[Aldarc]

I guess we're at an impasse then. I don't consider combat or, for example, trying to escape a complex trap roleplaying. Saying they aren't roleplaying is in no way derogatory in my opinion.

Regardless of whether I agree with you or not here, choosing it call it "rollplay," however, is derogatory.

 

[GrimCo]

Everything you run in D&D does get D&D-ified. That is a bonus or minus depending on what you want (I kind of like fitting genres to D&D conceits). But it is true, D&D as a system is going to feel very different than a game built specifically for a setting. I will say though as much as that is the case, I still find 2E Ravenloft to be my favorite gothic/classic horror RPG (really my favorite horror RPG). They tweaked the system enough but it was still D&D underlying it. There are games that do specific horror genres and horror better in terms of being closer to the source material with the mechanics, but I would take a good Ravenloft campaign over them (though I quite enjoy Cthulhu and TORG's Orrorsh)

The only gun mechanics I ever liked for D&D were the the ones from Masque of the Red Death. But it has been forever since I played that so not sure how well they hold up. I remember A Mighty Fortress being interesting but can't recall their mechanics for that off hand

Yes, generalist vs specialist. I always viewed d&d as generalist that can do most of things decent enough, with some thing meshings better and some worse with it. To be honest, D&D isn't really my favorite system (that would be oWoD), but it's system that i played most and longest (20+ years) and with 5ed streamlining lots of things, it's easiest one to jump in. And that is really strength of d&d, you can tweak it with relative ease to support most of styles/themes/setting.

Ravenloft is by far my favourite setting. If i DM, it only run Ravenloft with dash of d20 CoC sprinkled in for some added spice. Still have all 2ed sourcebooks and use them to custom make adventures in that setting, i just had to tweak deadliness of 5ed a bit, since as written, characters are a bit too resilient and generally pack to much magical punch (with all classes having at least one caster subclass).

Masque of red death was awesome supplement with interesting concepts, sadly never run too many games using it.

 

[Oofta]

Everything you run in D&D does get D&D-ified. That is a bonus or minus depending on what you want (I kind of like fitting genres to D&D conceits). But it is true, D&D as a system is going to feel very different than a game built specifically for a setting. I will say though as much as that is the case, I still find 2E Ravenloft to be my favorite gothic/classic horror RPG (really my favorite horror RPG). They tweaked the system enough but it was still D&D underlying it. There are games that do specific horror genres and horror better in terms of being closer to the source material with the mechanics, but I would take a good Ravenloft campaign over them (though I quite enjoy Cthulhu and TORG's Orrorsh)

The only gun mechanics I ever liked for D&D were the the ones from Masque of the Red Death. But it has been forever since I played that so not sure how well they hold up. I remember A Mighty Fortress being interesting but can't recall their mechanics for that off hand

I think the biggest issue with gun mechanics is always that people already realize how deadly getting shot is. That somehow being shot with a relatively low powered blackpowder gun (even a pistol) is somehow far more deadly than getting hit with a claymore. We can accept that the sword not killing the PC is just a glancing blow, luck, strain, whatever. But a bullet? Either totally misses or instantly deadly. An example of someone in armor getting shot? The picture of the breastplate with a big hole in it because the guy was hit by a cannonball. That and when people think guns they tend to think modern military style firearms, not matchlock rifles.

I any case, I'd have no issue with early firearms but I'm fine without them as well.

 

[Minigiant]

I guess I don't see why combat can't be roleplaying. It's arguably not roleplaying at tables where combat is viewed as a mini-game where everyone thinks as intellectually and tactically as possible, but if you're role-playing as your character even in combat you might not think to flank an enemy if you're a barbarian with anger issues, or you might run and hide if you're a cowardly rogue at half his HP, even though the cleric could heal you next round.

Bang you're dead.

Nuh uh. I got and invincibility shield

But my bully deals infinite damage

My shield is infinity plus one