D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Bedrockgames]

How can you provide a lack? You can take away something that is there. But you cannot add an absence of something. That's not a thing.

You always have the freedom to decide. Some things just provide prewritten decisions. That's literally what "supporting" something means in a TTRPG design context: to provide prewritten material. An absence of material is not support. It is the default, empty state.

This is a fundamental disagreement that people here are probably never going to see eye to eye on. For me, I agree with Frog Reaver, sometimes support means a system gets out of the way. This is very true in a game like D&D where not interfering with peoples RP is one of the keys to how the game functions and scintillates so well. Now there are other approaches. But labeling it not support gets us into the same territory as D&D isn't a role playing game because it doesn't support role-play (the argument John Wick made which most people in the hobby regarded as an absurd claim)

 

[Pedantic]

Not how it usually goes in what? If 5e didn't have all the (mostly magic) buttons to remove survival challenges, I and others feel it would support the style better. As was said above, older editions of the game do a better job with this.

It does seem like there's two competing understandings of "survival challenge" or maybe just "challenge" at play here. One seems to be genre first, asserting that a survival challenge is made up of specific elements (finding food, finding shelter, dealing with ongoing environmental conditions, dealing with surprise environmental hazards, etc.) and that gameplay should thereby consist of allocating limited resources (including time) to resolve them. The other important part of of this understanding, I think, is fragility; any solution or victory must be a temporary state, that will collapse under new pressures and require reiteration of the gameplay loop of finding stuff and reallocating resources.

The other view seems to be heavily influenced by progression. Challenges are singular and discrete, and once conquered are meant to be replaced by new challenges. "Survival" might be a general class of challenge, but it can't be the same one repeatedly. After a problem is resolved, the game must produce a new, distinct and probably escalated obstacle.

The synthesis position is some kind of modularity, that has challenges explicitly tied to specific points on the progression; the kind of survival the first position is looking for could be squarely placed in a specific level range, and perhaps some supplement could provide alternative progression that doesn't allow the characters to exceed them. You can't readily do this kind of thing in 5e without a lot of additional design work, but then you can't do a lot of anything in 5e without a lot of additional design work, so I'm not sure that's saying much.

 

[Aldarc]

But that isn't the same as supporting the things you intend to do. It's supporting your desire to have nothing provided to you--your desire to not have support.

Maybe it would be best to demonstrate your point by arguing how a lack of support in areas that D&D has design support makes these other games superior to D&D. Let's see how quickly that tune changes.

 

[Oofta]

Every RPG has to make decisions about what they support, don't support and at what level. The spaces they leave more open are just as important as the spaces they provide detail for.

It's easy to say that they should "just add optional rules" but significant optional rules have a tendency to be part of most games, feats and multi-classing are a prime example. The vast majority of campaigns allow them. In addition optional rules still need to be tested, they need to gather feedback, tweak it. Even then there may simply not be options that work for the majority of people. Page count in books is also an issue, and now possible implementation in DDB. Optional rules are rarely easy and they have a cost so the question becomes how much of a demand there is.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is a fundamental disagreement that people here are probably never going to see eye to eye on. For me, I agree with Frog Reaver, sometimes support means a system gets out of the way. This is very true in a game like D&D where not interfering with peoples RP is one of the keys to how the game functions and scintillates so well. Now there are other approaches. But labeling it not support gets us into the same territory as D&D isn't a role playing game because it doesn't support role-play (the argument John Wick made which most people in the hobby regarded as an absurd claim)

I just...I don't see how that is possible. You are always free to make decisions. You are a human being. That right cannot be taken from you, except by force. A rulebook cannot force you to do anything (though if one ever does, please, report it, preferably to your nearest priest). Ergo, the presence or absence of any text in any book does not, in the least, prevent you from choosing to do something your way. It may or may not be easy to do so, but you always have the power to do it--and "ignore the rule and do whatever you felt like doing originally" is pretty easy.

Whatever argument Mr. Wick made, I refuse to judge, having not (to my knowledge, or at least my memory) read it. Your summary certainly does not speak well of it, I can say that much.

"This game does not include any relevant content for X" is precisely what "This game does not support X." You are not, as the word literally says, "supported" by anything--but nor are you hindered. Hence why I draw a distinction between rules that merely "do not support X" and rules which outright "oppose X." For FrogReaver and, presumably, for you, ANY rules on certain topics would, always, without fail, be opposition. But a lack of opposition is not support! A candidate for an office or nomination running unopposed does not mean that all people support that candidate. I certainly can believe that a lack of opposition is easier for a person who views all rules as opposed, but all that's saying is that they get the least-negative utility from a lack of rules--not that their observed utility has become positive by this absence.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I just...I don't see how that is possible. You are always free to make decisions. You are a human being. That right cannot be taken from you, except by force. A rulebook cannot force you to do anything (though if one ever does, please, report it, preferably to your nearest priest). Ergo, the presence or absence of any text in any book does not, in the least, prevent you from choosing to do something your way. It may or may not be easy to do so, but you always have the power to do it--and "ignore the rule and do whatever you felt like doing originally" is pretty easy.

Obviously. But prior to playing RPGs, most games didn't give you that space. This is the point. If you played a board game there were rules for what you could do and didn't. My first session was in 1986, and if I were to play even the most advanced video game rpg at that time, which for me would have been one of the kings quests, you could try what you wanted so long as it was pre-programmed. What D&D and what RPGs enabled you to do was go beyond that. To go beyond rules and to try anything you want in the game and to interact as the character in the setting. You can have rules for things, but the spark of what makes an RPG work for me is that open space for interaction with NPCs and the world.

And the presence of rules can indeed constrain this. People tend to follow the rules in a game. My experience playing OD&D and 1E to 2E is very very different in terms of interaction with NPCs and the world in those editions than in 3rd for example. I liked 3rd edition but the presence of things like social skills and other parts of the game like Gather Information, made a very big difference in terms of how the game felt (particularly in regard to that open space I am talking about). Now there is nothing wrong with 3rd edition. Lots of people like the way it supports these things. But people are making the point that sometimes having more open space here is also a way to support that area of the game.

Whatever argument Mr. Wick made, I refuse to judge, having not (to my knowledge, or at least my memory) read it. Your summary certainly does not speak well of it, I can say that much.

And you shouldn't judge based on my words. I would encourage you to seek out and read the article. He makes a good argument in terms of argument structure. But I think it is a pretty odd assertion non-the-less. And the only reason I brought it up is because there are echoes of his reasoning here

"This game does not include any relevant content for X" is precisely what "This game does not support X." You are not, as the word literally says, "supported" by anything--but nor are you hindered. Hence why I draw a distinction between rules that merely "do not support X" and rules which outright "oppose X." For FrogReaver and, presumably, for you, ANY rules on certain topics would, always, without fail, be opposition. But a lack of opposition is not support! A candidate for an office or nomination running unopposed does not mean that all people support that candidate. I certainly can believe that a lack of opposition is easier for a person who views all rules as opposed, but all that's saying is that they get the least-negative utility from a lack of rules--not that their observed utility has become positive by this absence.

Again, this is an impasse in the debate. We have all made our statements about what it means for an RPG to support or not support an area of play. And where people fall on that discussion is what makes this conversation break down

 

[FrogReaver]

I just...I don't see how that is possible. You are always free to make decisions. You are a human being. That right cannot be taken from you, except by force. A rulebook cannot force you to do anything (though if one ever does, please, report it, preferably to your nearest priest). Ergo, the presence or absence of any text in any book does not, in the least, prevent you from choosing to do something your way. It may or may not be easy to do so, but you always have the power to do it--and "ignore the rule and do whatever you felt like doing originally" is pretty easy.

Whatever argument Mr. Wick made, I refuse to judge, having not (to my knowledge, or at least my memory) read it. Your summary certainly does not speak well of it, I can say that much.

"This game does not include any relevant content for X" is precisely what "This game does not support X." You are not, as the word literally says, "supported" by anything--but nor are you hindered. Hence why I draw a distinction between rules that merely "do not support X" and rules which outright "oppose X." For FrogReaver and, presumably, for you, ANY rules on certain topics would, always, without fail, be opposition. But a lack of opposition is not support! A candidate for an office or nomination running unopposed does not mean that all people support that candidate. I certainly can believe that a lack of opposition is easier for a person who views all rules as opposed, but all that's saying is that they get the least-negative utility from a lack of rules--not that their observed utility has become positive by this absence.

I don’t fully disagree but there’s a big piece of the puzzle all this misses. It ignores social group dynamics.

So let’s say it’s always theoretically possible to ignore a rule. Okay. But what about socially for this particular group? That may not be the case any longer.

 

[FrogReaver]

Again, this is an impasse in the debate. We have all made our statements about what it means for an RPG to support or not support an area of play. And where people fall on that discussion is what makes this conversation break down

Semantics strikes again!

We all agree on the nuts and bolts of what’s happening. We don’t agree on how to classify it or frame it. Especially when some of that framing is done in the absolute worst light imaginable.

 

[Composer99]

IMO taking a word that at this time has no antonymic denotations and using it to mean the precise opposite of its usual meanings is guaranteed to lead to absurd results. If "a lack of support" for a thing is the same as "supporting" a thing, then I guess Tetris "supports" roleplaying.

Maybe it would be best to demonstrate your point by arguing how a lack of support in areas that D&D has design support makes these other games superior to D&D. Let's see how quickly that tune changes.

Expanding on @Aldarc, here's an example:

Dread has no detailed rules for intricate tactical combat, at all. By @EzekielRaiden's argument, that means that Dread does not support intricate tactical combat. D&D, which does have detailed rules for intricate tactical combat, therefore does support intricate tactical combat, to some lesser or greater extent depending on edition. (I mean, even OD&D and B/X are far more detailed than Dread!)

If we take @FrogReaver's argument at face value, Dread does support intricate tactical combat by "getting out of the way" and giving people the "freedom to decide how to handle these elements". To my mind that is as nonsensical as saying that Tetris supports roleplaying.

To my mind, it's pretty obvious that, as a result of its support for intricate tactical combat, D&D is superior to Dread if one of your gameplay experience goals is to engage in intricate tactical combat.

This is a fundamental disagreement that people here are probably never going to see eye to eye on. For me, I agree with Frog Reaver, sometimes support means a system gets out of the way. This is very true in a game like D&D where not interfering with peoples RP is one of the keys to how the game functions and scintillates so well. Now there are other approaches. But labeling it not support gets us into the same territory as D&D isn't a role playing game because it doesn't support role-play (the argument John Wick made which most people in the hobby regarded as an absurd claim)

To my mind, you literally cannot play D&D without adopting a fictional persona and then making decisions on behalf of that persona as they navigate the in-game fiction, however minimally you do so. That is, D&D must be a roleplaying game, at least by my reckoning of what a roleplaying game is.

This does not mean, however, that D&D actually supports roleplaying-as-gameplay. What mechanics are there to treat the persona you have adopted as distinct from yourself? What mechanics are there to encourage or oblige you to make decisions consistent with the traits or characteristics ascribed to this persona? I think the practical experience of inspiration and traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws shows that such support is just shy of non-existent, much in the same way that the vestigial encumbrance rules and equipment lists show how D&D's support for robust survival gameplay is also just shy of non-existent.

By contrast, D&D has plentiful mechanics that encourage or oblige players to accept the results of tactical combat. A player character who is reduced to 0 hit points and collects three death saving throw failures? That character is dead unless and until other mechanics can be invoked to restore them to life. A player character in combat is subject to the bounds of action economy. I am sure other examples could be given.

To be sure, I don't think there's anything wrong with preferring D&D's lack of support for roleplaying! But I do think it's an error to try to characterise such a lack as "support", for reasons elucidated above.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Obviously. But prior to playing RPGs, most games didn't give you that space. This is the point. If you played a board game there were rules for what you could do and didn't.

The almost instantaneous existence of either falsely-remembered or actively-changed rules for Monopoly, which actively undercut the intent for which it was designed (money on Free Parking ensures the system remains "live" indefinitely, which prevents the collapse of all but one person's budget, hence the game title), pretty conclusively proves this false. Likewise, the evolution of the rules of chess. Did you know that the game we now play was once called "Mad Queens" chess, and was considered scandalous for giving a--gasp!--female piece so much power!

Board games can be changed just as much as RPGs can.

And the presence of rules can indeed constrain this. People tend to follow the rules in a game.

But their tendency does not limit you, the DM, from doing as you like. That is the key point here. You are not beholden to what happens at other tables. That's a point that people on this forum have taken to drilling into my head with speed and vigor.

And you shouldn't judge based on my words. I would encourage you to seek out and read the article. He makes a good argument in terms of argument structure. But I think it is a pretty odd assertion non-the-less. And the only reason I brought it up is because there are echoes of his reasoning here

"Your argument sounds like a bad argument I once read" is not a very good argument.

Again, this is an impasse in the debate. We have all made our statements about what it means for an RPG to support or not support an area of play. And where people fall on that discussion is what makes this conversation break down

I have made a very clear statement, with both my specific spelled-out definitions and brief summaries upthread. Support is a presence. A lack of support is an absence. Opposition is another presence--just a negative one. It is perfectly consistent and reasonable to say that, on some given topic, one considers all possible rules, no matter how well-made, to be necessarily a negative. For them, there is no such thing as "support" in that space; there is only absence or impediment. But the fact that the only states they see are "empty" or "negative" does not suddenly make emptiness full. Zero is still zero.

Or, to put this more simply: You seem to be conflating two senses of the word "positive." On the one hand, the quantitative: there are 3 (positive number) objects. On the other, the qualitative: it is beneficial that there be no objects. Support is positive in the quantitative sense. For you, and those who agree with you, a lack of support is positive in the qualitative sense. But just because zero is beneficial does not mean it is suddenly a positive number.

If we're going to define a lack of rules as "support," why? Or perhaps more importantly, how? Because "getting out of the way" isn't actually HELPING you do anything. It permits you to do something. Permission is not at all the same as assistance. Support means assistance. Like, that's literally the definition of the word: "3. to encourage, comfort, help, etc., under trial or affliction; sustain; 4. to maintain (a person, family, establishment, institution, etc.) by supplying with things necessary to existence; provide for; 5. to give financial assistance to (a person, organization, program, etc.); be a contributor to or patron of". If nothing is written, everything is permitted. But being permitted to do something cannot be the same as someone (or something) helping you do that thing.