D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Hussar]

Because your different kind of support is an attempt to take freeform elements out of the game. That’s diametrically opposed to my preferences.

Nope. At no point has anyone even suggested that free form elements be removed from the game. In fact, it's actually impossible to remove free form from a game since hte game doesn'T actually have any elements which support free form gaming - that's been the point all the way along. That the system supports free form gaming by not existing. The existence of a structured play system in no way impacts free form gaming.

 

[Lanefan]

Not at all.

Having a deity constantly watching your every move and pulling the plug the instant you slip up is not, in any way, an inherent or required element here. You can--and should--design for a wider berth. Investiture isn't a requirement, and you were extremely skeptical of it when you thought it was. Why are your preferred limitations somehow the necessary, critical element keeping the game high-quality, where their removal has ruined the game, but others' preferred limitations an unacceptable impediment preventing interesting stories or limiting the DM from portraying the kind of world they want to portray?

Simply put, you haven't even tried to respond to the charge of double standards here.

My response to the charge of there being a double standard where combat and other physical in-game activities need dice to resolve but social resolutions do not boils down to this:

So what.

And I've said this already upthread, in various ways.

Reasoning (and I've already said this too): if it can be done at the table by the players, doesn't it just make sense to do it that way? The ability to roleplay is what sets these games apart from any other games or sports out there (though theatre sports veer close) so let's embrace that rather than try to downplay it.

What makes your drawbacks a wonderful and essential building block of the game, foolishly cast aside by designers at the request of immature and ignorant players, but a different slate of drawbacks would be an unacceptable intrusion into DM authority and player freedom? It would seem to me you can't have it both ways.

Oh yes I can.

That said, to what 'different slate of drawbacks' are you here referring?

 

[Lanefan]

I imagine actual clerics with spells to be a small percentage of the clergy in total, so no, not millions of clerics.

Perhaps, but it's an interesting point nonetheless.

Me, I'd say the vast majority of the clergy would, if this were real, never get beyond casting 1st or 2nd level spells and it'd take a fair bit of their lives to even get that far. A small (probably logarithmic) minority, however, would reach the upper echelons and become powerful casters.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Key takeaway is - some people prefer Freeform roleplay (or mostly Freeform roleplay), and rules that govern situations people want to Freeform roleplay in actually do the opposite of supporting that preference.

Something I explicitly said above: for you, and those who share this perspective, any rules one might offer (on some matter) would be oppositional. Hence, the only acceptable state for someone of this position is no rules at all on whatever matter is relevant. (Note, as well, that I made very clear that this maxim does not automatically generalize to "and thus absolutely all rules ever are an impediment.")

Your desires are satisfied by an absence of rules. But an absence of rules is not a presence of support. It is, as many have said for years now, merely "getting out of the way", permitting you to do whatever it is you were intending to do to begin with.

Oh yes I can.

That said, to what 'different slate of drawbacks' are you here referring?

I was referring to the clergy stuff and the deific surveillance state, vs 4e's Investiture concept. You were, after all, the one who said (as I quoted) that Investiture was "the game...trying to bake in a lot of setting information in order to make these elements work as intended." But a divine surveillance state with an extensive bureaucratic apparatus geared solely to Big Brother-ing every priest with spells (and more casually monitoring all other members of the faith, clergy or layman) is somehow not that.

 

[Hussar]

Your desires are satisfied by an absence of rules. But an absence of rules is not a presence of support. It is, as many have said for years now, merely "getting out of the way", permitting you to do whatever it is you were intending to do to begin with.

This is the part I don't get. Absence or presence of rules shouldn't matter should it? If your preference is free-form, then having rules, not having rules, either way, doesn't actually matter. If the rules are there, you ignore them. If there are no rules, you ignore that fact too. Either way, it's impossible to actually hinder freeform play.

But the reverse is certainly not true. The lack of structured play is a pretty significant impediment to a style which asks for structured play.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is the part I don't get. Absence or presence of rules shouldn't matter should it? If your preference is free-form, then having rules, not having rules, either way, doesn't actually matter. If the rules are there, you ignore them. If there are no rules, you ignore that fact too. Either way, it's impossible to actually hinder freeform play.

But the reverse is certainly not true. The lack of structured play is a pretty significant impediment to a style which asks for structured play.

I can see an element of it, in that a presence of rules may lead to players anticipating that those rules will be used. An absence of rules means the only thing one can do is talk with the adjudicator, in this case, the DM. But that is the players looking for something to support them; the DM has exactly the desired amount of support, namely zero. In this case, the absence of rules provides an indirect benefit, removing another impediment, player expectations. But the removal of negative things is not the same as providing positive things. It cannot be.

The analogy that comes to mind is people in a workshop. Rules are like subordinates, journeymen or apprentices or the like, who assist the master craftsman with various tasks. But sometimes, what the master wants is to do everything herself. To have no inexperienced hands, no untrained eyes, disturbing the creative process. To be free of distractions, to have all tools working only and exactly as she desires. In which case, the shop will be cleared of all assistants--all supporters--so that she can work her magic alone. The journeymen and apprentices dismissed so are, necessarily, not supporting her--but they are permitting her to work alone. She is not getting help from anyone else--which is what "support" means. She is simply not having to deal with any of the negatives that come from having other people in the shop with her. (But, in so doing, taking on all of the negatives of working alone.)

And that highlights the flaw of the "lack of a vehicle supports better health" analogy. No, it does not support anything; however, in lacking a vehicle, if one wishes to continue getting around, one must depend on one's own body for locomotion. This may permit the person to get better health, but it may also seriously harm them. (Believe me, I am intimately acquainted with how much a person's health can depend on having regular transportation.)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If your preference is free-form, then having rules, not having rules, either way, doesn't actually matter.

Rules impose a particular form of play. Say it's a politics system. The rules reward ruthless backstabbing. But in your Star Trek style gameworld you want to reward peaceful cooperation. You are stuck with a set of rules that undermine that. So it's better to have no "official" rules, leaving it to the players to select whatever rules best support their game world.

Social interaction: you need to find out were the bandits are hiding. The official rules say that the players must engage in social combat in order to get the information they need out of the NPC barman. But the barman wants to tell the PCs where the bandits are so they will go and kill them. But he can't because the rules say the players lost the social combat. The rules are undermining the narrative.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I will point out this: D&D is NOT JUST RULES. It is also LORE. and it is lore that supports narrative gameplay, not rules.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So do people who want to gameify social situations feel that the rules on DMG pages 244 and 245 are not sufficient?

I think 5e already occupies a middle position in this. it has social skills and ways to use them, it just expects you to actually engage with the NPCs and have some actual arguments. I think focusing even more on the rules would harm the roleplay.

I played quite a bit Exalted. In the second edition it had extensive social combat mechanics. They were quite involved. They also allowed the demigod characters of the game to convince people of things that it was sometimes really hard to conceptualise as any way possible in the real life. But the player had spent their points on these skills and powers, so it would have been unfair to deny them.

With super socially focused characters we just kinda gave up on the roleplay.

Player: "I convince him on the thing."
Me: "How?"
Player: "I have no idea. I can't imagine how anyone could ever convince a person this way. But the rules say that I easily can."
Me: "Fair enough, roll your bucket of dice."

And even worse. The rules would allow the NPCs do the same to the PC. I never used social skills and powers on PCs that way, as to me it would just feel wrong to rob the player agency that way, but by RAW that's how it should have worked.

I don't want this. I don't want any of this. I want to have real conversations where people play their characters and make real arguments in-character. We might roll the dice at the end, but it is mostly just real conversation, and the DC of the check will be based on how likely I feel the NPC is to be convinced by the PCs argument, so what you say matters.

And I think a lot of people who are new to D&D want this too. Critical Role has been one of the biggest influences to people to get to into the game. It is all about people immersing in their characters and talking in-character. It is wise for D&D to focus their support on this type of play. And you don't need to be a professional actor to do this. But presumably anyone who is playing this game in the first place can speak, so they can say what their character says or at least paraphrase it.

 

[Hussar]

Rules impose a particular form of play. Say it's a politics system. The rules reward ruthless backstabbing. But in your Star Trek style gameworld you want to reward peaceful cooperation. You are stuck with a set of rules that undermine that. So it's better to have no "official" rules, leaving it to the players to select whatever rules best support their game world.

Social interaction: you need to find out were the bandits are hiding. The official rules say that the players must engage in social combat in order to get the information they need out of the NPC barman. But the barman wants to tell the PCs where the bandits are so they will go and kill them. But he can't because the rules say the players lost the social combat. The rules are undermining the narrative.

No. Your are adding rules that don't fit with that system. But, if you are insisting that all social interactions must be freeform, then the existence of any rules is irrelavent. It simply doesn't matter. You are going to ignore any and all rules anyway.