D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Crimson Longinus]

I would politely disagree. People add or ignore rules all the time. It's unfair only if one side decides to outright ban some rules. But in most groups, what rules are used and not used, is a collective agreement between all parties involved. Existence of robust social dynamic rules doesn't hinder your group ability to just ignore them or don't use them, if that is what your group chooses to do. It can lead to problem if some people in group want them and other don't. But then, it's not rules problem so much as incompatible group composition.

It rather depends on how integrated the system is to the game. In Exalted there are plenty of powers that refer to the social combat structure, so you'd have to ban all those powers if you don't want to use it. Like if in D&D you would decide not to use the combat rules a lot of features would cease to function. I would expect an involved social mechanics to be integrated in this way at least somewhat.

No, you can't, that's true. But you as a player don't have to be world class swordsman to play one, so why should you be master communicator to play one? Utilizing character powers is most effective manner is just matter of game mastery. Or like kids say: Git gud.

Why is system mastery acceptable form of player skill? Why "git gud" isn't an acceptable answer to those who struggle coming up with convincing in-character arguments?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

While I understand the point that you're making, I don't think you fully appreciate the alternative argument.

This exact issue isn't just one about social mechanics now; it's arguably the single oldest issue in the game itself. You can trace its lineage in D&D to the first great schism when it comes to skills; the introduction of the thief class, both in terms of the original class (which used more of an MU framework) and the adapted Gygax version. The debate was essentially that the presence of these specified rules for the thief meant that characters who formerly just did these things could no longer do them unless they were thieves. The presence of these rules meant that only characters who specifically chose the thief class could do these things. Contrast that with the original thief, McDuck, in Arneson's campaign, who was a thief not because of enumerated skills (rules) but because of what he did.

But you could go further back if you wanted. If you look to the ur-TTRPG, the original divide was (yeah, you know what's coming) between Kriegsspiel and Free Kriegsspiel, and the divide occurred because of ... rules. Because of the question of whether or not you should have, as you call it, a structured play system.

In effect, people aren't arguing over preferences (although, let's face it, they are). They are arguing over defaults. I think most people wouldn't begrudge other people what they want ... at least, I hope that's the case. I have to admit, I do question that sometimes. Still, I think that people who prefer a more freeform method are worried that if more advanced social mechanics rules become default and adopted, then that will gradually take over the game. In the same way that once the thief class was the class that could hide in shadows and pick pockets and find traps, then the fighter no longer could (in TSR-era D&D).

On the other hand, I would have no objection (as I'm sure no one would) with an optional supplement, or even an optional section in the DMG*, that specified the bestest and greatest social mechanics you can want! Because I want people to get what they want.


*Of course, much like any number of rules in the DMG, it is questionable if anyone will know of their existence in order to forestall possible debates, because ... oh, nevermind. Sometimes I wonder if people think the DMG is just a bunch of magic items surrounded by blank pages.

 

[GrimCo]

It rather depends on how integrated the system is to the game. In Exalted there are plenty of powers that refer to the social combat structure, so you'd have to ban all those powers if you don't want to use it. Like if in D&D you would decide not to use the combat rules a lot of features would cease to function. I would expect an involved social mechanics to be integrated in this way at least somewhat.

I'll be honest. Played only one game of Exalted almost 15 years ago. So i'm not familiar with system. But i'm very familiar with other WW system, WoD in both incarnations. I run decent amount of VtM. I've seen decent amount of social interactions resolved with use of kindred disciplines. Just as players used their powers on NPCs, i used NPC powers on players, even PvP power use was in action sometimes. It's just the nature of the beast. We all knew the rules, agreed what is cool and what is not and then it's free for all.

Why is system mastery acceptable form of player skill? Why "git gud" isn't an acceptable answer to those who struggle coming up with convincing in-character arguments?

Don't get me wrong. Git gud at free form role playing social interactions is totally legit. Have no problem with it. If everybody at the table is ok with that style of play, good for them.

 

[Hussar]

On the other hand, I would have no objection (as I'm sure no one would) with an optional supplement, or even an optional section in the DMG*, that specified the bestest and greatest social mechanics you can want! Because I want people to get what they want.

I can largely agree with that. And, yes, I do believe you hit the nail on the head.

As far as getting what I want, I suppose, you could argue that I already have. After all, 3pp have all sorts of social combat mechanics for 5e. There's a veritable shopping list of different systems, so, at the end of the day, it really is on me to simply adopt one of those and use them. I have already done so for exploration in my Spelljammer game, for example, to very good effect. And, of course, there's things like Level Up and the small mountain of material there that could certainly be adapted.

From free fanmade stuff, all the way to highly professional polished stuff. I'm really spoiled for choice. I mean, I was just perusing the other day an adaptation of Blades in the Dark's clock system for use in D&D 5e. There really are a small mountain of options out there.

It would just be nice if some of those actually made their way into the DMG so I didn't have to try to convince my bloody players that stuff that doesn't necessarily have the WotC seal of approval on it is perfectly fine to use in the game. But that's a separate issue.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

I'm not insisting anything. If a table wants to take a skill challenge or social combat approach they can do that. The absence of a rule leaves space to add customised rules. It's that customisation that is the reason for D&D's broad appeal. If you have "official" rules you have to start dismantling things before you can customise. That was why some players rejected 4e - it tried to add rules for things that they had been doing differently and working fine for 3+ editions. It was easier to switch to Pathfinder than try to remove the 4e rules that did not work with those playstyles.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, because you haven't said anything about not wanting anything other than free form social interaction in the game. I must have imagined that. And imagined you repeatedly talking about how 4e and structured social interactions are uncreative "roll play".

Please. If people were simply saying that they prefer freeform gaming, this conversation would be a LOT shorter.

Stating my preference that I want free form play says nothing about other people's preferences. I don't see how "I don't want" can be any more of a declaration of personal preference.

I have stated that I don't think there's much demand to change the way D&D functions by having a bunch of rules restricting freeform play, because in my experience there's not. That doesn't mean that a minority of people aren't entitle to their opinion or want something else. It just means that no game can work for everyone. So I understand why they haven't added more rules, fortunately there are 3PP to fill in the gaps if your group wants and there are plenty of other games.

 

[Oofta]

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.

It also depends on how the power of the gods work. Do they have infinite power to spend on mortals? Or is it limited somehow? In my games there are a chosen few that can channel divine energies, the rest are clergy but not clerics.

 

[FrogReaver]

You display your preferences without deriding others preferences?

Okay. I’m not doing that, so why the accusations?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

So ignore the rules and do it how you like? No one is forcing you to use social rules if you don't want them.

 

[FrogReaver]

So ignore the rules and do it how you like? No one is forcing you to use social rules if you don't want them.

They may actually be, at least in some sense of the word forced. Social dynamics govern whether that is possible and you aren’t giving enough weight to whether they would allow this for a particular group.

One might say well, just find a different group if that’s the situation, but 1) group breakup can be painful and 2) it’s also not always easy to find another good group to run it that way.