Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 9243052" data-attributes="member: 87792">The thing is that there's a difference between "The game makes it easier to do this", "You can do this and the mechanics do nothing to help.", and finally "You can try to do this but the game mechanics will fight you every step of the way." To most people something is only supported if it is in the first category. And if freeform does it better and the rules get in the way I'd consider D&D hinders it.This is clearly a supported play style. About half the D&D character sheet is about combat.This is clearly a possible play style. How much having ready made solutions in the form of spells supports problem solving and how much it hinders it by making certain problems irrelevant is an interesting question - but in general when you are problem solving you are ignoring almost all the rules of D&D, making it effectively little more than freeform other than some codified tools.This is clearly a possible play style which D&D does very little to support other than providing classes, subclasses, and a randomiser. Freeform is in general better. Meanwhile there are games that support characters leaning into their flaws much more by making it other than something that you are doing knowing it's stupid rather than are being tempted to do so.(Edit: There is an almost vestigial ideals/flaws/bonds/whatever system that shows one of the many things that could support character driven play - but as mentioned it's almost vestigial and doesn't in my experience have nearly enough weight to not be swamped by everything else).Things like Hit Points allowing consequence-free violence, and Magic are written deeply into the rules of D&D. Historical Simulation is possible, but the D&D rules actively get in the way. This is a hindered playstyle.This I would say is a tone not a play style. D&D does however lightly support slapstick because unless someone dies the violence is largely consequence free - but it also hinders slapstick by being a slow and complex game. I would say it is a possible playstyle.This is a supported play style; D&D contains a whole lot of loot for no other purpose than to give out to players.This is a complex one - and I'm going to judge it possible in 5e although I would have said that all editions before 5e support one of two styles of tactical play.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Tactical within the fight is supported by 3.X and 4e with a focus on tactical positioning and where you are with respect to each other and how you move. 5e deliberately deprecates this to make theatre of the mind easier.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Tactical in setting up the fight is supported by 3.X and earlier where hit points were much lower and the reward for getting off the first attack was much higher. The tactics were about setting up the ambushes and getting advantages before the fights start - but 4e and 5e have bloated hit points to minimise random deaths and in 4e's case to support tactics within the fight</li> </ul>5e does absolutely nothing at all to support this - and has significant numbers of rules that at least weigh things down. Freeform does it better - so hindered.This I'm rating as unclassified.And there's a reason that I'm not running 5e with either of my gaming groups at the moment.  There are some playstyles (such as escalating chaos) that 5e is worse than useless for because everything is on a pass/fail scale, and the amount of playstyles actively supported is minimal. You can do a lot of playstyles in 5e but you're doing them despite the rules rather than actively supported by them.</blockquote>

Verification