D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Minigiant]

Me Minigiant is taking the middle ground route that D&D supports many playststyles but most editions do them poorly because the designers overly focus on their playstyles they like and offer bad slapdash product for alternative playstyles at the last minute to hook other fans.


The "Freeform Enjoyers" are just lucky they didn't need anything from TSR or WOTC to get their prefferred styles to work.

On the other side the "Freeform Enjoyers" tend to hate the combat side because they needed TSR or WOTC for the base mechanics.

 

[Hussar]

Having support for role-play doesn't mean you need to give players XP for role-play. Personally I think it is kind of dumb to award XP for good roleplaying. I don't award it for that.

Yes. Yes it does. If you aren't rewarding something, then that system is hardly supporting it is it? That's kinda the basic element of a game. Things that you should be doing in that game are rewarded in some fashion. Things you aren't supposed to be doing, are not rewarded.

Seems pretty basic game design 101 stuff to me.

 

[hgjertsen]

See, you look at that and claim, "See, there's support".

I look at that and say, "Nope. That's not support. That's barely a system."

So claiming that D&D supports this because it has a three line rule for making a reaction check when you meet random monsters in a dungeon is stretching the definition of support to the breaking point. That's very much not support. That's barely a guideline. And, I'd point out, that the OSR crowd would largely agree with me that AD&D doesn't have non-combat support. It leaves it very much up to freeform.

So, again, you folks figure it out. Does D&D support these things or not? If it does, then it's not free form.

Or, put it another way. List those classic modules in D&D that deal with Character Driven play. Or Political play. After all, if the system supports these styles of play so well, then there should be a shopping list of classic modules showcasing this support.

You are not going to resolve this discussion unless there is an agreement as to what constitutes "support". There are certainly frameworks for how persuasion checks work, how insight as a skill can be used to ascertain whether an individual is lying, et cetera. These are all extremely barebones approaches to turning the nuances of language into a mechanical aspect of the game tied to ability scores and die rolls. I feel like you will not accept the notion that there is support for talk-first adventures in DnD because you expect a certain level of crunch in order for there to be something substantive there, others do not.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes. Yes it does. If you aren't rewarding something, then that system is hardly supporting it is it? That's kinda the basic element of a game. Things that you should be doing in that game are rewarded in some fashion. Things you aren't supposed to be doing, are not rewarded.

Seems pretty basic game design 101 stuff to me.

Rewarding and supporting are not the same thing. How a game chooses to support play can vary. From actively including mechanics to encourage things, to providing comprehensive systems for managing them, to choosing to leave that area open so it can be more fully explored. One of the things that stood out to me about RPGs and made the roleplaying experience so powerful when I first sat down to play was that openness. That openness in my mind very much supports RP and social interaction

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Yes. Yes it does. If you aren't rewarding something, then that system is hardly supporting it is it? That's kinda the basic element of a game. Things that you should be doing in that game are rewarded in some fashion. Things you aren't supposed to be doing, are not rewarded.

Seems pretty basic game design 101 stuff to me.

So we don't use XP at all, does that mean we have no support for anything!?

 

[Hussar]

So we don't use XP at all, does that mean we have no support for anything!?

But, that's your choice. You could use xp if you wanted to. I'm talking about the game, not your particular, idiosyncratic, take on it.

It's helpful in these discussions to differentiate between how a specific table plays the game and what the game itself says.

 

[Bedrockgames]

See, you look at that and claim, "See, there's support".

I look at that and say, "Nope. That's not support. That's barely a system."

But this is just due to the looseness of language we are using. If you want to win by linguistic check mate, fair enough. But it is clear if you look at what I have been saying that isn't my argument. My point in that post is that that some people are arguing that support means having systems in place for that part of play, so I am pointing out that D&D does in fact have systems. People are also making the case that if you don't have systems, that isn't supporting that part of play. And here I am arguing that is not the case. That absence of mechanical rules in a given area can be a strength of design to make that area more open and free (which is supporting it)

So claiming that D&D supports this because it has a three line rule for making a reaction check when you meet random monsters in a dungeon is stretching the definition of support to the breaking point. That's very much not support. That's barely a guideline. And, I'd point out, that the OSR crowd would largely agree with me that AD&D doesn't have non-combat support. It leaves it very much up to freeform.

So, again, you folks figure it out. Does D&D support these things or not? If it does, then it's not free form.

Again my point was there are varying degrees of mechanical support across editions. In terms of AD&D it keeps many things freeform but it also does have areas where non-combat stuff is addressed. In 2E many of those areas are optional (NWPs are optional for instance).

 

[Minigiant]

I'm just gonna pivot to another fandom of mine now that I'm done with chore and DM prep.

I am a fan of Pro Wrestling. Pro Wrestling has all types of wrestlers to root for.

• Alignment
  • Babyfaces
  • Tweeners
  • Heels
• Type
  • Giants
  • Powerhouses
  • Light Heayweights
  • Technicians
  • Striker
  • Cruiserweights
  • Freaks
• Card
  • Main Eventers
  • Midcarders
  • Tag Specialists
  • Jobbers
  • Women
  • Men

A big issue in the wrestling community for a while was that the bookers of the 2 main companies were biased as heck. They only booked certain types of wrestlers to get TV time, good feuds, and wins. They booked their favorite styles of wrestlers. There were other wrestlers of the styles they didn't like but they didn't get focus or time.

And that's basically what I see in D&D.
You want to see a powerhouse slam a guy who did them wrong and win the title but the booker wont get them a match over 5 minutes nor a title run over a month or so with the midcard belt.

 

[Oofta]

So, zero mechanical support then. If it's largely up to the DM, then the system isn't doing very much here is it?

Thank you. That's what I was asking. A nice direct, clear answer.

I disagree. There's a structure, optional rules, instructions on how to set DCs and when to call for checks. Just because the DM can choose to not use those rules as they see fit does not mean they do not exist.

 

[Oofta]

I agree. Now, go argue with the people who are telling you that it doesn't exist and that these things are all free form. After all, @Oofta just said that the system is largely free form with the DM determining things.

When you folks figure out which it is, let me know.

Again, not true.