D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Bedrockgames]

You do understand how companies work, right? That the D&D team has a budget? That even if the developers thought there was a demand or a need for something that they can't always do what they want? Every company I've ever worked for has things that people would like to do, that perhaps would help the company if it was done but it didn't happen because we didn't have the manpower or budget. It's just reality, if you do X you don't have as much to spend on Y.

But D&D is the single biggest brand. Tons of other less successful companies do stuff like this all the time and do it well. I really think they can find a way to make something like this work. If anything there seems to be a lack of support by the company for stuff like this. Heck they can even kickstart it if they really want to. Give each designer on the team a pet GM/Playstyle book to launch a kickstarter for. I don't think they would need to do that, but if WOTC is so pressed for cash, that would be an option

 

[Micah Sweet]

You do understand how companies work, right? That the D&D team has a budget? That even if the developers thought there was a demand or a need for something that they can't always do what they want? Every company I've ever worked for has things that people would like to do, that perhaps would help the company if it was done but it didn't happen because we didn't have the manpower or budget. It's just reality, if you do X you don't have as much to spend on Y.

Got it. Hasbro doesn't have the money to add stuff to D&D, unless it's stuff you want them to make. Ok.

 

[Oofta]

I don't know that we are going to be able to sort that one out, but I don't think optional NWPs or complete books, or even the settings are why they failed (it was more bad book keeping, bad business decisions and a rise in very unexpected forms of competition IMO). But the narrative that things like the settings fragmented the base just didn't ring true in my experience (I was in groups where we were all buying and playing multiple setting materials). Either way, a free social interaction system isn't going to make WOTC fail.



I don't know the size of this audience, but again I really don't think this is going to task their design team that much. They would need to fit it in a budget, but the game has long needed at the very least a series of GM books anyways that really help inspire GMs (one massive failing of WOTC D&D is it is all so player facing and you need excited GMs who feel inspired to want to run the game). These books by the way wouldn't have to be sleek and the same level of production as the core books. They could emulate the old complete books from the 2E line which were much more stripped down. But I would personally love to see GM guidebooks on a range of styles. I can easily see a D&D Sandbox guide, a D&D guide to social interaction, A D&D Guide to monster hunts, etc. Those are valuable tools that will give fuel to campaigns and make the brand stronger, not weaker.

Sure they could throw together rules. It would increase page count, which is not irrelevant. But more than that is the cost of testing, surveys and shifting priority focus.

It's just the ways businesses work. They set priorities and optional rules are apparently not a high priority and it doesn't matter what other company's focus is. Other companies aren't D&D.

 

[TwoSix]

The thing about this question is "More involved social mechanics for what purpose?" Because I can think of a number of games with very good social mechanics, starting with Monsterhearts and Smallville - but the reason those social mechanics work is that they are integrated with the setting and the social mechanics of Monsterhearts' backbiting high school cliques are not at all what would work for travelling adventurers while Smallville makes relationships and values the core of its rules which is not D&D at all and that's a very different game from D&D.

I think my ideal D&D-style social mechanics would probably be lifted from Apocalypse World with fairly forceful social interactions that fit roving violent adventurers most of the time, although the best generic ones probably belong to Fate, mostly by tying in to the character's values and abilities and where they spend fate points.

Yea, it's a challenge. A lot of the games with more robust social mechanics (like Monsterhearts, as you mentioned), also have building relationships as part of the core gameplay loop.

For a D&D game, most social dynamics are fundamentally transactional (do X quest for me, and I will give you Y item) or challenge-based (figure out how to convince the duke to allow you into the dungeon under the castle). For a lot of that play, the request for social dynamics is an ask to "gamify" the challenge-based play that's been set up around negotiations.

And since D&D 5e is primarily neotrad in its gameplay orientation, there's also an ask to allow Charisma-focused "diplomacy" characters a way to demonstrate their character abilities beyond simply freeform dialogue.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure they could throw together rules. It would increase page count, which is not irrelevant. But more than that is the cost of testing, surveys and shifting priority focus.

Again, I am not seeing how this is going to break the bank more than anything else they are doing.

It's just the ways businesses work. They set priorities and optional rules are apparently not a high priority and it doesn't matter what other company's focus is. Other companies aren't D&D.

Yes other companies have fewer resources, less reach and play tester availability and much smaller design teams than D&D. They are the single most positioned company to provide these kinds of options. Look, I can't stand social mechanics. But one thing WOTC has seriously lacked in its D&D is support for GMs in this way, and support for a variety of adventure structures. I can easily envision a line of cheap books, that provide guidance and optional rules on a range of different things people want to do in D&D. And this isn't insignificant. Running D&D is hard. It isn't easy for people to navigate how to run a game. Having support to help with that, to excite GMs about different possibilities, this helps the game more than any splat book can.

 

[Maxperson]

The player also gets to decide based on what they think is the most successful course to accomplish their goals, regardless of what makes the most sense for their PC to do in the situation.

This is true, but I certainly wouldn't play the game with someone like that. I'm here to enjoy an RPG, not PG. If a player wants to take the role out of RPG and just play a game like it's a game, they can find a different group.

The DM is constrained by what the player rolled; the player can react however they like regardless of DM action.

Socially, sure.

And again, as @CreamCloud0 has been saying, the PC is only mechanically compeled to react in a combat situation or if a spell is cast upon them; the social stuff is always freeform when directed at PCs, and they can choose to ignore anything they don't like for any reason (most likely self-interest IME) or for no reason at all.

If there are rules, and there are, it's not freeform. This applies even if most of the rules constrain the DM and not the player. This is doubly true since the player is using rules on the NPCs.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And since D&D 5e is primarily neotrad in its gameplay orientation, there's also an ask to allow Charisma-focused "diplomacy" characters a way to demonstrate their character abilities beyond simply freeform dialogue.

It is entirely a side point, but I just have to say this six cultures of play never matches my understanding of gaming culture at all. Especially he Neo-trad designation. It just feels completely off to me somehow

 

[Oofta]

Again, I am not seeing how this is going to break the bank more than anything else they are doing.



Yes other companies have fewer resources, less reach and play tester availability and much smaller design teams than D&D. They are the single most positioned company to provide these kinds of options. Look, I can't stand social mechanics. But one thing WOTC has seriously lacked in its D&D is support for GMs in this way, and support for a variety of adventure structures. I can easily envision a line of cheap books, that provide guidance and optional rules on a range of different things people want to do in D&D. And this isn't insignificant. Running D&D is hard. It isn't easy for people to navigate how to run a game. Having support to help with that, to excite GMs about different possibilities, this helps the game more than any splat book can.

There's a lot of things the D&D team could theoretically do to increase popularity. Just because you personally believe this would help is meaningless. Detailed social rules that actually fit and are integrated in with the rest of the system simply isn't a priority.

I'd rather have no rules than bad rules, even if the rules are optional. You want social rules, but what does that mean? A political subsection, building kingdoms, influencing politics? Then what about people that want more detailed exploration rules or a whole set of optional rules on gritty survival or more details on dungeon delving? Some other people want more rules on how to do different levels of technology or more tactical combat rules.

There will always be more optional rules that maybe, just might, possibly could increase popularity. WOTC has apparently decided to focus on the core product and make it the best possible while 3PP fill in what the minorities want.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'd rather have no rules than bad rules, even if the rules are optional. You want social rules, but what does that mean? A political subsection, building kingdoms, influencing politics? Then what about people that want more detailed exploration rules or a whole set of optional rules on gritty survival or more details on dungeon delving? Some other people want more rules on how to do different levels of technology or more tactical combat rules.

There will always be more optional rules that maybe, just might, possibly could increase popularity. WOTC has apparently decided to focus on the core product and make it the best possible while 3PP fill in what the minorities want.

I don't personally want social rules. Read my posts. I am not a fan. I don't think adding in rules for people who want them, if they are clearly optional, is bad for the game. I also don't think this is a small minority of players. I hear from lots of players who like social mechanics. So I just don't see the problem with it.

WOTC will focus on what it wants. I don't know what they are thinking in this respect. But I think it is fair for people to request optional rules. All you are doing is proving them right by saying you don't even want them to have the option for this.

 

[Oofta]

I don't personally want social rules. Read my posts. I am not a fan. I don't think adding in rules for people who want them, if they are clearly optional, is bad for the game. I also don't think this is a small minority of players. I hear from lots of players who like social mechanics. So I just don't see the problem with it.

WOTC will focus on what it wants. I don't know what they are thinking in this respect. But I think it is fair for people to request optional rules. All you are doing is proving them right by saying you don't even want them to have the option for this.

This whole argument reminds me of users who would tell me "All we need to do is add a button that does X." While true, it was also pointless. First, there's a lot of hidden costs, second it doesn't take into account other priorities.

People can always request whatever they want, sometimes the answer will be "no".