D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Hussar]

Questions to people who want more involved social mechanics. What do you actually mean by this? Have you used the rules from DMG? Why are these not sufficient? What are the aspects you wish more rules support on? How do you envision your ideal social mechanics working, and how do they integrate with roleplay?

The mechanics in the DMG are a couple of pages that detail the DC's of checks. That's about it. They are completely inadequate for a complex check - such as determining the result of an extended campaign to win the hearts and minds of the people, as a pulled out of my bottom example.

Or, exploring as a more personal example. The rules in the DMG, for me, are a complete failure for exploration. They are binary, do not actually address most of the issues I want to address and often feature far too many things that simply bypass exploration. For my Spelljammer exploration game, I created an Exploration Track where players have to leverage their current supply of exploration tokens to bypass or deal with various challenges on the track before they can proceed to the next step on the track and thus be that much closer to their goal. However, since recovery of these exploration tokens is somewhat random, it is entirely possible to run out of resources before being able to make it to the next stage, and thus be forced to retreat. ((I'm REALLY glossing over a lot here))

5e D&D does not contain anything like this. I had to make this up from scratch. 5e D&D doesn't even contain any suggestions about how I would begin to create a system like this because 5e D&D does not have any real mechanics for dealing with extended situations.

 

[Hussar]

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".

And thus, the gate is quite clearly slammed shut and well kept.

Well done you.

 

[Hussar]

We could add optional rules for many, many things. There are several optional rules in the DMG now, I use some and ignore others. But we can't have every optional rule that some people might want.

It's as simple as that. Optional rules I won't use aren't the issue. Expecting optional rules for this particular option when a different set of desired optional rules will pop up in a different thread just isn't realistic.

Some options will always remain the domain of 3PP for those that want them. If your group is rejecting them, it's likely because they don't see a need and like the way the game works now.

Except that D&D used to have these rules, the rules functioned very well, but, because it interfered with the free form play crowd who apparently refuse to share the game with anyone else, we can't have these things in the game.

 

[Oofta]

Except that D&D used to have these rules, the rules functioned very well, but, because it interfered with the free form play crowd who apparently refuse to share the game with anyone else, we can't have these things in the game.

TSR published books without any clue whether or not they were profitable. Maybe that's one of the many reasons they went bankrupt.

 

[Hussar]

TSR published books without any clue whether or not they were profitable. Maybe that's one of the many reasons they went bankrupt.

Umm, why are you presuming TSR?

3e had pretty extensive skills. Considering that it was heavily influenced by Role Master, that's hardly surprising. Certainly far more extensive than 5e. Then you had stuff like the Affiliation rules in the PHB 2 - far more extensive than what we have in 5e for joining organizations. 4e had far more expansive skill systems than 5e. Even AD&D had a system for determining loyalty of NPC hirelings and henchmen. Heck, they actually HAD rules for hirelings and henchmen beyond simple price lists. Never minding rules for stronghold building and followers.

Then you have the domain management rules in BECMI.

And that's just off the top of my head.

In fact, 5e is about the only edition of D&D to NOT have extensive systems for dealing with stuff outside of combat.

Again, I'm not asking for this to be baked into the PHB. Not at all. But, it would be nice to actually have the OPTION of using more detailed systems than simply "well, if you want to do this, you're basically going to have to free form the entire thing. Good luck!"

For some reason you are insisting that no one must ever have the option. I suppose that does fall in line with the notion that absent mechanics supports free form better. Because, apparently, if given the choice, no one free forms. Almost as if free forming is the least popular play style. No one actually wants to free form, but, since the gatekeepers of the hobby won't allow any other choices to be added to the game, I guess free forming it is.

 

[Minigiant]

For an IP with many movies, D&D doesn't support Cinematic play well either.

There are no Action Hero, Legendary Gladiator, Master Spy. Dagger Master, Angel Summoner, Blood Mage, and Sorcerer Supreme,subclassses.

There's hero points but it pales to the cinematic power of cinematic action points.

The number of powerful McGuffin artifact magic items is low. Infinity gems or Chaos Emeralds.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You do realize that I have repeatedly stated that I want a more layered social system to be an optional module right? That that's all ANYONE has been asking for?

I have been saying the entire time optional rules are fine. Hussar I think if you take a more friendly approach here, you might win over more people.

 

[Oofta]

Umm, why are you presuming TSR?

3e had pretty extensive skills. Considering that it was heavily influenced by Role Master, that's hardly surprising. Certainly far more extensive than 5e. Then you had stuff like the Affiliation rules in the PHB 2 - far more extensive than what we have in 5e for joining organizations. 4e had far more expansive skill systems than 5e. Even AD&D had a system for determining loyalty of NPC hirelings and henchmen. Heck, they actually HAD rules for hirelings and henchmen beyond simple price lists. Never minding rules for stronghold building and followers.

Then you have the domain management rules in BECMI.

And that's just off the top of my head.

In fact, 5e is about the only edition of D&D to NOT have extensive systems for dealing with stuff outside of combat.

Again, I'm not asking for this to be baked into the PHB. Not at all. But, it would be nice to actually have the OPTION of using more detailed systems than simply "well, if you want to do this, you're basically going to have to free form the entire thing. Good luck!"

For some reason you are insisting that no one must ever have the option. I suppose that does fall in line with the notion that absent mechanics supports free form better. Because, apparently, if given the choice, no one free forms. Almost as if free forming is the least popular play style. No one actually wants to free form, but, since the gatekeepers of the hobby won't allow any other choices to be added to the game, I guess free forming it is.

Ah, I was thinking of TSR days because I happened to glance through th Wilderness Survival Guide the other day. One of the books I bought and then never really had a use for. At least I resisted buying The Complete Book of Woodchucks.

But flooding the market with books didn't exactly help the bottom line in 3.0 or 3.5 either.

Nowadays they leave it to 3PP and you have more options than ever if it's something you want and they can instead focus on their core competencies. I neither agree nor disagree with their business model, but it seems to be working last time I checked.

The list of options that they could provide isn't endless, but it is very large. It's also likely not particularly profitable and may even be detrimental because people can get overwhelmed with too many choices.

But it's not like I have any say in it, I just think it's a sound business decision.

 

[Hussar]

I have been saying the entire time optional rules are fine. Hussar I think if you take a more friendly approach here, you might win over more people.

I'm sorry but it's kinda hard to maintain a friendly, smiling background when I have to repeatedly state the same thing over and over again, and it STILL gets misinterpreted. I mean, we're just shy of a thousand posts into this thread, not a SINGLE POSTER has suggested, or even hinted, that adding additional mechanics into the core game is a goal, and yet... and yet, it's still being repeated that people want to change the core game. I mean, the post I quoted to respond to was specifically talking about changing the core game. And that's just shy of the 800th post in the thread.

So, you'll excuse me if I get a tad exasperated.

Maybe instead of chiding me for being less than friendly, perhaps you could take the people who insist on repeating the same mistaken interpretations over and over and over again to task?

 

[Oofta]

For an IP with many movies, D&D doesn't support Cinematic play well either.

There are no Action Hero, Legendary Gladiator, Master Spy. Dagger Master, Angel Summoner, Blood Mage, and Sorcerer Supreme,subclassses.

There's hero points but it pales to the cinematic power of cinematic action points.

The number of powerful McGuffin artifact magic items is low. Infinity gems or Chaos Emeralds.

So now you want options that make it almost a different game as well? That's fine, but just proves my point that even if more optional rules were provided there's always more.