Sword of Spirit
Legend
So in my constant attempt to understand people who are wrong (er, I mean people with different opinions than me), I think I may have determined some basic focus elements that help shape preferred playstyles.
Setting aside the consideration of "group of friends having fun" (because I know it will be brought up, and I think it is overused and under-informed), I think there are a variety of different play entities, and that any particular play experience is going to (generally unconsciously) involve ranking them. If the GM ranks them differently than the players, it might be an issue. When people rank them differently than others without understanding the rankings, forum debates will follow.
So here are some thoughts on these entities, and how the focus ranking should affect playstyle.
Setting. This is the world in general, disconnected from any particular party. For instance, if a DM always ran the Forgotten Realms according to (their best attempt at) official canon, that would be a setting entity.
Campaign. This is the overarching story created by the actions of the group, including any intended elements or themes of the campaign, even if they haven't yet occurred. Basically, the artistic intent behind it.
Party. This is the characters viewed as a single entity, a group, rather than a collection of individuals. Your own superhero team or such.
Character. This is the characters taken as individuals, like typical protagonists in a novel, where the story is often viewed as a vehicle for expressing their development.
Which order you rank these in has a huge affect on play assumptions.
For instance a Character Core play experience places the individual character first and foremost. In this style, if the group is viewed as an entity at all, its identity is definitely subordinate to the individuals in it. Players expressing exactly what they want to express through their characters is more important than a party that fits well together either thematically or mechanically. The campaign is assumed to be designed around the characters. with the themes or intended plot points being informed by the character creation choices. Characters are created first, then campaign. The setting is just a backdrop for the story being created (which in turn is an avenue for character expression), so it is extremely mutable to the needs of the characters--and might not even be decided upon until after everything else is nailed down. For instance, the GM might say he has an idea for a top-secret group of government agents fighting an alien invasion in a very near future earth-like setting. Then the group gets together to make characters. Players start bringing up character ideas they've previously had, and some of them aren't really supporting the story concept or implied setting well. Since the characters come first, with the group and campaign second, and the setting last, the final play experience ends up being about a hard-bitten mercenary, a confused apprentice magician, a young psychic of prophecied importance, and a teenage vampire, who somehow end up working together to stay alive in a mishmashed fantasy/sci-fi setting being invaded by reality raiders who are a cross between vikings and pirates with steampunk gear and elephant heads.
It doesn't have to be that bizarre of course.
If you take the opposite angle and have a Setting Set experience, the setting is more important than anything else. In this style, the setting is much like a shared universe (even if it's only one GM's universe), and many different campaigns can take place within it. Due to this, it must retain its integrity, and any additions need to fit well with theme and precedent. If we assume that campaign comes next (doesn't have to, by the way) the campaign is going to conform to the setting and allow exploration of it, as well as provide a framework for a party of characters. The party needs to fit the campaign, regardless of which is envisioned first, and the characters will fit together into such a party. Individual characters are made to fit within those parameters. A good example would be a defined campaign in a Star Wars RPG. The experience only feels right if the canon is respected, the campaign feels thematically appropriate, the group makes some sort of sense, and the characters fit well within all of those constructs.
You could also focus on Campaign Concept, where you envision a story and everything else is in support of that. Characters are created to fill roles in the intended plot, a setting is chosen which seems most conducive to that storyline, and how much of a party is present is dependent on what best fits the storyline. For instance, maybe you want a mystery involving a lost heir and her secret enemies. You might end up with one character as the heir, or she could be an NPC. Other characters could be friends--with one of them actually an enemy (unbeknownst to everyone else). The setting isn't terribly important (fantasy, scifi, modern, it doesn't really matter), but a general mood is important, so some setting concepts work and some don't. It is decided that there will be a lot of character mobility in the world, and there isn't much of a party as such--some friends are often with the heir, but that's as close as it gets.
Party Priority focus would be similar to campaign focus, except that it's the party that matters. Maybe you are a group of superheroes with a specific name and goal. Everything else is negotiable.
So my thought is that if you are coming exclusively (or nearly so) from one of these focuses, a playstyle based on a different focus might be nearly incomprehensible to you. You might see those with other focuses as domineering GMs, or entitled players, or unfocused gimmicks, or arbitrary design.
I think it's useful to spell out these sorts of things. It's a lot easier to accept others when you understand where they are coming from. And just maybe, if you understand you might be inspired to try a different type of playstyle and expand your repertoire.
(I'm hyper-eclectic in my role-playing, so I can enjoy pretty much any of those. I tend to be a defender of the Setting Set style of play in D&D in particular because I feel like it has become a unjustly disfavored outcast in the last several years, while I tend more towards Party Priority outside of D&D. I'm not very experienced with Campign Concept because I am a world designer before a story-writer, so stories usually pop into existence after worlds in my mind. I'm not as enthused about Character Core because myself and the GMs I know tend to already have a setting and campaign in mind before we present a pitch to our players. If we tended to get together without an existing plan to brainstorm something up, Character Core would make a lot more sense.)
Setting aside the consideration of "group of friends having fun" (because I know it will be brought up, and I think it is overused and under-informed), I think there are a variety of different play entities, and that any particular play experience is going to (generally unconsciously) involve ranking them. If the GM ranks them differently than the players, it might be an issue. When people rank them differently than others without understanding the rankings, forum debates will follow.
So here are some thoughts on these entities, and how the focus ranking should affect playstyle.
Setting. This is the world in general, disconnected from any particular party. For instance, if a DM always ran the Forgotten Realms according to (their best attempt at) official canon, that would be a setting entity.
Campaign. This is the overarching story created by the actions of the group, including any intended elements or themes of the campaign, even if they haven't yet occurred. Basically, the artistic intent behind it.
Party. This is the characters viewed as a single entity, a group, rather than a collection of individuals. Your own superhero team or such.
Character. This is the characters taken as individuals, like typical protagonists in a novel, where the story is often viewed as a vehicle for expressing their development.
Which order you rank these in has a huge affect on play assumptions.
For instance a Character Core play experience places the individual character first and foremost. In this style, if the group is viewed as an entity at all, its identity is definitely subordinate to the individuals in it. Players expressing exactly what they want to express through their characters is more important than a party that fits well together either thematically or mechanically. The campaign is assumed to be designed around the characters. with the themes or intended plot points being informed by the character creation choices. Characters are created first, then campaign. The setting is just a backdrop for the story being created (which in turn is an avenue for character expression), so it is extremely mutable to the needs of the characters--and might not even be decided upon until after everything else is nailed down. For instance, the GM might say he has an idea for a top-secret group of government agents fighting an alien invasion in a very near future earth-like setting. Then the group gets together to make characters. Players start bringing up character ideas they've previously had, and some of them aren't really supporting the story concept or implied setting well. Since the characters come first, with the group and campaign second, and the setting last, the final play experience ends up being about a hard-bitten mercenary, a confused apprentice magician, a young psychic of prophecied importance, and a teenage vampire, who somehow end up working together to stay alive in a mishmashed fantasy/sci-fi setting being invaded by reality raiders who are a cross between vikings and pirates with steampunk gear and elephant heads.
It doesn't have to be that bizarre of course.
If you take the opposite angle and have a Setting Set experience, the setting is more important than anything else. In this style, the setting is much like a shared universe (even if it's only one GM's universe), and many different campaigns can take place within it. Due to this, it must retain its integrity, and any additions need to fit well with theme and precedent. If we assume that campaign comes next (doesn't have to, by the way) the campaign is going to conform to the setting and allow exploration of it, as well as provide a framework for a party of characters. The party needs to fit the campaign, regardless of which is envisioned first, and the characters will fit together into such a party. Individual characters are made to fit within those parameters. A good example would be a defined campaign in a Star Wars RPG. The experience only feels right if the canon is respected, the campaign feels thematically appropriate, the group makes some sort of sense, and the characters fit well within all of those constructs.
You could also focus on Campaign Concept, where you envision a story and everything else is in support of that. Characters are created to fill roles in the intended plot, a setting is chosen which seems most conducive to that storyline, and how much of a party is present is dependent on what best fits the storyline. For instance, maybe you want a mystery involving a lost heir and her secret enemies. You might end up with one character as the heir, or she could be an NPC. Other characters could be friends--with one of them actually an enemy (unbeknownst to everyone else). The setting isn't terribly important (fantasy, scifi, modern, it doesn't really matter), but a general mood is important, so some setting concepts work and some don't. It is decided that there will be a lot of character mobility in the world, and there isn't much of a party as such--some friends are often with the heir, but that's as close as it gets.
Party Priority focus would be similar to campaign focus, except that it's the party that matters. Maybe you are a group of superheroes with a specific name and goal. Everything else is negotiable.
So my thought is that if you are coming exclusively (or nearly so) from one of these focuses, a playstyle based on a different focus might be nearly incomprehensible to you. You might see those with other focuses as domineering GMs, or entitled players, or unfocused gimmicks, or arbitrary design.
I think it's useful to spell out these sorts of things. It's a lot easier to accept others when you understand where they are coming from. And just maybe, if you understand you might be inspired to try a different type of playstyle and expand your repertoire.
(I'm hyper-eclectic in my role-playing, so I can enjoy pretty much any of those. I tend to be a defender of the Setting Set style of play in D&D in particular because I feel like it has become a unjustly disfavored outcast in the last several years, while I tend more towards Party Priority outside of D&D. I'm not very experienced with Campign Concept because I am a world designer before a story-writer, so stories usually pop into existence after worlds in my mind. I'm not as enthused about Character Core because myself and the GMs I know tend to already have a setting and campaign in mind before we present a pitch to our players. If we tended to get together without an existing plan to brainstorm something up, Character Core would make a lot more sense.)
