What's your style?

[Arilyn]

With so many rpgs out there now, it's hard to find time to try all the ones I want. The hobby covers a large spectrum from the retro-clones to story-telling games like Universalis. I dabble across the whole spectrum. FATE is one of my favourites, but I also enjoy Firefly, 13th Age and have One Ring waiting in the wings. Right now, we are doing Lamentations of the Flame Princess. On the other end, I really want to try Universalis and games like it. What are your preferences? Do you like one game and stick to it? A wide variety? Do you stay with one style or do you enjoy shaking things up?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'll try any game that treats the PCs as real people rather than as protagonists in some sort of story.

I will not tolerate a game which discriminates against NPCs merely on the grounds that they don't exist, because they are also individuals who are exactly as real as the PCs.

 

[Balesir]

I like to try all sorts of styles and aims in RPGs. One of the greatest wonders of the RPG hobby, to my mind, is the sheer scope of what can be done with it - the range of experiences it can conjure.

 

[Arilyn]

I like to try all sorts of styles and aims in RPGs. One of the greatest wonders of the RPG hobby, to my mind, is the sheer scope of what can be done with it - the range of experiences it can conjure.

Yes, me too. Unfortunately, too many games, not enough time.

 

[JeffB]

I tend to prefer the extremes: seriously old stuff from my youth, Od&d, traveller, rq2, mspe, CoC, retroclones like ASSH or S&W, etc,

or more modern story/narrative rules light games.. dungeon world is my current fave, and I prefer things like 13th age over any WOTC versions of D&D.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I don't like "mook" rules, even in genres where it makes sense. Sorry, but just wiping the floor of the help because "you're that good" doesn't add anything to the dynamic.

 

[CapnZapp]

5th edition doesn't need Mook rules though.

Just about any low-level creature works well as a "Mook" in that it goes down in a single round's worth of attack (often a single attack), and just about any area effect wipes them out in droves.

So that's good

 

[Jhaelen]

I prefer to alternate playing combat-heavy, tactical games (D&D 4e), and storytelling games with lots of roleplaying (Ars Magica). If I've played either style for too long I get twitchy. I need the balance.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'll try any game that treats the PCs as real people rather than as protagonists in some sort of story.

I will not tolerate a game which discriminates against NPCs merely on the grounds that they don't exist, because they are also individuals who are exactly as real as the PCs.

So tell me, how is a GM'd game acceptable at all? After all the single biggest strength any character can possibly have is someone advocating for them - and PCs get one player per PC while NPCs have to split the time of the GM.

And for myself I'll try anything with a good GM that plays at a decent pace.

 

[Celebrim]

As a player, I don't have a style per se.

I compare preferences for RPGs to preferences for foods. I like mine diverse, spicy, and varied even within a single meal. As a player or consumer of RPGs, I don't care that much about the style provided the game is well done. Just as I can't say if I prefer Thai to Venezuelan, or Indian to Italian, so to I can't say whether I prefer tactical games to more story oriented games, or games which are primarily about exploration of setting over games primarily about exploration of character. Can the GM deliver on a fun experience is all I really care about.

As a preparer of RPGs, I prefer games that play to my strengths as a GM and - as I've learned over the years - cater correctly to groups of the size I currently have. The sort of game which you play with 6-8 players at the table is a very different one that you play with just 1-2 players at the table. I think my strengths as a GM are verisimilitude, strong NPC characterization, strong rules smithing skills, and a sense of fairness. This favors games with a strong setting exploration emphasis. My biggest problem is pacing. It's not that I can't generate stories through a natural process approach, it's that stories created in this manner often develop and unfold rather slowly just as they do in life.

Games which address issues of pacing and story creation overtly I find myself continually fighting with the system. They just aren't comfortable for me. I attribute that in part to my natural skill set and in part to having been mentored on my current techniques but never really having had much experience in a "story first" sort of system with a skilled GM. For example, I know I can't run a game like Paranoia well, having tried and failed to do so. I'm fairly sure I'd have trouble with a system like Prime Time Adventures or Spirit of the Century.

My biggest bias is that I believe their is a very direct relationship between preparation time and quality of GMing. I believe this because I see it in myself, and because every GM that has claimed to me otherwise has had a 100% failure rate, where as every GM that poured their soul into their preparation has - even if they have glaring deficiencies in their skill sets - nonetheless ran very enjoyable games indeed. Thus I have no respect (at present) for any system that encourages improvisation or "no myth", and no respect for any GM that claims to play that way. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong, but I'm not going to go out of my way to see it happen at this point.