Will you mix playstyles?

[Dannyalcatraz]

As always, I'll take a wait-and-see attitude on the next edition, and if I'm surprised, I'll be surprised.

 

[Quickleaf]

As always, I'll take a wait-and-see attitude on the next edition, and if I'm surprised, I'll be surprised.

Surprise!!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Just thinking about the games I'm part of right now I think we mix styles quite a bit.

My buddy is running us thru a 4e conversion of the B series, with some of the conversion done on the fly, and it feels more 1e than anything. Lots of old school jokes, sandboxy, he's modified monsters so fights are faster, strange treasure, and yet there's some new school stuff - style points, tactical combat, 4e psionics and powers. Fortunately, I embraced the old school feel he's going for and choose to play an essentials knight.

I'm running a 4e Planescape game with a blend of cosmologies, balance between combat-roleplay-exploration, also sandboxy but with a strong framing story. Some of the fights are quickies (and a few dont even use a grid) but I also have some real nastily elites and solos. I encourage out of the box thinking, and clever improvised actions are usually better than whatever powers the PCs have. The party resembles a 3e smorgasbord and there's lots of tweaks the PCs can get during adventure.

So if I can do that much now, then sure 5e can facilitate it even better!

 

[tlantl]

It won't be different rules.

If there are three different ways of building a fighter then they are different rules.

 

[Charleois]

I think that the thing about DDN that will most likely and most explosively blow up in WotC's face upon launch is the claim that you will be able to mix playstyles in one group, not just from a mechanical perspective but from the perspective that all will have a satisfying experience at the table.

It's just not possible.

I strongly disagree. Grognards and Fourthers already play together across the world. Nowadays I play with a gaming group of about a dozen people who all have very different preferences in roleplaying games and styles. Nonetheless we can easily enjoy the same table because we all love the most important things about roleplaying games.

However we all must take turns suffering through this or that system which some of us really do not enjoy. The Fifth Edition will hopefully allow us to all play characters which more closely resemble what we like and all in the same game.

Since we already can play together and see the good in each other's systems, I am sure that a system explicitly designed to include the good from different systems can be very successful.

 

[Charleois]

I already do in my homebrew.
One player player a 1st edition human swordsaint. The other player plays a 2nd edition changeling wizard.

But I'd love to play a game with mixed styles.

A 1e style wizard who is just hit points and spell slots.

A 2e style rogue who gets a few skills, a few hit points, and a mean sneak attack.

A 3rd edition barbarian with daily rages, skill points, and a strong regular melee attack

A 4th edition style cleric 3 trained skills, 2 at will divine attacks, an encounter healing move, and a daily super attack.

Wow! I want to play in that game!

 

[Yora]

As always, I will tell my players what things are permited and which are not.

 

[Minigiant]

If there are three different ways of building a fighter then they are different rules.

They don't have to be.

For example, I suggested a fighter that relies on stances. Every X levels they'd get a stance.

Want to play a 1E/Basic style fighter? Take Bear Stance for + level damage, Fox Stance for + level AC, and the Multi Stance feat. Your fighter now just attacks and takes damage.

Want to play a 3E style melee fighter? Take Hurricane Stance for multiple attacks, Lion Stance for mobility while moving, and the Power Attack feat. Your fighter now attack a whole bunch and move while doing it.

Want to play a 4E style melee fighter? Take Blizzard Stance to stop enemies when you hit them, Eagle Stance for a mark like ability, and Brutal Strike feat for a daily attack. There goes your defender.

Wow! I want to play in that game!

I do too.

 

[Tallifer]

I strongly disagree. Grognards and Fourthers already play together across the world. Nowadays I play with a gaming group of about a dozen people who all have very different preferences in roleplaying games and styles. Nonetheless we can easily enjoy the same table because we all love the most important things about roleplaying games.

However we all must take turns suffering through this or that system which some of us really do not enjoy. The Fifth Edition will hopefully allow us to all play characters which more closely resemble what we like and all in the same game.

Since we already can play together and see the good in each other's systems, I am sure that a system explicitly designed to include the good from different systems can be very successful.

I feel the same way. Being in Korea, there is not a large pool of gamers from which to choose. So all of us have to play in games which we enjoy but which also fail to satisfy everyone. Many of us in our group here are excited by the prospects of an edition which will accommodate Old School, AD&D, Pathfinder and Fourth at the same table.

 

[El Mahdi]

I will absolutely mix playstyles.

I believe that, as far as the game, WotC and I have the same goal: To provide a fun and worthwhile game experience to everyone at my table.

If the rules work well enough to do this (and I have faith they'll pull this off, unlike the continued default pessimism of the OP and others), I absulutely will be taking advantage of that feature of the rules.

 

[Mallus]

I strongly disagree. Grognards and Fourthers already play together across the world. Nowadays I play with a gaming group of about a dozen people who all have very different preferences in roleplaying games and styles. Nonetheless we can easily enjoy the same table because we all love the most important things about roleplaying games.

You mean there are other reasonable people playing D&D, besides me and my friends? This is excellent news!

We should pipe up more often, the partisans tend to over-represent themselves...