What does "Support" for a play style mean to you?

[Ahnehnois]

I answered the first one, as did most, and the ones about optional rules and DM modification.

To me, a style is an aspect of the group, not the individual. Thus, I didn't think the one about others at the same table made sense. If everyone isn't on the same page, the game is not going well.

I also don't particularly see the "encouraged/discouraged" angle. To me, a game system is a set of tools, one that should be neutral as to what style is supported.

I don't care at all about the RAW since I always houserule every system I run, usually extensively.

Which means that the system needs to present plenty of options and be highly transparent and easy to houserule. (I think "transparency" is an important idea; the sense that someone who reads the books understands what the basis for each rules element is: why one ability deals more damage than the other, or why a particular monster has the hit point value that it does, etc.).

3e, 2e, the other OGL systems, and a variety of other games work for me by these criteria.
There are really very few rpg systems that don't.

 

[Manbearcat]

The tools to deliver upon these expectations:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...326742-dms-expectations-next.html#post5973657

 

[Elf Witch]

I want a game that has options that let me slide things in or take things out easily.

Sometimes I want a low magic more gritty game other times a more superhero high magic game. It would be nice if the game supported both equally through the use of options.

I also prefer more DM fixes rather than mechanical fixes for a lot of the issues that seem to crop up.

I would rather choose how to handle the 15 minute work day, powergaming, wizards myself rather than be told how to handle it by plethora of new rules.

 

[El Mahdi]

I chose:

• The game works smoothly when I play it in my prefered style.
• Others can play in their styles at the same table without getting in the way of my style.
• Optional rules allow me, as a player, to customize it to better fit the style in which I play.
• Optional rules allow me, as a DM, to customize it to encourage the style I prefer my players to use.
• The rules-light system lets me as a DM, impose a style by adding/modifying rules on the fly.
• The system is open to modification, by the DM, to support a style in one or more of the above ways.

I feel that if the game is designed with the above considerations, then this:

• The game mechanically rewards my play style.

...will be an automatic result. All major playstyles will be mechanically rewarded, as they should be.


However, I feel that these options:

• The game mechanically discourages play styles I dislike.
• Playing the game by the rules-as-written naturally leads to playing it in the style I prefer.

...are selfish, mean-spirited, and completely unreasonabale - though I do give those that picked them points for honesty.

If the game is designed to acede to a vocal minority, or even a popular majority, with the intent to fulfill these two preferences - then D&D Next will ultimately and eventually fail. These two preferences are complete anathema to being a Unifying edition, and would spell doom for WotC's goals for making it so.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Many of my playstyle components vary from campaign to campaign. A few of them even vary session to session, as my rotating cast of players has different preferences. So active support from game elements is nice when I can get it, and there is a certain minimum needed there, lest I be better off choosing another game. But mainly I want options--which means as much as possible no playstyle assumptions embedded into the framework around which the game is built.

Then after that, as I said elsewhere, I want the game to do what it says it does. No more, no less. If it says it supports A and B playstyles, which I know full well are mutually incompatible under certain circumstances, then I darn well expect there to be clear options for A and B, called out as such, and working to produce those styles at least a little. This is in contrast to, say, a mushed together mechanic with some vague language that you could take to be either A or B, with the strong implication that the DM will take this mushy stuff and stick it into holes to cover up problems. I can do better than that by myself, provided that I don't have to shovel all the manure out of the way first to find the darn structure--if any even exists.

Supporting a playstyle means having the courage to actually support it. Supporting multiple playstyles means also having the courage to tell people that this part of the game over here isn't for them. They should use that part over there, instead. You can't display such courage if you aren't clear in your own mind about the nature of the stuff over here and over there.

If followed, this means that some pieces of some playstyles--and in some cases whole playstyles--won't be supported, and there won't be any doubt. For me, that means that I'll respect the game more, and buy it to run when the pieces are there work for me. If it claims to do something it doesn't, OTOH, I find that I buy a little of it (if otherwise good), shed the manure, and then go off on my own with it. So even in the latter stages, "support" means "does what it says it does."

BTW, whatever else people may like or dislike about him, I think Monte Cook did a very good job of this with his Malhovic products. I didn't want half of them, but it was always crystal clear which ones I did and didn't want, even before release.

 

[JasonZZ]

Other: I don't have to rewrite substantial parts of the mechanics to play in my style, but only tweak a few settings.

EG: I greatly dislike alignment, and would like to be able to safely ignore it without having to rewrite clerics and paladins. That implies that either there are multiple versions of those characters (with and without alignment) or that they are written without using alignment in a mechanical sense.

 

[Hussar]

Playing the game by the rules-as-written naturally leads to playing it in the style I prefer.

...are selfish, mean-spirited, and completely unreasonabale - though I do give those that picked them points for honesty.

Well, as someone who chose this option, I wouldn't say it is mean spirited at all. After all, it's just a rehash of the first option just from the other direction. If the game works smoothly when you play by your style, then obviously that game has been written with your play style in mind.

I've spent years playing D&D when D&D wasn't really written with my playstyle in mind, so, I have some experience with changing D&D quite a lot in order to conform with what I want out of it. Of course, sometimes I just caved in and played the way the rules were pushing me and I had a good time then too. OTOH, 4e is fairly expressly written for a different play style than 3e, and it suits my game better.

Given the rather large amount of games out there, why wouldn't you play a game that was written with your playstyle in mind? Isn't that the whole point of things like the OSR and the Indie games movements?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, as someone who chose this option, I wouldn't say it is mean spirited at all. After all, it's just a rehash of the first option just from the other direction. If the game works smoothly when you play by your style, then obviously that game has been written with your play style in mind.

That's definitely not how I intended the first option. I meant it to be fairly neutral, and I think most people got that, which is why it's been so popular. The game runs smoothly with your play style /just/ means that, not that it doesn't run smoothly with others, not that it does, just that it works with yours. The 'RAW leads to my play style' is a more extreme meaning of 'support,' as it's quite exclusive, implying that a game can generally only "support" one play style.

The second option is more inclusive, acknowledging that you can have more than one style at the same table - and, you'll notice, it's not so popular.

This is the kind of thing I was wanting to understand about what people mean by "support" - is support an exclusive thing? Does supporting one style preclude supporting others? Or is support non-destructive, allowing a single system to support multiple styles?


A related question is whether there are some styles that are naturally exclusive, that can't be simultaneously supported?

 

[Kavon]

I selected several of the options given.

I would prefer the base of the game to be simple, so that it allows people to add their prefered modules onto it without problems.

The module-less base, as is, will most likely be only preferable for a select few. As long as the modules given in the core rulesbooks allow for all the most prevalent playstyles, it should sort itself out.

I would also like it if the players can choose their own way of doing things, within the same group, without interfering with each other's playstyles.

That said, I would also like the DM to be able to reign this in if the campaign world only allows for certain things (though I think this is something that doesn't really have to be spelled out so explicitly - this has always been true, after all).


At the end of the day, my prefered playstyle is not the most important one, and neither is yours. As long as we both can get out of it what we want, there should be no problem, right?

 

[delericho]

To me, supporting a playstyle means that the game includes rules that make that playstyle easier to accomplish while also not including rules that make it more difficult.

For example, although it is possible to play "theatre of the mind" combats in both 3e and 4e, neither truly supports that playstyle because neither has rules to make it easier, while both include rules (AoOs, lots of forced movement powers) that make it harder.

I don't really care if the "rules to make it easier" come in the Core or in supplements. Neither do I really care about where the "rules that make it harder" appear - what matters is how hard they are to remove from the game.

And, finally, I don't care what other playstyles the game also supports, either in the Core or in supplements. If I can play in the style I want, I'm happy; if not, then it's not the game for me.

(IMO, a game that neither helps nor hinders a given style doesn't really 'support' that style - it's Neutral!)