D&D 5E Preferred DM vs PC game type.

[robus]

And here I thought we were going to be talking about about adversarial DM vs PC battle royale games

I've only played in one game and it kind of petered out, so I've mostly DM'd and now, while I would like a chance to play again, I'm not sure I'd be happy in that role. I want to run (and potentially play in) thematically tight games. I've come to dislike the "kitchen sink" approach of FR. I want a small set of playable races and I want an unexplored setting to tackle. FR is too Disneyworld/Epcot-esque for my taste and far too well trodden. If I played, I'd be happy to play any role, but I'd probably be best as some kind of bard/lovable rogue type character as I can't help but try some witty repartee.

 

[Charlaquin]

As a player, I really enjoy games where the PCs aren’t assumed to be allies working as a cohesive unit. I tend to get bored with “never split the party,” and much perfer when everyone has their own individual motivations and work together when it’s convent to do so, but aren’t bound to the group. I like when the spotlight swings around from one character or small set of characters to another rapidly, rather than trying to keep it on the whole party at once at all times. In theory I like the idea of DMing games where that’s the case top, but in practice I’ve very rarely had it work out well, to the point that I now generally tell players that their characters should already know each other when play starts.

 

[iserith]

And here I thought we were going to be talking about about adversarial DM vs PC battle royale games

I've only played in one game and it kind of petered out, so I've mostly DM'd and now, while I would like a chance to play again, I'm not sure I'd be happy in that role. I want to run (and potentially play in) thematically tight games. I've come to dislike the "kitchen sink" approach of FR. I want a small set of playable races and I want an unexplored setting to tackle. FR is too Disneyworld/Epcot-esque for my taste and far too well trodden. If I played, I'd be happy to play any role, but I'd probably be best as some kind of bard/lovable rogue type character as I can't help but try some witty repartee.

The games I run tend to be tight thematically. I really give thought to the play experience and try to point all character creation options, variants, and house rules at that theme so that it self-reinforces during play. If you're in my Eberron game, it's Eberron AS ALL HELL! (Or Vikings... AS ALL HELL!)

As a player, I really enjoy games where the PCs aren’t assumed to be allies working as a cohesive unit. I tend to get bored with “never split the party,” and much perfer when everyone has their own individual motivations and work together when it’s convent to do so, but aren’t bound to the group. I like when the spotlight swings around from one character or small set of characters to another rapidly, rather than trying to keep it on the whole party at once at all times. In theory I like the idea of DMing games where that’s the case top, but in practice I’ve very rarely had it work out well, to the point that I now generally tell players that their characters should already know each other when play starts.

That sort of thing slows down the game way too much for my tastes. "Everybody knows everybody and trusts each other enough to go on dangerous adventures together." And off we go!

 

[Charlaquin]

That sort of thing slows down the game way too much for my tastes. "Everybody knows everybody and trusts each other enough to go on dangerous adventures together." And off we go!

I agree! ...when I’m DMing. But as a player, I very much enjoy it.

 

[Immortal Sun]

I design and prefer to play games that are goal-oriented. I don't even really care if they're railroads if you can keep me interested. What I absolutely can't stand are "pure sandboxes" where the DM just dumps you in a world and gives you no direction at all, and players who prefer to kick about doing nothing at all in the woods rather than go on cool adventures. I live in Wyoming, I can kick around in the woods any day of the week. What I can't do is fight dragons, save princesses and go on plane-hopping adventures.

 

[iserith]

I design and prefer to play games that are goal-oriented. I don't even really care if they're railroads if you can keep me interested. What I absolutely can't stand are "pure sandboxes" where the DM just dumps you in a world and gives you no direction at all, and players who prefer to kick about doing nothing at all in the woods rather than go on cool adventures. I live in Wyoming, I can kick around in the woods any day of the week. What I can't do is fight dragons, save princesses and go on plane-hopping adventures.

Who has time for boldly confronting deadly perils when there are all those quirky, cagey NPCs in the tavern to talk to all night?

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

A lot of the DMs I talk to say this:

"I'd love to play in an >>XYZ campaign<< but, sadly, I never get to play so I might as well run one."

And if a DM is interested in XYZ, they will likely find more satisfaction running something they're interested in.

For myself, I'm the same way but I tend to be flexible to fit the Players needs/desires. So, I really like gritty or dangerous campaigns but my players might want something more light. I'll run something lighter but occasionally add something horrifying or, maybe have an adventure that's more serious to satiate my own needs.

 

[generic]

Preferred DM type: A serious, somewhat realistic (in game, obviously) campaign. Pragmatic and Heroic fantasy seem to work best, but any campaign type is fine as long as it's not just a series of joke adventures.

Preferred Player Type: A serious, engaging campaign with a challenging story, moral conflicts, and the opportunity to affect the world.

 

[Charlaquin]

I design and prefer to play games that are goal-oriented. I don't even really care if they're railroads if you can keep me interested. What I absolutely can't stand are "pure sandboxes" where the DM just dumps you in a world and gives you no direction at all, and players who prefer to kick about doing nothing at all in the woods rather than go on cool adventures. I live in Wyoming, I can kick around in the woods any day of the week. What I can't do is fight dragons, save princesses and go on plane-hopping adventures.

Agreed! I am not a fan of “find the fun” games. Open structure adventures, where there are interesting things to do that you can tackle in any order and pace you want can be great, but “pure sandboxes” are an absolute bore to me.

 

[Myzzrym]

I love DM'ing for players that get invested in their character. Extra points of course if they start feeling for NPCs or start caring deeply about the story, but I find it most difficult to DM for players who don't feel attached to their own character.

After that? I run whatever I see my players like the most. Some like building up their story, others like a good fight, some are more intrigued by the world around them. As long as there's a red line to push them along so they don't end up getting bored wandering around aimlessly.