GMs: Do you enforce/encourage a certain style of play?

[Jorren]

By style of play, I’m talking primarily about how the players play their characters.

I’m referring to your primary D&D campaign (any edition, houseruled or not), not one-shots or the occasional short campaign that differs from your normal GM’ing style.

I’m also not referring to settings that have built in rules that affect style of play (such as Ravenloft), but your own GM-specific guidelines/rules.

1. No: I run the world and the players run their characters. Normal consequences for actions apply. The setting itself may encourage or discourage a certain style, but otherwise I don’t care how you play your character.

2. Somewhat: Small awards for role-playing, etc. or forbid disruptive things like intra-party combat.

3. Yes: I have significant and quantifiable rules that encourage/discourage a style of play. Playing against such conventions will put your character at a disadvantage.

4. Yes: I have specific guidelines noted in advance that strongly encourage a certain style of play. This style is stressed in all aspects of the game and the other players are encouraged to assist in enforcing this style. You will certainly not have fun in my game if you do not enjoy this style of play.

 

[Lanefan]

Probably, by osmosis more than anything else.

I like chaos sometimes verging on silliness as a player, and find it most entertaining to DM. So, my games are overall probably more chaotic than some.

I like tank fighters, so I probably encourage-by-default tank fighter types in my game; particularly those who charge first and ask questions...well, never.

I get bored as player or DM with lots of planning and too much cautiousness, so I probably set things up such that charging headlong as soon as possible is the "right answer" more often than random chance would dictate...

But I don't enforce much in terms of style or character, other than what the rules dictate...though I did once have to spend a long time explaining to one player why she couldn't have a Vampire join the party as her PC... :\

Lanefan

 

[Crothian]

I don't have a set of specific or even not specific guidelines or rules that are about play style. Some of the house rules I use does effect game style I imagine and the way I set up a campaign and run the sessions also has to effect the play style. I don't enforce things except when people start to really plkay in ways that are not what the group wants. For instaqnce I would enforce no player verse player fights, but since no one at the table ever does things like that there is no need to enforce it. I do encourage the players to try whatever they want and not be afraid of the rule or of tossing out the rules.

 

[Lorne]

To a limited extent, I do enforce a style of play, by not allowing evil player characters. I view D&D as a game of heroic fantasy, and playing a villain is anti-heroic in my opinion.

Besides, in my 22 years as a DM, I've never seen an evil PC played according to alignment - it's been my experience that a group that wants to play evil characters simply wants to avoid moral constraints in-game (being able to torture prisoners, endager innocents and kill everything that moves seem to be chief goals); but when they are faced with a challenge, they lapse into cooperating like a good-aligned party, even to the point of sacrificing themselves for each other. While I understand the 'Honor Among Thieves' concept, the players didn't engage in the jockeying for advantage and pawning off of risk one might expect from a group of evil folks. I envisioned DMing for an evil PC party rather like running Vampire or Paranoia, where characters work together in limited fashion out of necessity, but they are primarily watching their own backs, and everyone at the table knows it. The evil PC parties I've DMed for seemed to put on their 'evil suits' when a moral quandary would constrain them, and otherwise it was business as usual.

And even if the players did play true to alignment, I can't stomach spending an entire evening being a spectator as players try to steal/kill/rape/rob/poison/pillage/burn/assassinate - dwelling on thoughts like that for an entire evening isn't at all fun to me. I've tried it with a couple of different 'evil' gaming groups - even when they attain their objective, I found it hard to cheer for them.

That said, I also make a point to explain my stance on this issue (and it's pretty much the only hard-line I have) to new players, and they have the option to play in my game or not. If they choose not to, I don't take offense - I'm just not the style of game they're looking for.

Lorne

 

[Arrgh! Mark!]

Depends on the campaign.

To be honest, I work in punishments and rewards.

I punish: Deliberate breaking mood comments
Out of character/metagame discussion and thinking. (Hey Nick (player), go and disarm the trap that is bound to be there.)
behaviour in game. (Haven't had much of this, lost a disruptive force recently.)

I reward:
Roleplaying. (First roleplaying of the session 100xlevel xp. Particularly astute roleplaying. 200xlevel. (For each PC if possible.) Understanding the difference between player and character and showing this in game.

Skill. Combat should be seen as deadly. Some knowledge of tactics (or at least, D+D tactics) should be common knowledge to fighters. Charging headlong without preparation is dumb and gets even heroes killed.

Best Line award. 100xLevel for best line of the session.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I play different games for different styles of play. D&D to me is best as a more beer-and-pretzels game, since it has very little, if any, mechanical reward for playing it otherwise. Out of character comments, metagaming, breaking theme... honestly, I probably derive as much entertainment from this stuff as from actually playing the game.

There are some games where I enforce a more strict theme. Call of Cthulhu (either BRP or d20) does a pretty good job of setting mood, and I would go with that. Likewise, if I'm running a game based on an existing property, I'll want to use a system that encourages/manipulates players to the appropriate theme.

Of course, the first thing I'd do for a more thematically focused game is invite a carefully selected group of players who I was confident could pull it off and would be interested in doing so.

 

[Nyaricus]

I try to encourage more roleplaying in my games, and I make my campaigns have big plotlines and huge consequences that the players must step up to and meet.

In my current cmapaign, for example, I have a metaplot spanning several nations in southern Faerun, with the Sothillisian Empire (founded by Soth, an Ogre Mage spellcaster and his mate Cyr, an Ogre Mage warrior) taking over southern Amn, being supported in secret by the Church of Shar, opposed by the Amnish ruling body (the Council of Six, who have one of their own in Murann, the Amnish city which has been taken over by Soth) and the Church of Selune (who have a church in Murann and have launched a crusade to regain it, and who also have no idea that the Church of Shar is backing this new Empire). This all while House Extaminos in Hlondeth is backing the Sothillisian by crafting a portal to trade poisons and scaly-kind warbeasts with Soth and have paid off a lizardfolk in the Wetwoods to attack Ormath, a trading hub which is friendly with Amn - all so they can cut off Amn from overland trade, which Amn was well-known for even prior to the Maztican Expedition.

Basically, there is a lot happening, and I encourage my players to step up to the challenge, which they are doing so fairly well; for many of them this type of cmapaign is a change of pace, or seomthing which they have never expienced before in gaming, which is a Good Thing, IMO.

cheers,
--N

 

[arscott]

My campaign encourages a certain playstyle, but not via any sort of houserules.

All of the characters in my game work for a specific organization, so the playstyle is influenced by the expectations of the organization, and by the missions it assigns the characters to.

 

[Rothe]

Probably 1.5, pretty free form; but no evil PCs and no intra-party ackstabbing unless the two players involved are both into it. But neither has come up in decades, it heroic swords & socercy fantasy for us.

I give xp rewads for "role playing," taking on extra danger (e.g. taking point) etc. I let the player define "role-playing" more than me. If they are into combat, coming up with cool/inspired tactical plans and moves gets a reward. If they are into social aspects, the interacting with NPCs gets a reward. It's pretty easy to tell what a player is into so you really are just rewarding them for getting into the game.

 

[Herzog]

I don't enforce any kind of playstyle, or even reward a specific style.

However, my players tend to do it for me

I have had one or two players try out my campaign, and then quit because the style didn't appeal to them.

The people I DM for tend to take their roleplaying very seriously. I even got a slap on the wrist of them once, when they had spent a good part of a session talking to eachother and a newly introduced character, whithout any participation on my part.
When I wanted to get to the adventure I had planned, and tried to wrap things up, they announced they weren't finished yet!

Since I had nothing but enjoyed the in-character conversation so far, I apologised, set back, and enjoyed the view.


The only encouragement on my part I can think of is my tendency to 'bend the rules' in favor of the players when they have come up with a particularly inventive solution to a problem I have given them which, by the RAW, wouldn't work because of some minor detail in a spell description or something.

Herzog