D&D 5E "Gunners" and D&D- How do divergent playstyles mesh together?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

Care about the people you're playing with more than you care about the game. Everything else will fall into place.

 

[Blue]

To me, a happy table is one where the players and the DM are looking for the same style of game and find each other's company enjoyable.

For example, I know some people who are bored if there isn't combat happening, and others who are fine playing multiple sessions in a row with no combat and few die rolls. I know some who love intricate plots to unravel while others see that as just a context for their character development. I know some who like a no-nonsense black-and-while world where they can de-stress from real-life and others love shades of grey and morality. Those who want drama between characters and those who want it all focused towards what the DM is dishing out.

Now, there are other things outside the game - to me consistency, playing regularly, and long-running arcs instead of episodic play are parts of a happy table, but those aren't prerequisites for everyone.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

In my experience, the happiest of tables tend to be the ones that have a great time with each other even if the session they've showed up to play doesn't even happen.

I suspect the reason that this happens to be as [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] says, that the group of us around the table care more about each other - or at the very least having a fun evening - more than we care about the game.

As far as how to reach this state of being a happy table... as far as I can tell, the way is for the DM to run the game as if it were already being played by a happy table (kind of like that saying to dress for the job you want, not the one you have). In doing this, any opposition to reaching the point where the game being run finally actually is the one played by a happy table will start to stick out like a sore thumb - players looking for something else will start to complain that what they want isn't present, players not really fitting the group as a group of people will start being irritated by or be irritating to the other people, and so forth.

And in all cases, those pieces that start to show that they don't fit must be removed, because they aren't going to change themselves to fit no matter how badly someone might want them to.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Getting the balance of everyone’s different definitions of fun is indeed the trick. I think the DM and the players all need to care about everyone else’s fun at the table. As a DM, I need to recognize both the one that likes slaying monsters and the one that loves really role-playing their character. But the slayer needs to respect when the role-player is having their fun, and vice versa. No one likes it when a player gets bored and tries to sabotage someone else’s moment because they’re no longer in their particular fun zone.

And all at the same time, the players need to respect that the DM needs to be having fun as well.

It’s all about respect and friendship/camaraderie. And knowing when to take things seriously and when not to.

 

[Mercule]

So, as a topic of conversation- how does a table get to be a happy table? What is the happy medium of different people that you have experienced? Have you had, or seen, experiences when people with divergent playstyles were able to mesh together, and if so, how so?

I don't know that I can point to a specific incident about divergent play styles, but I've learned that a lot of the success of differing styles is up to the DM -- with all due apologies to those who don't like the DM being at the figurative head of the table.

I've had games with players who were combat-focused, hopeless at combat, (over-)actor wannabes, and never talks in character, all at the same time. Oh, yeah, there was also the guy who was there mainly to screw with other players. Keeping the ball moving appropriately is the key thing. Don't have NPCs address the OOC guy much -- not an issue because the "actor" will jump in, anyway. Add some combat, but have an escape hatch. That sort of thing. And the pot stirrer gets a certain amount of tolerance, but be ready to have a unifying encounter/event happen and/or prompt the other players to respond in character.

There's more to it, but I don't think I could create a list of bullet points. Maybe a book, but even that's doubtful. I think most DMs develop an instinct with experience.

The other common factor is that dogmatism has little room at the table. Sure, everyone has things that spoil the fun for them -- mine is tinker gnomes. Avoid things that grate on other players. At the same time, be willing to settle for "fun enough to be worth the time spent" rather than having to have the perfect game. First of all, you're not going to have the perfect game; go write a book if you want things to flow your way. Second, all that really matters is that you have more fun than you could have doing something else that's available for you to do (again, there is no perfect game).

For example, my current game is Princes of the Apocalypse set in Eberron. I typically prefer games with high character agency -- ultra-sandbox, if you will. PotA is somewhat sandbox, but it has definite bounds. The players want beer and pretzels, with low character depth to just relax after a 40 hour week. I'm having fun. Probably not as much fun as if I built a new, custom campaign setting around PCs with well defined goals. Still, that game, with people I've been friends with for 25 years is better than either trying to force my game on the others or sorting through the unknown potential players of various ages, interests, and levels of cleanliness in hopes of a match.