How much is "play style" controlled by the GM vs. the Players themselves?

[innerdude]

I've been reflecting recenctly on my history with RPGs, and I have come to the realization that regardless of my age, rule system, or group I have played with, I have noticed that I have a consistent pattern of how I like to play the game. I'm very heavy on the character-driven, story-type campaigns, where the characters make meaningful decisions that affect the broader "world." I'm also fairly combat-aversive, meaning that the most "fun" parts of the D&D/RPG experience to me are interacting with the world, the NPCs and the other PCs. I don't mind combat, per se, but given the choice, I'll take a fun, innovative, party-led plan that avoids combat entirely (and achieves the greater goal) over "hack 'n slash" every time. Regardless of rule systems, I generally find combat to be "filler" while I plan my next fun role-playing encounter with "that NPC over there." After about 3 rounds of combat I'm thinking, "Is this done yet? I want to go talk to that guy!"

Now, I only mention this because it brought up an intriguing question to me, which was: "Have I been having experiences that meet this expectation because the GM has prepped to have those types of experiences--or have I been having those experiences because in small, subtle ways I've sort of 'imposed' my playstyle on the group as we played?"

In other words, how much of what we "enjoy" from an RPG experience is what I bring to the table, and how much of it is external factors, like the personalities of the other players, the system, the GM, or the overall "vibe" of the group dynamic?

In other words--to what extent do our own desires for a specific "play experience" become self-fulfilling? And how? Obviously, if the GM "preps" for various play styles that's a big factor, but even if an encounter/campaign hasn't been totally "tailored" to our expectations, how does our desire to play a certain "style" manifest itself in our games?

 

[Smoss]

I am much the same way - I like my story deep and my character interactions often. I've gone about designing my own systems to get a world feel that fits more to me. I'll play games outside of my own system - Mostly just to hang out with friends. But I only GM my system anymore. Could be old age making me set in my ways...

As for the "navigation", I tell potential players what they are in for if they join my game: They are using my system. Combat is horrifically deadly (grim/gritty) - Find ways around it or enter into it carefully - It will be over quick. Be prepared to interact with NPCs in a living, changing world. Look for "real world" solutions to things (AKA don't charge at a bear with melee weapons...). Etc...

If they don't want to join in that kind of game, I am fine. There are plenty of GMs in our sea here... And plenty of players. I do tend to have far more female players than male though. Too many bloodthirsty guys in my circle of RPG friends. Your situation may be different, so take all I've said with a grain of salt...
------------
Smoss
Doulairen (Doulairen)
Or go directly to some details on my RPG system:
RPG System (Doulairen)

 

[innerdude]

Good response, Smoss, and it also brings up an idea of the unspoken "Player/GM Contract" that goes into every RPG. How much responsibility does a GM really have to cater to his/her players? If a GM is clear that a campaign is going to be combat-heavy, and "world building" light, is a player who wants to engage in the "world building" aspects helping the group dynamic, or hurting it? Or is a player who has chosen to play a warrior-type in a campaign with a lesser focus on combat going to be disappointed?

Or can that player subtly influence the group/GM to instill more aspects that they like without completely overriding the GM's creativity?

 

[Hussar]

Once upon a time, I would never discuss with my fellow players anything like "playstyle". I just didn't really have the words for it. It never occured to my self-obsessed narcissism that other people might like different stuff. They were just "bad players" and whatnot.

Hopefully I've matured a bit since those days. Hopefully. Now I'm pretty ready to engage in some sort of dialogue with the other players to suss out playstyles and whatnot before even thinking about putting pen to paper for campaign design. And, sometimes I'll go the other way and state that the next campaign will be such and such style, take it or sit this one out.

Really depends on a lot of things. I find myself enjoying a number of different styles depending on the group, my mood and the tone of the game and/or campaign. It can be fun to step outside of a playstyle for a while and try something totally new. I find I can get a bit stale if I keep playing the same way all the time.

Keeping the lines of communication open is really key to making sure everyone is on board.

 

[innerdude]

Now I'm pretty ready to engage in some sort of dialogue with the other players to suss out playstyles and whatnot before even thinking about putting pen to paper for campaign design.

This is obviously the best approach to GMing, and I think it's totally valid and valuable. At the same time, I wonder what would happen if maybe you/me/we didn't totally take into account all of the players' desires--I wonder if the player would still find a way to have the experience they want, regardless of whether the GM had "prepped" design ideas to fit that player.

I think this is the essence of my question, which is, regardless of GM, do we as players find ways to have the "experience" we want, even if the campaign/session hasn't been designed around it?

 

[ST]

Every group has a different dynamic, and every person has slightly different preferences.

Anecdotally, I've gotten suckered into games where I knew the styles were going to clash hard, thought "Okay, it's only a few sessions, let's get through this," and found ways to have the experience I wanted that were pretty tangential to anything the DM was doing. It was easier than dealing with the underlying social issue (considering it was like a 3-session guest DM, we decided to just go with it), and more satisfying than trying to go along with what they seemed to expect us to do (which we didn't really get at all).

 

[The Shaman]

In other words, how much of what we "enjoy" from an RPG experience is what I bring to the table, and how much of it is external factors, like the personalities of the other players, the system, the GM, or the overall "vibe" of the group dynamic?

In other words--to what extent do our own desires for a specific "play experience" become self-fulfilling? And how? Obviously, if the GM "preps" for various play styles that's a big factor, but even if an encounter/campaign hasn't been totally "tailored" to our expectations, how does our desire to play a certain "style" manifest itself in our games?

In the games I run, ideally the experience of actual play is a reflection of what the players bring to the table.

I like players who are self-directed, who know what they want and pursue it in-character, in-play. If I'm not spending most of my time behind the screen reacting to the adventurers, then we need to talk about why. My ideal game is one where I'm scrambling to keep up.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My take on it is that a group evolves its playstyle together. Newbies either alter the prevalent playstyle, adjust to the prevalent playstyle, continue to play as a "tolerated" oddball, or leaves the group.

 

[Pig Champion]

In a game about shared storytelling, it's up to those who are telling the story to...well, tell it.

Although I've recently had trouble with 4E and my players engaging in the campaign world since it's battle is satisfying by itself. I say ultimately, it's up to both parties to work it out but the players do tend to hold the balance of power.

 

[howandwhy99]

I don't mind combat, per se, but given the choice, I'll take a fun, innovative, party-led plan that avoids combat entirely (and achieves the greater goal) over "hack 'n slash" every time.

(Inner) Dude, I am the same way. If I have to roll dice, the consequences are out of my hands. I much prefer brilliant planning win or lose, to hit-or-miss slogfests.

Though they are both are technically roleplaying. Just because it is combat, doesn't make it not roleplaying. Nor is social interaction or personality expression exclusively roleplaying either.

In other words, how much of what we "enjoy" from an RPG experience is what I bring to the table, and how much of it is external factors, like the personalities of the other players, the system, the GM, or the overall "vibe" of the group dynamic?

Ugh, it is all a combo. A big joint creation. You, and everyone else, gives as much as they give. The Referee is the focus of study of attention of course, but my favorite games are when we the players are interacting OOC, doing the puzzle solving, and the ref is watching us.

In other words--to what extent do our own desires for a specific "play experience" become self-fulfilling? And how? Obviously, if the GM "preps" for various play styles that's a big factor, but even if an encounter/campaign hasn't been totally "tailored" to our expectations, how does our desire to play a certain "style" manifest itself in our games?

Style is primarily player strategy and game design in my view.