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

[innerdude]

As GM, though, how much do you cater to a player when your preferred "play style" is in fairly opposite directions (i.e., GM is heavy into character and world-building, with intrigue adventures; player is combat/power gamer)?

For instance, let's say that you know that one particular session (or maybe a spate of 2 or 3 sessions in close succession) will be fairly combat-lite. Do you throw in a random encounter or two just to keep the combat-focused players happy? Do you try and "convince" them to step outside of their normal mode of play a more character-driven style for those sessions?

I'm wondering, because I know when I've played in the past, when sessions would get too combat-heavy, I would zone out--and I imagine for the combat-players, when things get too "character-heavy," or too "role-play-ey," that they probably do the same.

Or do you simply play the session at hand, and trust the player to "get what they want" out of it, by simply playing their preferred style?

 

[Lanefan]

The DM has complete control of the playstyle.

Provided, of course, the DM gets to choose who plays in the game.

Lan-"I went with players who I knew would entertain me - so far, so good"-efan

 

[Storminator]

I think both GM and players (as a group) have equal say in play style. But the GM side is only one person, so tends to unified in approach, whereas a group of players might not have a consistent style, so their influence gets minimized.

I've always felt that in RPGs the odd man out is always wrong. If you clash with the group, you won't get what you want, and you'll diminish the game for the others. I've since grown far less confrontational in my gaming and I simply don't play with people if I don't like their game. No time or energy to fix dysfunctional groups.

But the best games are the ones where both GM and players work to support each other. That synergy when everyone feeds off everyone else and the final creation is better than any individual vision is what makes RPGs magical.

PS

 

[Umbran]

I'm wondering, because I know when I've played in the past, when sessions would get too combat-heavy, I would zone out--and I imagine for the combat-players, when things get too "character-heavy," or too "role-play-ey," that they probably do the same.

It seems to me that this should be handled before anyone ever creates a character, much less gets to the table - it should be part of the player/GM discussion as the campaign is set up. Folks ought to have expectations set reasonably well.

 

[The Shaman]

Or do you simply play the session at hand, and trust the player to "get what they want" out of it, by simply playing their preferred style?

That's pretty close, at least once the game is rolling.

In my ideal case, I encourage the players to create goals for their characters and then pursue them during the games. I present the setting, but I don't have adventures planned for them; it's up to them to stir up trouble and make things happen, and the setting reacts accordingly.

This does require that the players, at least some of them, are proactive rather than reactive, and that the players are willing to share in one another's pursuit of their goals. For a game like this to work, expectations must be set before the game starts, otherwise some players may feel completely lost.