Let's Talk About "Intended Playstyle"

[Reynard]

[NOTE: This is another in my ongoing musing threads meant to help me think about my Bucket List RPG. The purpose of the discussion is mainly to see how other folks feel about the subject an dhow it impacts their play and design choices.]

I feel like "Intended Playstyle" has fallen out of the lexicon recently, but it used to be all the rage. It is probably not even a particularly accurate phrase, but it is close enough to at least kick off a discussion, one hopes. The more recent term is "opinionated" I think.

In any case, here is what I mean: some games are intended to be toolkits. You are supposed to use them to build the game you and your group want to play. Sometimes these are "generic" systems, but other times they are more focused games that still allow you to "do whatever" with. But other games really want you to play that game in a certain way. The game is built -- mechanically, aesthetically, and even commercially -- to make you play it a certain way. And some games claim to want you to play it a certain way, and then stop you from doing so with its own rules and mechanics. I'm thinking how Vampire: The Masquerade whispered it wanted you to play Interview With The Vampire, but gave you the tools to play Blade instead. There are, of course, other examples, and well as counter-arguments to the V:tM one.

It seems common for newer games to tell you exactly what you are meant to do with them: not just how they are to be played, but what sorts of stories the game allows you to play. You can't really use Blades in the Dark for regular fantasy adventures in Duskvol without deeply hacking the system. Blades' intended playstyle is baked in. Compare that to Shadowdark, which is very opinionated in its presentation but is trivially easy to play with a heroic tone and outside the dungeon. As one look at the Shadowdark Compatible section on DTRPG will show, you can use SD for nearly anything. Its intended playstyle is really just a vibe.

So when thinking about making a game, I have to think about whether I want to build something with a tight focus and a strongly enforced intended playstyle, or if I want to make something malleable and unconstraining. I think strong foci give modern games real identities, but by extensions inevitably limit their reach.

What do you think about the topic of "intended playstyle"? Or, "opinionated" games, if you will? What is a good example of a game, in your opinion, that had a strong intended playstyle and managed to support it in its overall design? What ones tried and failed? Is it a worthy design goal? Why, or why not?

 

[GrimCo]

Houses of the Bloodied first come to mind as game with set play style and rules that not only enforce it, but reward it. If you try to play it with any other style than one intended by the game, it punishes you and also makes game unfun. It's meant to simulate tragedy of nobility across generations and does it very well. If you want to play multi generational telenovela about flawed nobility in highly narrative and character driven ttrpg, this is game for you. For any other play style, find other game, this one isn't for it.

 

[bsss]

As I was writing my reply, I realized this became a spectrum question for me.

I don't find hyper-opinionated games very compelling, personally, and I don't think it's a worthy design goal unless you are coming in intending to make a game specifically in whatever particular niche. The reason I don't hang my hat on Blades-like games is because, as you say, Blades' intended playstyle is baked in. It would be ridiculous to use Blades to play a game without the conceit of scores and factions, and I personally see that as a limitation, because I don't always want to participate in that kind of story (not that it's bad, or that Blades is bad, it just doesn't get me going, most of the time). I feel like it falls into a space where you are very specifically playing Blades in a way one might play a board game and it's very obvious what you can/should and cannot/should not be spending your time on. No one plays Dune (the board game) to evaluate Paul and Chani's romance, and no one (I assume) plays Blades to have heroic tales of paladins defeating evil.

That said, I think Blades is an example that does have a strong style and supports it well. Certainly the people who are into that style seem to like it for that purpose a lot. I bounce off that design approach because I like toolkits more, or even "somewhat opinionated" games like 13th Age. 13th Age takes a "bigger tent" approach to its intended playstyle --- the narrative can be many, many things, but a commonality of 13th Age stories ought to 1) be centered on Big Damn Heroes, and 2) have some combat, most of the time. This is definitely an intent that runs throughout the game, but it has much more space for a table to operate and tell the story they choose. Rogues, monster hunts, maintaining justice/peace, participating in court intrigue, being pirates, etc., all fit into the game without inherently being at odds with the core style elements.

Is Blades better than 13th Age at facilitating a game about scores? Probably, if the table cares about it to that depth, but probably no better if all the table is really interested in is having fun rogue times or if they value other elements that Blades doesn't have. I personally don't like the --- what I'd call --- pigeon-holing on that end of the spectrum.

 

[Bill Zebub]

As I was writing my reply, I realized this became a spectrum question for me.

I don't find hyper-opinionated games very compelling, personally, and I don't think it's a worthy design goal unless you are coming in intending to make a game specifically in whatever particular niche. The reason I don't hang my hat on Blades-like games is because, as you say, Blades' intended playstyle is baked in. It would be ridiculous to use Blades to play a game without the conceit of scores and factions, and I personally see that as a limitation, because I don't always want to participate in that kind of story (not that it's bad, or that Blades is bad, it just doesn't get me going, most of the time). I feel like it falls into a space where you are very specifically playing Blades in a way one might play a board game and it's very obvious what you can/should and cannot/should not be spending your time on. No one plays Dune (the board game) to evaluate Paul and Chani's romance, and no one (I assume) plays Blades to have heroic tales of paladins defeating evil.

That said, I think Blades is an example that does have a strong style and supports it well. Certainly the people who are into that style seem to like it for that purpose a lot. I bounce off that design approach because I like toolkits more, or even "somewhat opinionated" games like 13th Age. 13th Age takes a "bigger tent" approach to its intended playstyle --- the narrative can be many, many things, but a commonality of 13th Age stories ought to 1) be centered on Big Damn Heroes, and 2) have some combat, most of the time. This is definitely an intent that runs throughout the game, but it has much more space for a table to operate and tell the story they choose. Rogues, monster hunts, maintaining justice/peace, participating in court intrigue, being pirates, etc., all fit into the game without inherently being at odds with the core style elements.

Is Blades better than 13th Age at facilitating a game about scores? Probably, if the table cares about it to that depth, but probably no better if all the table is really interested in is having fun rogue times or if they value other elements that Blades doesn't have. I personally don't like the --- what I'd call --- pigeon-holing on that end of the spectrum.

This is a good analysis of Blades. I find that I want to like BitD (and Scum & Villainy) but I struggle to actually do so. Or, put another way, I really like reading them, but can't get into the groove of playing them. Mouse Guard (Torchbearer) and, to a lesser extent, PbtA games fall into the same category. I'm eagerly awaiting my hard copies of Stonetop, but I think it will be bathroom reading (TMI, I know) and not something I'll actually play.