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.

 

[payn]

What do you think about the topic of "intended playstyle"? Or, "opinionated" games, if you will?

I think playstyle is important and the distinction of calling them opinionated isnt necessary. Part of the design evolution of RPGs is also the terms for folks to understand them. 20 years ago, understanding the difference between a generic do anything system like Savage Worlds was seen as the standard. A bespoke system was truly seen as "bespoke". I think attitudes and tastes have changed over the years as designers have gotten better at making intended playstyle games. Today, I feel like folks will understand in short order what an intended playstyle is of a game. If they cannot, then thats a failure of design and presentation by the publisher.

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?

Alien by Free League leans into the idea of being in a stressful situation. The PC's focus sharpens, but they also are prone to panic states. The mechanics do a good job of reinforcing the idea, feel, and execution of the intended experience.

What ones tried and failed?

I think this is going to be subjective, but most 5E reskins (D20 if using the way back machine) often miss the mark. Using the familiar D&D system isnt a problem in of itself. I think the failure point is using a general system meant to do a lot, in a specific way to genre emulate. Like, Carbon 2185 ends up feeling like D&D with computers instead of Cyberpunk.

Is it a worthy design goal? Why, or why not?

Absolutely. I think a designer needs to know what they intend the system to do, and they need to communicate it to their players. Its a major key component to success and adoption of any RPG system, IMO. When I think of games that flail and fade out, its usually due to folks not "getting them". That could be through poor communication or it could be from lack of design focus. Either way, I think playstyle intention is a necessity for a designer, both specifically and generally. YMMV.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Note: This response is going to be a lot of freeform rambling, as I have a lot of thoughts on the subject, but not enough time to edit together a cohesive thesis.

I am of two minds on intent (with much overlap with those 'death of the author' literary discussions that pop up here every other month or so). On one hand, I don't necessarily overly care what the developer/author intended, so much as what a game does for me (or what I might want to use it for or not). On the other hand, I don't usually judge a horror movie for being really bad as an action comedy (but I still don't go and see it in theaters if the latter is what I am looking to watch).

Generally speaking, I think it is optimal for a game to have an intended playstyle, and communicate it clearly. Game systems that try to be all things/work for all playstyles generally don't, and those that can often leave something to be desired. It's a spectrum, though, and things like BitD or Stonetop are definitely more specific-goal than something like GURPS or Hero System simply not really being as 'universal' as sometimes purported.

I think this is going to overlap a lot with the rules and procedures discussions. Most notably, I think it will in the failure states/cases where developers wanted X and either designed Y or their players simply wanted to do Z with their systems (mostly with simple lessons like 'communicate' and 'know your audience'). VtM having few political intrigue rules and lots of vampire-superhero rules is (one of) the most obvious examples of the former. The latter undoubtedly includes early A/D&D, where a fun little treasure-hunting game was made and the audience decided to run epic quests (and, from Dragonlance on, the gamemakers jumped on the bandwagon but never really changed the underlying rules to match).

A little more arguable/having a little more nuance is the case of level-based tiers of play (pattern) in A/D&D. There's the adage that levels 1-3 are for dungeon-crawling, 4-9 (or 4-14, if you just want to lump Expert into it wholly) is for hexcrawling, and after that is leader/general (with possibly quest for immortality in some versions). Now, lots of people didn't (at least always) do the name-level leader bit, opting instead for plane-hopping adventure and fighting lots of big-bads (and complaining that fighters and thieves didn't get much in those upper levels if you didn't), but my real focus is the hexcrawling. D&D hasn't typically had much for zone of control rules, mostly that once you come into contact with an opponent, the only move away is a retreat (and maybe rules on turning your back and running). Thus the biggest thing keeping enemies from rushing the back lines (and super-squishy magic users) was 10'-wide corridors and lots of armored fighters/clerics/henchmen/hirelings/etc. (something else not everyone used). Once you got into the wilderness, that didn't work. I've heard people claim to play that phase of the game as written, but in practice, I almost always some either house rules or gentleperson's agreement (the enemies engaged the fighters, maybe with some justification like 'the character isn't actually frozen in place when not on their initiative, and realistically would move to intercept') to cover this. In this case, the intended playstyle was one thing, the rules supported another, but people generally worked through and around it and ended up playing the intended style anyways.

Another example might be Call of Cthulhu. Now, generally speaking people are on board with CoC being about mystery solving or maybe stopping monsters you could never take on physically through smart thinking or trading your sanity for esoteric lore on how to stop them, etc. However, how many of us have absolutely gone in shotguns (or dynamite) a-blazing or rammed Cthulhu with our steamship (which, admittedly, is completely on-brand)?

 

[payn]

Another example might be Call of Cthulhu. Now, generally speaking people are on board with CoC being about mystery solving or maybe stopping monsters you could never take on physically through smart thinking or trading your sanity for esoteric lore on how to stop them, etc. However, how many of us have absolutely gone in shotguns (or dynamite) a-blazing or rammed Cthulhu with our steamship (which, admittedly, is completely on-brand)?

I'd say no, considering that Cthulhu Pulp exists. They made a separate system that makes shotgunning and streamboating more expected and survivable. I think enough folks wanted scary terrible situations that are overcome with sleeve-rolling elbow grease. More Big Trouble in Little China than In the Mouth of Madness.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

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?

I work with or work for, many of the people who created some of these games, and Vampire is a great example.

Design language has Changed Greatly since 1992.

Despite some obscure games, we did not have the "words" to create a game like Blades in the Dark or Powered by the Apocalypse games.

Vampire was very much intended to be Both: Blade and Interview. But all we had for design language was wargames. So when Mark et al wrote the mechanics to Vampire, they pulled from the "words" games had developed and added what few new ideas they could.

But in TTRPGS were trying to be a mix of situationists and wargame. Because at that time, "roleplay" was the soft skill that "didn't need rules" - you just said what you did and then did it and the GM got 100% fiat to say how the game responded, and if a roll was needed or not.

....

The new "words" for gaming are more than just catchy bits = they have made it a LOT easier to branch out mechanics. It's one thing to say "success with complications" but its a HUGE deal to provide a HIGHLY functional and full featured RPG using that design principle.

And with how slow the gaming world moves, and how slowly people branch out from D&D, things like Success with Complications is still new to a great many folks.

Then looking at what Blades did for "Heist" mechanics and what PBTA did for Mystery mechanics and what Pasion de las Pasiones did for Social mechanics... these are all 'new words' we are using more and more each year within the game designer and developer groups.

....
TL/DR
And I think @Reynard Is seeing, in part = is games that did want to have other ways to play, but didnt have the words to do it. And then other games who are trying out new words and are to various degrees successful.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I'd say no, considering that Cthulhu Pulp exists. They made a separate system that makes shotgunning and streamboating more expected and survivable. I think enough folks wanted scary terrible situations that are overcome with sleeve-rolling elbow grease. More Big Trouble in Little China than In the Mouth of Madness.

No to what question?