Let's Talk About "Intended Playstyle"

[Smackpixi]

Generally, I think this is more a player approach situation. There’s a large contingent of TTRPG tables that think of every game as rules optional. Whether the game says, “these are the rules, period” or “these are the rules, but…” they aren’t hearing either and absent of a square board with round pieces in front of them, everything is on the table.

From a designer standpoint, if you want to make a medieval magic fantasy game, you have to go intended playstyle these days to distinguish your game from all those that have come before. What does your game bring? It’s gonna have to bring a new way to do it, or why would anyone get it? Even if you’re trying to make the most customizable hackable system ever, you need a new intended base to hang everything on.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Generally, I think this is more a player approach situation. There’s a large contingent of TTRPG tables that think of every game as rules optional. Whether the game says, “these are the rules, period” or “these are the rules, but…” they aren’t hearing either and absent of a square board with round pieces in front of them, everything is on the table.

From a designer standpoint, if you want to make a medieval magic fantasy game, you have to go intended playstyle these days to distinguish your game from all those that have come before. What does your game bring? It’s gonna have to bring a new way to do it, or why would anyone get it? Even if you’re trying to make the most customizable hackable system ever, you need a new intended base to hang everything on.

That's a good observation. There are so many RPGs out there now, that if you are not just checking an item on your bucket list but actually want people to play your game, you really need to explain why it has to exist. And I think, "It's sort of like a bunch of other ones, but it combines all my favorite rules and innovations" is a really hard way to make it stand out, because not very many people are going to share your exact preferences.

But if you can explain it not just with rules you like, but with a coherent "feel" that is unlike anything else out there...that makes sense to me. For example, what is appealing to me about Nimble is the "tactical, but fast" thing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's a good observation. There are so many RPGs out there now, that if you are not just checking an item on your bucket list but actually want people to play your game, you really need to explain why it has to exist. And I think, "It's sort of like a bunch of other ones, but it combines all my favorite rules and innovations" is a really hard way to make it stand out, because not very many people are going to share your exact preferences.

But if you can explain it not just with rules you like, but with a coherent "feel" that is unlike anything else out there...that makes sense to me. For example, what is appealing to me about Nimble is the "tactical, but fast" thing.

If you want people to buy your game, I agree with you. If you just want people to play it, then it's a matter of finding folks willing to try out your bundle of house rules. That's what I do.

 

[GrimCo]

Another game that "does it good" is Ten Candles. Now, i admit, it's a bit gimmicky. But it does what it says on the tin. There is only one way to play it. The playstyle is defined by a "lose-to-win" mentality. Character death is guaranteed, so the focus shifts from survival to telling cinematic story about how you spend last few hours before world ends in darkness.

Now, to defend Vampire a bit. It get's lot of flack, specially first edition, for promising personal horror a la Vampire Chronicles, but it plays more like Blade or "supers with fangs". Part of that is rpg culture of early 90s and people who came from D&D background into it. They played it similar to how they played D&D. You know what you know. Part of it was due to that eras design philosophy - rules are there for stuff you can't do in real life. Like disciplines and combat. Social stuff was viewed as "player skill" not "character skill". Part of it was splatbooks. Like all splatbooks, it just cranked power levels higher and higher. Oh and that metaplot. In VtM (i played Revised for good chunk of time), rules don't hinder intended play style, they just don't enforce it. Mechanics and narrative are completely separate. It was rectified in VtR 2ed where they actually built in mechanics for social manouvering. But, with right group, even old VtM Revised was played as intended. What VtM promised was actually best portrayed when you moved away from ttrpg and stepped in into Mind's Eye Theater (LARP). VtM ttrpg was at it best when you played it with people who never played D&D or any other ttrpg before and were heavily into vampire lore.

 

[MichaelSomething]

D&D has no intended playstyle and everyone plays it! It can do Doctor Who, Critical Role, Dungeon Crawl Classics, Lord of the Rings, Studio Ghibli, and more!!! Why design your own game when D&D can already do everything???

 

[Reynard]

D&D has no intended playstyle and everyone plays it! It can do Doctor Who, Critical Role, Dungeon Crawl Classics, Lord of the Rings, Studio Ghibli, and more!!! Why design your own game when D&D can already do everything???

This is satire, one presumes.

 

[aramis erak]

D&D has no intended playstyle and everyone plays it! It can do Doctor Who, Critical Role, Dungeon Crawl Classics, Lord of the Rings, Studio Ghibli, and more!!! Why design your own game when D&D can already do everything???

Strong disagreement, especially for earlier editions.

The intent was clearly focused upon only combat and magic being mechanicalized, and largely, the focus of play, with a clear indication of the mode being (depending upon edition) Players talk to caller and caller talks to GM —or— Players talk to GM directly — and then the GM decides if any mechanics are needed, then resolving and stating the results. Until AD&D 2e (well, actually, late AD&D 1e and Mid BECMI), the idea of mechanical social effect was foreign to AD&D past "do they or do they not attack the PCs?" and "Will the hirelings/followers follow my orders?" The instructions on dungeon building (in OE, In AD&D 1e, in BX, and in BECMI) also provide a clear intent for a dungeon crawl dominated playstyle... Tho' late OE, and both AD&D and the X of BX, adding outdoor adventure support, including ships.
3E and later have much wider expectations of playstyles, but even AD&D 2 and BECMI still have a strong emphasis on the dungeon and the travel to it, and proceduralist play, firmly ensconced into the rules.

What's remarkable is how many ignored the in-the-rules guidance for that dungeon raid and travel to it mode of play and playstyle. TSR D&D was laser focused upon one playstyle, and yet, the most memorable play avoids those. TSR D&D was written as a press-your-luck dungeon-penetration narrative wargame, and often not played that way. AD&D 2e started trying to mechanicalize other aspects of play.

D&D 3e supported primarily that Dungeon Focused playstyle, too. But as with AD&D 2e, moved to supporting far more.

There is advice for dungeon building even in 5E 2014 - I've not bothered with 2024, so I can't attest to it... but even 5E intends the same DM-Centric mode of play, and supports a strongly combat focused press-your-luck dungeon penetration, and a dungeons and travel to them motif.

The adventures for D&D AL seasons 1-3 highlight this...
Dragon Queen:

• a series of short dungeons and travel between them during an invasion
• a travel to a dungeon
• a sneek-n-peek raid
• a report back
• a return and clear out the site previously raided
• Travel to another dungeon
• A side encounter in dungeon style en route
• A Castle invasion.

Season two: 4 elemental dungeons, as chapter capstones, and 2-3 minor en-route dungeon-like encounters en route to each.

Apocalpse: the megadungeon... with subordinate dungeons and long travels through tunnels.

5E retains the Let's go raid a dungeon, and fight our way there playstyle made part of the texture of play in AD&D and in BX... with minimal (and marked optional, especially for AL play) social rules.

And, as with TSR D&D, many people ignore the intended playstyle and go far afield of it. That's how D&D has rolled, and most don't even think to actually see what the rules are written to encourage. And the first party adventures provided that same... and a few pushed beyond it. I've run a dozen of the DDAL adventures, not just the big books, from those three years release, and of the dozen I've run, only one had major social elements... the rest were A dungeon raid and travel to it. Half a dozen more of the 3 dozen had socials, but I didn't run those - not because I wasn't interested, but because when I suggested them, no one wanted them.