Let's Talk About "Intended Playstyle"

[Xetheral]

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?

Personally, I have a particular playstyle in which I like to run games. Indeed, the appeal of RPGs to me is the appeal of that playstyle.* The utility of a game system to me is thus based on how well it innately supports that playstyle, or how easily it can be repurposed to support that playstyle.

In my experience, games with an intended playstyle and mechanics designed to push play towards that playstyle are harder to repurpose to support my preferences than systems that are designed to be (or unintentionally end up) more flexible. Accordingly, unless/until I happen to come across a system whose intended playstyle happens to match my idiosyncratic preferences, systems either without an intended playstyle or with a very broad or non-enforced intended playstyle are what I gravitate to as a GM.

*As a player I enjoy a somewhat wider range of RPG playstyles then I enjoy running.

 

[Reynard]

Personally, I have a particular playstyle in which I like to run games. Indeed, the appeal of RPGs to me is the appeal of that playstyle.* The utility of a game system to me is thus based on how well it innately supports that playstyle, or how easily it can be repurposed to support that playstyle.

In my experience, games with an intended playstyle and mechanics designed to push play towards that playstyle are harder to repurpose to support my preferences than systems that are designed to be (or unintentionally end up) more flexible. Accordingly, unless/until I happen to come across a system whose intended playstyle happens to match my idiosyncratic preferences, systems either without an intended playstyle or with a very broad or non-enforced intended playstyle are what I gravitate to as a GM.

*As a player I enjoy a somewhat wider range of RPG playstyles then I enjoy running.

Out of curiosity, what is the playstyle you prefer and are there opinionated games that are in the same broad category as your preferences?

 

[Xetheral]

Out of curiosity, what is the playstyle you prefer and are there opinionated games that are in the same broad category as your preferences?

At a very high level my preferred playstyle is for the GM to determine the outcome of most action declarations based on their own judgement (whether that is narrating an automatic success/failure or interpreting the outcome of a die roll). Factors for the GM to consider (and this is just off the top of my head) include plausibility, forseeability, player enjoyment, campaign tone, character ability, and consistency with previously established events and setting lore.

In my preferred playstyle the purpose of the mechanics is to establish a shared understanding of what the characters are capable of, both so that the players can make informed decisions regarding the stakes of potential conflict, and for an increased degree of impartialness during the resolution of conflict. Mechanics that prioritize plausibility and knowable, intuitive outcomes tend to best suit my needs in this regard.

Most systems that rely on the GM for resolution are workable with my preferred style, and that obviously includes many of the big-name systems. The systems that I've tried and read about that are designed to encourage an intended playstyle seem to typically do so by putting constraints on the GM's ability to resolve action declarations, which of course makes perfect sense--it's hard to encourage a preferred playstyle when almost everything is up the GM! Maybe there is a system out there that nevertheless emphasizes my idiosyncratic playstyle, or maybe there will be some day. Until I find one, though, I think the less-prescriptive systems will be a better fit for me.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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?

Currently reading Band of Blades and though I haven’t played it, it seems to qualify.

The strongly intended playstyle is military fantasy/horror with high character lethality, and its mechanics deliver.

« Military fantasy » The players play the leadership of a mercenary company that was recently decimated. Each player takes on a role that has different obligations to ensure each player is making decisions. One player is responsible for overall strategy, one for personnel, and one for non-personnel logistics (for more than 3 players, there is also a lore keeper and a spymaster. Your squad is 35 soldiers, and you are sending them on small missions with a max of 7 soldiers at a time.

« High character lethality » Certain missions are resolved by simple die roll, and depending on the die roll the result can be multiple deaths and injuries, move on the best you can. Even missions you do play, most of the time, your character can take 2 solid hits from an opponent and you will likely be in the infirmary for a month afterwards.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I see your contention and don't agree with it, in that it's way easier to run all sorts of varied settings and "if you're this, it means this here" stuff compared to even 5e. So long as you agree that magic exists, or technology that resembles magic, you have a massive amount of flex because of how relatively flavorless most of the abilities are compared to say the core Divine/Arcane magic lists of classic D&D.

It's not pure generic, but within the bounds of "high fantasy / high magic" stuff it's way closer.

Fair. I think the rulebook’s validation of campaign frames and modding the ruleset supports your point.

 

[VHawkwinter]

Personally, I have a particular playstyle in which I like to run games. Indeed, the appeal of RPGs to me is the appeal of that playstyle.* The utility of a game system to me is thus based on how well it innately supports that playstyle, or how easily it can be repurposed to support that playstyle.

This is fair. I do as well.

Mine is "Player-Directable, In-Character-World-Simulationistish Gameplay, Faction Conflict, Sandbox Campaign". Preferably without too much of each session spent on combat. Shorter combats is generally better.

And I prefer the world-simulationistish mechanics to be transparent such that they can be handed to the players to adjudicate amongst themselves with minimal GM intervention most of the time, like how players know what their spell description says, it's clear without the GM needing to do a lot of heavy lifting while trying to keep things consistent.

Accordingly, unless/until I happen to come across a system whose intended playstyle happens to match my idiosyncratic preferences, systems either without an intended playstyle or with a very broad or non-enforced intended playstyle are what I gravitate to as a GM.

Also fair. Sometimes you can shift it, but it has side effects.

My favourite D&D is 3.x (I like the design choices of character customisation, the skill progression math, the fleshed out non-combat mechanics, and fully playable monsters).

BUT...

It is designed assuming a LOT of combat between rests, and just about everything recovers fully when you do rest, so if there's not a lot of justified combat within the same game day, the players are starting most fights at 100%. Which exacerbates class disparities.

And if I build the NPCs by the book, and the game is almost all about fighting NPCs rather than monsters, it's impossible to not give the players exponentially more and more wealth and gear as they loot the bodies of their enemies.

And the game is heavily built around a gear accumulation treadmill.

Even before you get into its shortcomings - those are areas that require overhauls to be suited to the types of games I run. And then combat is pretty slow, as well.

*As a player I enjoy a somewhat wider range of RPG playstyles then I enjoy running.

Me too here as well. I want a vaguely sandboxy in-character simulationistish game, but I can abide a main plot, and I don't need it to be about conflicting factions.