Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Making different playstyles fit
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lwaxy" data-source="post: 6014583" data-attributes="member: 53286"><p>Due to some people dropping out of some games, two of my online groups decided they would merge, making it 5 players again. Generally a good idea, as they are both compatible with time zone and already know each other somewhat. </p><p></p><p>But I have a feeling their different playstyles could be an issue. I sent them a mail about it and they want to give it a try, so I'm wondering how to best make this fit. </p><p></p><p>3 of them are the actor type, basically acting everything out, including bar and gateway encounters (unless really insignificant), bard songs, camp fire stories etc. Some of this is done over email and in forum posts outside the actual game (camp fire talk especially) but most is in game. This also means they don't dice that much for information gathering, it's decided by their interactions most of the time. Unless they get stuck. </p><p></p><p>This group is also less concerned with mechanics, especially in fights, so without having to go through all the details it was easy to help them narrate a fight and keep in quick and still 'realistic.' </p><p></p><p>The other 2 abbreviate encounters, as in "I talk to the barkeep" "I ask around for information." The dice roll, not the role play, decides. They don't do this always but a great deal. This of course sped the game along quite a bit. </p><p></p><p>Those 2 are concerned with the mechanics, in a fight especially, too. They do describe their actions, just not as colorfully, and sometimes it's just "I attack and hit" without flavor added, especially in short skirmishes. Also, they are more likely to point out that some fancy ideas the 3 actors come up with don't really work - I usually let it slide if it was cool enough. </p><p></p><p>Both parts of the new group are fine with any sort of adventure but pure hack and slash. None of them power games, though the 2 non-actors tend to optimize their builds while the others don't. </p><p></p><p>So, I need to find some rules for a middle way. I was thinking of making it a rule that standard encounters (shopping, information gathering, camping etc) are not acted out unless it is vital to the story. I don't know if I can add a rule that certain things need to be acted out, as the 2 who don't usually do that aren't that good in it. However, if I just let one of them dice and the others act it out, I think they would have to wait a lot of the time for the 3 to finish what they are doing and would probably get bored. </p><p></p><p>Players are willing to compromise, I just would like to do it in a way so no one has to c0ompromise too much. </p><p></p><p>Ideas very much appreciated. It is some time before the next adventure starts so I'm not in a hurry.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lwaxy, post: 6014583, member: 53286"] Due to some people dropping out of some games, two of my online groups decided they would merge, making it 5 players again. Generally a good idea, as they are both compatible with time zone and already know each other somewhat. But I have a feeling their different playstyles could be an issue. I sent them a mail about it and they want to give it a try, so I'm wondering how to best make this fit. 3 of them are the actor type, basically acting everything out, including bar and gateway encounters (unless really insignificant), bard songs, camp fire stories etc. Some of this is done over email and in forum posts outside the actual game (camp fire talk especially) but most is in game. This also means they don't dice that much for information gathering, it's decided by their interactions most of the time. Unless they get stuck. This group is also less concerned with mechanics, especially in fights, so without having to go through all the details it was easy to help them narrate a fight and keep in quick and still 'realistic.' The other 2 abbreviate encounters, as in "I talk to the barkeep" "I ask around for information." The dice roll, not the role play, decides. They don't do this always but a great deal. This of course sped the game along quite a bit. Those 2 are concerned with the mechanics, in a fight especially, too. They do describe their actions, just not as colorfully, and sometimes it's just "I attack and hit" without flavor added, especially in short skirmishes. Also, they are more likely to point out that some fancy ideas the 3 actors come up with don't really work - I usually let it slide if it was cool enough. Both parts of the new group are fine with any sort of adventure but pure hack and slash. None of them power games, though the 2 non-actors tend to optimize their builds while the others don't. So, I need to find some rules for a middle way. I was thinking of making it a rule that standard encounters (shopping, information gathering, camping etc) are not acted out unless it is vital to the story. I don't know if I can add a rule that certain things need to be acted out, as the 2 who don't usually do that aren't that good in it. However, if I just let one of them dice and the others act it out, I think they would have to wait a lot of the time for the 3 to finish what they are doing and would probably get bored. Players are willing to compromise, I just would like to do it in a way so no one has to c0ompromise too much. Ideas very much appreciated. It is some time before the next adventure starts so I'm not in a hurry. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Making different playstyles fit
Top