D&D 5E Play Styles and DnD Next

[calprinicus]

There has been much talk on these modules for DnD Next to please nearly every playstyle of the players. I personally don't think this will ever truely happen to the extent WoTC wishes it to. There are to many ways to play a game like this or to classify a playstyle.

I'm wonder what you classify your playstyle as and why you like it.

My curiousity wants to see how many different or unique playstyles are out there.

----------
I know a lot of people like the bust down a door, kill, and then loot scenario and our playgroup is much different. I'm wondering how many types of playstyles DnD Next are trying to please.

Our Playstyle:
I'm not sure how I would classify my group's play style. We like a gritty or low level game where we're not powerful beings by any standards, and lose of health to any degree is a big deal. We do a lot of "in-character roll playing" (ex: to rally troops we'll give a impromto speach instead of rolling a Cha Check). We involve ourselves in politics more than on the battlefield. We like to development a distinct world of diverse civilizations and how they interact with one another. We fight mainly only to acquire intangible things like lore or clues to solve a larger issue, but often prefer puzzles / traps over beasties.

We do this cause we like the feeling that we can accomplish big things as relatively non-superhero characters. everyone expects a 'super-man' to save the day, no one expects a the cook, a delivery man, a vet and a discharged 'police' officer to save the day.

 

[Shadeydm]

I think that there are lots of factors that influence playstyle.
Edition: various editions encourage certain playstyles from 1E gritty cautious explorations to 4E superhero PCs.
Setting: playstyle can be strongly influenced by setting too. The Forgotten Realms encourage a different playstyle than Dark Sun and Midnight has a much different playstyle from Eberron.
Players: a group of hack and slashers will have a very different playstyle than a group of storytellers or powergamers.
The DM: the game he runs will strongly influence playstyle. If the DM is running a campaign where everyone is a gladiator in an arena this will probably encourage a far different playstyle than a campaign where everyone is a member of a thieves guild.

I don't think there are right or wrong playstyles or playstyles that are not D&D its all personal preference. IMHO YMMV etc etc

 

[Mercule]

My GMing style (and, by extension, that of the group I run for) starts with a base of swords and sorcery. We start at 1st level and, even in 3e, rarely exceeded 10th level, so the PCs have to think to survive. Magic items are rare and greatly prized -- but they are potent. I've handed holy avengers and artifacts to 5th level characters. I figure the items should be worth being wondrous. Humans and, to a lesser extent, other PC races make up the bulk of both friend and foe. Often, these are accompanied by monsters that were once human or thrive off humanity -- undead, demons, etc. Martial characters tend to be the linchpins of the group and thrust into the leadership role. My games usually have an element of epic fantasy, though. The bad guys are clearly bad (what part of undead and demons was unclear?). Although the campaign may start as a minor border squabble, it quickly becomes clear that there is world-spanning darkness afoot and the PCs' names will be entered into the history books (which I emphasize by generally continuing the same setting and adding tales of the last campaign). There are dungeons and side quests mixed in, and I occasionally change things up, but that's my general style and what people usually expect.

As a side note, I don't take kindly to characters with joke names or goofy running gags (one short-lived character was seeking a magic ring for his 21st appendage). We're here to have fun and we all need to crack a smile, so I expect some kidding around. I also don't mind characters that are in-character funny or bizarre. Just make sure they can fit into a "serious" setting/story.

 

[Elf Witch]

My preferred style of play is one that has a good mix of combat, intrigue, puzzle solving, exploration and character growth through role playing.

I prefer a more gritty lower level magic style game. I don't usually like magic marts in every city and raise dead and major healing available in every city. I prefer most wizards and clerics to be lower level with just a few higher level rare ones scattered around.

I prefer role playing but I do see the need of skill checks because it opens up doors to classes that some people could not or would not play.

I like alignment because it prevents the whole I will play my character in what ever is convenient to win.

While I see the need for some disasociative mechanics to many pull med out of the immersive kind of role playing I enjoy.

 

[LostSoul]

My D&D playstyle: Player-directed goal-oriented challenge-based play, with a heavy focus on the fictional details.

Player-directed: The players lead the game. They set the pace. The DM reacts.

Goal-oriented: The players are responsible for creating PCs who have goals and want to pursue them. These goals can change over time.

Challenge-based: The reason for playing the game is to see if the players have the smarts to achieve their goals. The DM's job is to make the challenges reasonable and provide information so that the players can make choices along the way.

Fictional details: I want the little details of the game world to be important to how the game plays out.

 

[Minigiant]

Well when I DM, I usually use my Six Kingdoms setting. And each kingdom plays like a different game. I ask the players which kingdom they want to play and insert the game elements.

Swamp Kingdom
Level: 10+
Magic: Low
Highest Pillar: Exploration
Variants: Uses Sanity plus others

Games in the Swamp Kingdom of Wu mostly involve searching for people and items lost in the undead infested land of this nation. There are few cities and few people so there are few intelligent people to talk to who are willing to spare you a favor. Adventures are mostly about going from point A to point B and back without going insane or dying. Martial characters leak into the Exalted/High Fantasy territory as common monsters are Zombified Giants and vampire spawn swarms. Magic is low. Because of their level, most fighters have either a magic weapon or armor but having both typically means you took it from someone els who you either killed or was depending on you.

Steel Kingdom
Level: 1-5
Magic: HIGH
Highest Pillar: All equal

Steel Kingdom adventures play like straight dungeon crawls. You enter a dungeon, kill monsters, disarm traps, befriend some inhabitants, and grab treasure. The main tweak is the magic item shops owned by the magic guilds.and churches. So death is a speed bump and everyone looks like a Christmas tree. Players should they survive can invest in grafted limbs, permanent magic buffs, and life insurance where cleric are bound to resurrect you after death ahead of time. Ebberon on steroids.

Plains Kingdom
Level: Any
Magic: Standard
Highest Pillar: Interaction and Combat

Game is the land of The Krittons of the Plains is just "local lord hires heroes to kill orchestra and dragons". Charisma rolls are no done for Interaction. Instead Charisma affect your reputation rolls. All success and failure is determined by your current rep. Players talk it out but the strict adherence to the mobile caste system is the biggest roadblock.

Sand Kingdom
Sand Kingdom is low level low magic Dark Sun.

Forest Kingdom
Level: Any
Magic: Any
Highest Pillar: Interaction

As the Forest kingdom is actually a weak alliance of three rival eleven factions, there is little fighting but a lot of talking. Charisma is powerful and players really focus on social skills and player character ability replacement is high.

 

[howandwhy99]

My playstyle for early D&D:

It's a memory game based on using resources and abilities where the strategic scope is limited to being a human creature within a multiverse. Other races are possible witin the boundaries of the human scope, but going to far afield, like playing a comet or a microorganism that lives for 3 minutes doesn't offer much. Most actions taken succeed or fail every time (so it isn't realistic), but anything around 50/50 gets means we use probability generators (dice) to simulate the degree of chance covered. It's a game where the objective is growth and mainly growth in one's class, but it can be expanded in whatever mindscapes the players can pragmatically communicate to the referee who's running the game.

It's a game where each class plays differently like the Dungeon! boardgame, but it is cooperative rather than competitive (meaning we can compete or cooperate at each step by personal decision). Everything in the game world is more or less challenging in relation to the characters. Some challenges are near impossible without being more powerful ones self.

In terms of the setting it's a group generated fantasy with the players creating theirs from the perspective of their player character. The thing is, the scope of game scenarios are very, very broad, but they are still bounded as mentioned above. I don't mind players playing more than one character or solo games, but the kind of game I prefer isn't set up that way by default.

 

[Raith5]

I have to say that really love combat, but I think D&D works best when various styles intersect and support an underlying story - using skill checks to explore and use the terrain during a combat, social interaction before or during a fight etc.

I like the fact that DDN is upfront about the existence of a variety of playstyles and the combat/social/exploration framework. However, I also think that 4th ed was good at mechanically at allowing different playstyles (evident in the siloing out of utility powers, rituals, skill challenges etc) even if these mechanics were not always well explained and a bit messy in execution.

 

[BobTheNob]

I dont know if I can claim it to be "my style", but I do knowwhat I want it to be my style by the time 5e comes around.

I want to design more losely and let the players finish the job. I want to, as part of adventure design, define things as a simple framework and let players dictate what actually happens with there actions. I want there to be a few set piece encounters (where needed as high points) but other than that let players actions define what the encounters actually are.

At the end of the day, the adventure is a like a pulp-fantasy book. I will lay the frame work, but I want the players to write it. I will stand by and build in plot points to keep them moving, determine how various factions relate to the events at hand, and other than that let the players roam.

Too ambitious?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Fleischmann7
has no status.

Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3
Novice (Lvl 1)

Reported