Lord Mhoram
Hero
Choosing what system to play is one of the most important parts of gaming. And there are many many factors going in to that game choice. A basic list would include : Playing a system that you know, playing a game because of a large player base to find new people, trying something new, staying with a familiar system because you know it so well, opinions of your game group, perhaps it's the only game in the area you can find players for, taste in styles of game, and how it fits your playstyle.
This particular installment of Playing God is going to look at the last of that list - playstyle and approach. Choosing by playstyle works very well for me, for example, as I am very self analytical when it comes to playstyle, and I enjoy murky conversations about game theory and tastes and approach to gaming. Some people find a group and game that works for them with no forethought - it is wonderful when that happens; it did to me before I got all introspective. But based on the horror stories of bad games/players/GMs this is uncommon - and something to be treasured. When the approaches do not mesh between players and Gm it tends to get in the way of everyone enjoying the game.
Now when I tend to look at theory I look at is as descriptive not prescriptive - i.e. it is something you use to analyze yourself (or your players) based on what they do, not as something to write to or build to. It's an approach I like to use sort of like musical genres - I know I like European Powermetal with clean vocals - doesn't mean I'll like all of it, but it is a good place to start when I go looking for new music.
One of the simpler playstyle choices is to choose GM and player empowerment. When you game as a GM are you the one that makes all the decisions about the immediate world, what is in the environment or the complete background of the world? That is a very traditional approach to gaming - GM runs the world, the Players run their characters and never the twain shall meet. The other extreme is running a game with no GM, with each player taking charge of some aspect (or region) of the world or are the players taking turns in the drivers seat for one scene or another (The indie supers game Capes is of the latter sort). And styles in between the two extremes - giving players drama or action points to spend to influence the result of actions without actually having the character make the change. The player decides some aspect of the scene during the play. This is a fairly important thing to understand about yourself and your players. If the players expect the ability for dramatic editing, but the game or GM is set up in a more traditional style then that is a friction point.
Another simple playstyle choice is a type of GM style - and this approach can be completely system independent, but is something else that anyone doing a playstyle analysis of themselves should be aware of. The difference between a sandbox style of play - where the GM creates the world, NPCs, and has them move independently of characters, and has no set story for the players to follow, and a more story driven game, in which the GM has a basic story outline and the players follow that story. The difference of expectation between those should be obvious - a GM with sandbox style that has players that move towards a more reactive story based approach means a frustrated GM who thinks players have no investment, and players that are bored because they haven't found the story. So this is also something that any GM should be aware of in himself and his group.
The next is a strongly related point - are the players active or re-active? Do they go and do without any prodding from DM, or do they respond to what kind of hooks that get dangled? Supers is a genre that fairly easily falls into the re-active camp; the PCs are on monitor duty or on patrol and something happens, and the group reacts to the crime. After clues are dropped they can move forward on their own direction, but the initial action are re-active to events. Often story driven and reactive players go together, and sandbox and active do as well. Neither is worse than the other, of course, it is a stylistic choice.
Another thing to think about, especially with players, is what the player wants out of the game. There are many different breakdowns about this kind of thing, but I am going with one of the more common ones - and from there into general theory into playtypes. For player motivation I will use Robin Laws' set up :
Power Gamer - wants the toughest character on the block.
Butt Kicker - Wants to fight and fight and fight some more.
Tactician - Wants to think his way out of situations
Specialist - Plays the similar characters in all situations
Method Actor - Plays to become his character (another term is deep immersion)
Storyteller - Wants the game to flow like a good novel or movie
Casual Gamer - Along for the ride.
Knowing these approaches (or other similar breakdowns) and tastes of yourself and your players helps put adventures together, keeping elements in to make sure everyone has fun, and impacts game choice - if a game is really tightly designed for one or two approaches, then players preferring other things will not be as happy playing that game. For example if everyone is basically a Butt Kicker, but the game is a story based game with very little combat, then everyone is going to come away frustrated. Of course very few people are only one category.
Lastly lets examine GNS theory - which stands for Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist. These are breakdowns of different approaches to gaming in general, whereas the previous paragraphs were speaking of specific playstyle (for example you can have a Gamist Butt-kicker, a Narrativist Butt-kicker or a Sim Butt-kicker). Most everyone has slightly different definitions of each of these, but I'll use some very basic approaches in the article.
Gamism is an approach in which playing the game itself is the main reason to play. Primary purposes of gaming are overcoming challenges you face, utilizing the mechanics and options you have to achieve victory. Games that fit this style usually have strong combat rules and detailed character creation. Pure gamism is often (wrongly) derided as Roll-playing. As an example for this kind of game (in the author's opinion) is 4E D&D. Very strong tactical challenges for the players to work together using tactics and the abilities of the character to overcome.
Narrativism is an approach where the story itself and character motivations take center stage. The how of how the villain was overcome was not as important as personal conflict that drove decisions and how well the scenes worked as a story. Games that tend towards his playstyle tend to have things like scene framing, and personality mechanics that help drive the focus towards motivation and story and away from what tactics are being used. These kind of games tend toward more shared authority so the players can have impact on the story directly. An example of this kind of game is FATE - for example the Dresden Files iteration of the game. Players have personality traits like “Stubborn” defined by the player. When that trait comes up in play to help the character he can use a token to say “I'm stubborn so the vampire can't intimidate me into changing what I want to do,” and gain a bonus to his skill roll.
The Simulationist approach is to try to recreate reality, or the reality of a genre or source material. In this type of game there will be rules to enforce that reality; in a swashbuckling game taking large risks will not cause lots of penalties and lead to death. Jumping off a balcony cutting the curtains to ride it down to the table to fence with someone there will gain bonuses as it reflects the reality of that genre. As an example HERO system is a simulationist system - with genre rules with each genre and easily modified rule base to help reinforce the tone and style of the game.
Knowing the approach of the players and GM, as well as what the game system supports or encourages could be very important when choosing a system to play. Choosing a game which supports any specific playstyle with strong mechanics would make is unsuitable (or at least more difficult) for another playsytle. There are also systems that don't have strong support in any direction, and it is up to the group to tend in one direction or another. Which of course, means finding a game that fits your playstyle and preference is vitally important.
This has been a brief overview of some of the ways people try to look at and analyze playstyle and games. No matter which analytical terms you use, if the people in the game group understand what each person wants out of the game it makes for more time spent playing, and less time spent on disagreements.
Next week is part two - where we take some of the information we went over today, and apply it to the nitty gritty of actually choosing a system, or houseruleing one you like to better fit your need.
Addendum: for those who are interests in the author's personal approach - Traditional GM/Player authority, re-active, story driven and simulationist. Player type is Power Gamer/Thespian - as my sigline says "Build 'em like a powergamer, but play 'em like a roleplayer. - firesnakearies”
Link to previous Installment
This particular installment of Playing God is going to look at the last of that list - playstyle and approach. Choosing by playstyle works very well for me, for example, as I am very self analytical when it comes to playstyle, and I enjoy murky conversations about game theory and tastes and approach to gaming. Some people find a group and game that works for them with no forethought - it is wonderful when that happens; it did to me before I got all introspective. But based on the horror stories of bad games/players/GMs this is uncommon - and something to be treasured. When the approaches do not mesh between players and Gm it tends to get in the way of everyone enjoying the game.
Now when I tend to look at theory I look at is as descriptive not prescriptive - i.e. it is something you use to analyze yourself (or your players) based on what they do, not as something to write to or build to. It's an approach I like to use sort of like musical genres - I know I like European Powermetal with clean vocals - doesn't mean I'll like all of it, but it is a good place to start when I go looking for new music.
One of the simpler playstyle choices is to choose GM and player empowerment. When you game as a GM are you the one that makes all the decisions about the immediate world, what is in the environment or the complete background of the world? That is a very traditional approach to gaming - GM runs the world, the Players run their characters and never the twain shall meet. The other extreme is running a game with no GM, with each player taking charge of some aspect (or region) of the world or are the players taking turns in the drivers seat for one scene or another (The indie supers game Capes is of the latter sort). And styles in between the two extremes - giving players drama or action points to spend to influence the result of actions without actually having the character make the change. The player decides some aspect of the scene during the play. This is a fairly important thing to understand about yourself and your players. If the players expect the ability for dramatic editing, but the game or GM is set up in a more traditional style then that is a friction point.
Another simple playstyle choice is a type of GM style - and this approach can be completely system independent, but is something else that anyone doing a playstyle analysis of themselves should be aware of. The difference between a sandbox style of play - where the GM creates the world, NPCs, and has them move independently of characters, and has no set story for the players to follow, and a more story driven game, in which the GM has a basic story outline and the players follow that story. The difference of expectation between those should be obvious - a GM with sandbox style that has players that move towards a more reactive story based approach means a frustrated GM who thinks players have no investment, and players that are bored because they haven't found the story. So this is also something that any GM should be aware of in himself and his group.
The next is a strongly related point - are the players active or re-active? Do they go and do without any prodding from DM, or do they respond to what kind of hooks that get dangled? Supers is a genre that fairly easily falls into the re-active camp; the PCs are on monitor duty or on patrol and something happens, and the group reacts to the crime. After clues are dropped they can move forward on their own direction, but the initial action are re-active to events. Often story driven and reactive players go together, and sandbox and active do as well. Neither is worse than the other, of course, it is a stylistic choice.
Another thing to think about, especially with players, is what the player wants out of the game. There are many different breakdowns about this kind of thing, but I am going with one of the more common ones - and from there into general theory into playtypes. For player motivation I will use Robin Laws' set up :
Power Gamer - wants the toughest character on the block.
Butt Kicker - Wants to fight and fight and fight some more.
Tactician - Wants to think his way out of situations
Specialist - Plays the similar characters in all situations
Method Actor - Plays to become his character (another term is deep immersion)
Storyteller - Wants the game to flow like a good novel or movie
Casual Gamer - Along for the ride.
Knowing these approaches (or other similar breakdowns) and tastes of yourself and your players helps put adventures together, keeping elements in to make sure everyone has fun, and impacts game choice - if a game is really tightly designed for one or two approaches, then players preferring other things will not be as happy playing that game. For example if everyone is basically a Butt Kicker, but the game is a story based game with very little combat, then everyone is going to come away frustrated. Of course very few people are only one category.
Lastly lets examine GNS theory - which stands for Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist. These are breakdowns of different approaches to gaming in general, whereas the previous paragraphs were speaking of specific playstyle (for example you can have a Gamist Butt-kicker, a Narrativist Butt-kicker or a Sim Butt-kicker). Most everyone has slightly different definitions of each of these, but I'll use some very basic approaches in the article.
Gamism is an approach in which playing the game itself is the main reason to play. Primary purposes of gaming are overcoming challenges you face, utilizing the mechanics and options you have to achieve victory. Games that fit this style usually have strong combat rules and detailed character creation. Pure gamism is often (wrongly) derided as Roll-playing. As an example for this kind of game (in the author's opinion) is 4E D&D. Very strong tactical challenges for the players to work together using tactics and the abilities of the character to overcome.
Narrativism is an approach where the story itself and character motivations take center stage. The how of how the villain was overcome was not as important as personal conflict that drove decisions and how well the scenes worked as a story. Games that tend towards his playstyle tend to have things like scene framing, and personality mechanics that help drive the focus towards motivation and story and away from what tactics are being used. These kind of games tend toward more shared authority so the players can have impact on the story directly. An example of this kind of game is FATE - for example the Dresden Files iteration of the game. Players have personality traits like “Stubborn” defined by the player. When that trait comes up in play to help the character he can use a token to say “I'm stubborn so the vampire can't intimidate me into changing what I want to do,” and gain a bonus to his skill roll.
The Simulationist approach is to try to recreate reality, or the reality of a genre or source material. In this type of game there will be rules to enforce that reality; in a swashbuckling game taking large risks will not cause lots of penalties and lead to death. Jumping off a balcony cutting the curtains to ride it down to the table to fence with someone there will gain bonuses as it reflects the reality of that genre. As an example HERO system is a simulationist system - with genre rules with each genre and easily modified rule base to help reinforce the tone and style of the game.
Knowing the approach of the players and GM, as well as what the game system supports or encourages could be very important when choosing a system to play. Choosing a game which supports any specific playstyle with strong mechanics would make is unsuitable (or at least more difficult) for another playsytle. There are also systems that don't have strong support in any direction, and it is up to the group to tend in one direction or another. Which of course, means finding a game that fits your playstyle and preference is vitally important.
This has been a brief overview of some of the ways people try to look at and analyze playstyle and games. No matter which analytical terms you use, if the people in the game group understand what each person wants out of the game it makes for more time spent playing, and less time spent on disagreements.
Next week is part two - where we take some of the information we went over today, and apply it to the nitty gritty of actually choosing a system, or houseruleing one you like to better fit your need.
Addendum: for those who are interests in the author's personal approach - Traditional GM/Player authority, re-active, story driven and simulationist. Player type is Power Gamer/Thespian - as my sigline says "Build 'em like a powergamer, but play 'em like a roleplayer. - firesnakearies”
Link to previous Installment
