D&D 5E Playstyle- Storytelling verse Game

[iserith]

I've played with hundreds as well, and noted several very clear different sets of expectations.

Some have fun by playing RPG's as conflict simulations — wargames, if you will — and especially tactical simulations. They generally don't care much about the story. They don't have fun when the story doesn't involve conflicts they can win.

Some have fun by being in-character. Not, per se, acting, but by picking actions that the character would/should, even if it leads to defeats. A few of my players over the years are VERY much into this; one even tho' he's a very competent tactician. He will NOT play tactics if the character isn't of that ilk, and gets really annoyed by tactics-first players. He wants story to emerge from character interactions. He often resents modules as being incompatible with the character he's currently playing.

Some have fun by progressing a story - they're very happy playing a module, provided the module implies strongly enough how to progress to the next part. They are also happy causing a story to emerge from play. But they want that story.

Others are Emergent story only - they don't particularly get into character, but also want a story emergent from play choices. They're as happy playing Fiasco and Aye Dark Overlord as with open ended hex-crawls.

And I've met a few for whom it's all an excuse for improv acting. They get incredibly frustrated in my games, because they tend to be the only ones in character voice most of the time. I can't stand them, either.

With D&D 5e, I can play with all of those people at the same table. Here are 15 or so scenarios for D&D 5e that I created that'll please them all.

Mr. or Ms. Combat will have no shortage of fights, after all this game is about bold adventurers confronting deadly perils. That's right on page 2.

Person Who Does What the Character Might Do? He or she can do that -and suck out loud at combat, since combat isn't always the best solution anyway. And if he or she plays to established traits, ideals, bonds, or flaws, I can reward that with Inspiration. And that player can reward other players with that Inspiration by passing his or hers to others.

The story folks are the easiest to please - every game (plot or no-plot) produces a story simply by playing it. They can just have fun making choices that make that emergent story better.

And the Improv Guys and Gals - no worries. D&D is a game based on improvisation with a set of rules for task and conflict resolution. Both active and descriptive roleplaying are accepted means of interacting, according to D&D 5e. They can rack up Inspiration just like the folks who only do what their character might do.

So all it takes is a passionate DM to prepare content and facilitate the game and players who aren't dysfunctional humans that are incapable of any kind of compromise or who will put their personal priorities over everyone else to the detriment of the game. For all the words spent on "playstyle," it doesn't amount to much in my view. I'll have the lot of them at my table and we'll have a blast.

 

[SirAntoine]

I've always run a happy balance between the two. The story has usually be very well written (or so I hoped), and it's really most important, but the game comes in at just less than 50/50. The game style is like a sacred right you can expect as a player. You bend enough to let the DM tell their story, but the DM referees "the game".

 

[aramis erak]

With D&D 5e, I can play with all of those people at the same table. Here are 15 or so scenarios for D&D 5e that I created that'll please them all.

Mr. or Ms. Combat will have no shortage of fights, after all this game is about bold adventurers confronting deadly perils. That's right on page 2.

Person Who Does What the Character Might Do? He or she can do that -and suck out loud at combat, since combat isn't always the best solution anyway. And if he or she plays to established traits, ideals, bonds, or flaws, I can reward that with Inspiration. And that player can reward other players with that Inspiration by passing his or hers to others.

The story folks are the easiest to please - every game (plot or no-plot) produces a story simply by playing it. They can just have fun making choices that make that emergent story better.

And the Improv Guys and Gals - no worries. D&D is a game based on improvisation with a set of rules for task and conflict resolution. Both active and descriptive roleplaying are accepted means of interacting, according to D&D 5e. They can rack up Inspiration just like the folks who only do what their character might do.

So all it takes is a passionate DM to prepare content and facilitate the game and players who aren't dysfunctional humans that are incapable of any kind of compromise or who will put their personal priorities over everyone else to the detriment of the game. For all the words spent on "playstyle," it doesn't amount to much in my view. I'll have the lot of them at my table and we'll have a blast.

And you'd piss off the storyg-guy who wants a non-combat adventure.

MANY playstyles are incompatible. THe adventure might have something for most, but its not going to please everyone.

 

[iserith]

And you'd piss off the storyg-guy who wants a non-combat adventure.

MANY playstyles are incompatible. THe adventure might have something for most, but its not going to please everyone.

Adventures aren't "combat" or "non-combat." Combat is a solution players choose to apply to a challenge presented by the DM. Mandating that combat is the solution to a problem is taking away the player's agency to choose how they will address conflicts in the game. This is a game of bold adventurers confronting deadly perils in worlds of sword and sorcery. Story Guy can choose how he has his character confront those deadly perils.

I think playstyles are compatible and work fine together as long as the people involved aren't dysfunctional and are working together, each in their own way, to achieve the goals of play. I'm confident enough in my own abilities to say that I can make that happen with any group of reasonable people. And I think most DMs could do the same.

This whole playstyle thing is just fodder for forum arguments in my view and isn't worth much at an actual table.

 

[Mark CMG]

Essentially every single game is different, and not just the game rulesets but each individual game played using any given ruleset.

That said, RPGs basically began where folks looked at minis wargames and wondered if they could zero in and play just one guy. By playing that role in a game, they explored a setting and made their way in the world being run by a referee, later known as a DM or GM or otherwise. At some point, some GMs (to use the most general term) wanted to overlay a story onto the setting and added some storytelling elements rather than simply having an open setting to explore, in part because they may have felt it limited the amount of prep they needed to do for a setting and/or because they may have felt it yielded a more satisfying end to a game or campaign. Eventually, full-fledged Storytelling games developed as an offshoot of RPGs.

So, it's sort of a misnomer to refer to a way of playing a particular game as a playstyle rather than to refer back to the rules of the game and determine whether the game itself is meant as an RPG, an RPG with some storytelling elements, or a full-fledged Storytelling game (or even something else all together!), then determine if the people playing in that one instance are playing the rules as they were written or are removing some rules or adding some table-rules they happen to enjoy. Change the rules and you're really playing a different game, not enacting a playstyle. So, too, not everyone at the same table necessarily plays the same way though they might all adhere to the same rules.

It's like when some of my local friends play Lords of Waterdeep we remove the Lord that gives an end game bonus for buildings, as some locals find that one unbalanced (I don't necessarily agree but I acquiesce). That's not really a playstyle but more of a rules variant since the rules of the game are as they are and we're essentially changing them.

It's also a matter of goals. In a roleplaying game the goal is to play the game in that one role, regardless of whatever story might retrospectively be told about how things developed. In a storytelling game, the goal is the story that will be developed by the player(s), and role (if indeed there are roles being played) are often not as high a priority.

But, again, anyone can take any ruleset and do as they like with it, and everyone does so. The only right way to play a game is by securing the collaboration of all the players, even if the rules aren't strictly followed.