log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Preferred DM vs PC game type.

Plutancatty

Explorer
Alright, so this was supposed to be a poll, but apparently I'm stupid with computers and didn't notice I posted it while checking the poll thing etc. Anyway.

In a recent thread I started, (this one http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...think-Strahd-isn-t-actually-so-bad-(Spoilers)) I got a number of comments on my situation saying I had miscalibrated the adventure we were going to play to my group.

Which got me thinking: I myself, although I prefer to DM heroic fantasy/good guy campaigns, thoroughly enjoyed my run as a CN swordsman pirate that literally had no problems with randomly killing strangers to leave messages pinned to their bodies. And the only other slightly lengthy campaign I've been playing is ToA (still in progress, no spoilers pls), but I've had to cycle through so many PCs I just gave up and reverted to killing everything in sight there too since coming up with a different personality every other session is too much of a hassle.

Anyway, what I'm saying is: do you think there's a correlation between the types of games people like to DM and play? Do heroic fantasy DM enjoy playing evil PCs (which kind of makes sense if you think about it) Do evil scheming DMs like playing Lawful Good Paladins when they get to be on the other side of the screen? Is there no correlation? I dunno.
But I thought it would be fun to share. (And I wanted this to be a poll, but oh well).






Original Post (lol):
khg
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad



*rubs head*

Preferred DM type: As close to RAW/RAI as possible. Strict. No house rules.

Preferred player type: Someone who can roleplay well and is very involved, but doesn't come up with too crazy ideas that completely ruin my preparations. I also have a secret fetish for rules lawyers.
 


Nagol

Unimportant
Alright, so this was supposed to be a poll, but apparently I'm stupid with computers and didn't notice I posted it while checking the poll thing etc. Anyway.

In a recent thread I started, (this one http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...think-Strahd-isn-t-actually-so-bad-(Spoilers)) I got a number of comments on my situation saying I had miscalibrated the adventure we were going to play to my group.

Which got me thinking: I myself, although I prefer to DM heroic fantasy/good guy campaigns, thoroughly enjoyed my run as a CN swordsman pirate that literally had no problems with randomly killing strangers to leave messages pinned to their bodies. And the only other slightly lengthy campaign I've been playing is ToA (still in progress, no spoilers pls), but I've had to cycle through so many PCs I just gave up and reverted to killing everything in sight there too since coming up with a different personality every other session is too much of a hassle.

Anyway, what I'm saying is: do you think there's a correlation between the types of games people like to DM and play? Do heroic fantasy DM enjoy playing evil PCs (which kind of makes sense if you think about it) Do evil scheming DMs like playing Lawful Good Paladins when they get to be on the other side of the screen? Is there no correlation? I dunno.
But I thought it would be fun to share. (And I wanted this to be a poll, but oh well).






Original Post (lol):
khg

I'm a very long time DM who very occasionally gets to play. I find there is limited correlation, at best.

As a player, I'm happy to play in humour campaigns/systems. As a DM, I avoid them as much as a I can.

As a player, I strongly dislike systems where the expectation is characters will slowly worsen and die/go mad/something worse and will pass on playing. Though not my first choice for a system, I'll happily run them as a special event or if a player group approaches me and I have the free time.

As a player, I want a game where I can spend as much time as possible immersed in my character. I do not want to be controlling other game entities, dictating events that my character cannot cause, or engaging in world-building of any form. As a DM, I'm happy to run game engines and/or include tools to allow the above in my campaigns.

The old saw of 'to succeed in a campaign, discover what the DM would want to do and do that' is partly right though. Campaign expectations drive in-game consequence and the DM is generally in control of campaign responses and difficulties. If the DM is expecting highly motivated PCs that are going to ferret out their own adventures then a more passive group is going to have a boring and frustrating game. If the DM is expecting high adventure but the players want grittier low-fantasy then the group is going to clash over detail a lot. If the DM is expecting Black vs. White but the players want shades of grey to dominate then there will be frustration again.
 

5ekyu

Hero
Mostly GM, rarely play. When I do play the character is as keyed to the setting as possible. Obviously, that us not my setting.

If there is a relation between games I run and pcs I play, it's that sometimes I come across ideas in gming I find attractive and note thrm as future pcs.
 

CydKnight

Explorer
Anyway, what I'm saying is: do you think there's a correlation between the types of games people like to DM and play? Do heroic fantasy DM enjoy playing evil PCs (which kind of makes sense if you think about it) Do evil scheming DMs like playing Lawful Good Paladins when they get to be on the other side of the screen? Is there no correlation? I dunno.

If your party is a bunch of "good-guys" it only makes sense that you will have to scheme some evil as a DM. For me personally I would have to say I do enjoy playing an evil NPC as a DM if for no other reason than to help make a fun and exciting campaign for a group of do-gooders but not so much that my goal is to defeat the players (TPK or otherwise). With that said I enjoy playing good NPCs as a DM just as much and possibly more depending on how they fit into the campaign.

As a player I am pretty much always going to play a good aligned player and would likely decline an invitation to an evil-aligned party theme. It's just not enjoyable for me to play a character where the end game is likely chaos and destruction or generally always be performing some deviant type of behavior. You use Lawful good as an example but my characters tend to be mostly Chaotic good and sometimes Neutral good as loosely as alignment seems to be applied to 5E anyway.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I think there are strong correlations between how you run a game and how you play a PC. But I don't see it along the "I like playing evil people" lines.

For example, I have no interest in running a joke character nor game that full of silly or absurd things for laughs. I like a level of seriousness - sure we crack some jokes around the table, but the game itself isn't a joke.

Another example is that I'm a big believer in rulings vs. rules, and will make things feel right for the table even if it bends rules (as opposed to my stricter readings when discussing for a large group like on a forum). By the same token I am more likely to run neutral or chaotic characters. Though I will play lawful, just as RAW is fine when it doesn't get in the way.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
I have two criteria by which I judge a game:

1. It must be funny.
2. We must get stuff done.

If a game I've joined as a player does at least one of these things, I'll likely stick with it.

As a DM, I aim to achieve both of those criteria every session.
 

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
Supporter
And here I thought we were going to be talking about about adversarial DM vs PC battle royale games :)

I've only played in one game and it kind of petered out, so I've mostly DM'd and now, while I would like a chance to play again, I'm not sure I'd be happy in that role. I want to run (and potentially play in) thematically tight games. I've come to dislike the "kitchen sink" approach of FR. I want a small set of playable races and I want an unexplored setting to tackle. FR is too Disneyworld/Epcot-esque for my taste and far too well trodden. If I played, I'd be happy to play any role, but I'd probably be best as some kind of bard/lovable rogue type character as I can't help but try some witty repartee. :)
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
As a player, I really enjoy games where the PCs aren’t assumed to be allies working as a cohesive unit. I tend to get bored with “never split the party,” and much perfer when everyone has their own individual motivations and work together when it’s convent to do so, but aren’t bound to the group. I like when the spotlight swings around from one character or small set of characters to another rapidly, rather than trying to keep it on the whole party at once at all times. In theory I like the idea of DMing games where that’s the case top, but in practice I’ve very rarely had it work out well, to the point that I now generally tell players that their characters should already know each other when play starts.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
And here I thought we were going to be talking about about adversarial DM vs PC battle royale games :)

I've only played in one game and it kind of petered out, so I've mostly DM'd and now, while I would like a chance to play again, I'm not sure I'd be happy in that role. I want to run (and potentially play in) thematically tight games. I've come to dislike the "kitchen sink" approach of FR. I want a small set of playable races and I want an unexplored setting to tackle. FR is too Disneyworld/Epcot-esque for my taste and far too well trodden. If I played, I'd be happy to play any role, but I'd probably be best as some kind of bard/lovable rogue type character as I can't help but try some witty repartee. :)

The games I run tend to be tight thematically. I really give thought to the play experience and try to point all character creation options, variants, and house rules at that theme so that it self-reinforces during play. If you're in my Eberron game, it's Eberron AS ALL HELL! (Or Vikings... AS ALL HELL!)

As a player, I really enjoy games where the PCs aren’t assumed to be allies working as a cohesive unit. I tend to get bored with “never split the party,” and much perfer when everyone has their own individual motivations and work together when it’s convent to do so, but aren’t bound to the group. I like when the spotlight swings around from one character or small set of characters to another rapidly, rather than trying to keep it on the whole party at once at all times. In theory I like the idea of DMing games where that’s the case top, but in practice I’ve very rarely had it work out well, to the point that I now generally tell players that their characters should already know each other when play starts.

That sort of thing slows down the game way too much for my tastes. "Everybody knows everybody and trusts each other enough to go on dangerous adventures together." And off we go!
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
That sort of thing slows down the game way too much for my tastes. "Everybody knows everybody and trusts each other enough to go on dangerous adventures together." And off we go!

I agree! ...when I’m DMing. But as a player, I very much enjoy it.
 

I

Immortal Sun

Guest
I design and prefer to play games that are goal-oriented. I don't even really care if they're railroads if you can keep me interested. What I absolutely can't stand are "pure sandboxes" where the DM just dumps you in a world and gives you no direction at all, and players who prefer to kick about doing nothing at all in the woods rather than go on cool adventures. I live in Wyoming, I can kick around in the woods any day of the week. What I can't do is fight dragons, save princesses and go on plane-hopping adventures.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
I design and prefer to play games that are goal-oriented. I don't even really care if they're railroads if you can keep me interested. What I absolutely can't stand are "pure sandboxes" where the DM just dumps you in a world and gives you no direction at all, and players who prefer to kick about doing nothing at all in the woods rather than go on cool adventures. I live in Wyoming, I can kick around in the woods any day of the week. What I can't do is fight dragons, save princesses and go on plane-hopping adventures.

Who has time for boldly confronting deadly perils when there are all those quirky, cagey NPCs in the tavern to talk to all night?
 

A lot of the DMs I talk to say this:

"I'd love to play in an >>XYZ campaign<< but, sadly, I never get to play so I might as well run one."

And if a DM is interested in XYZ, they will likely find more satisfaction running something they're interested in.

For myself, I'm the same way but I tend to be flexible to fit the Players needs/desires. So, I really like gritty or dangerous campaigns but my players might want something more light. I'll run something lighter but occasionally add something horrifying or, maybe have an adventure that's more serious to satiate my own needs.
 

Aebir-Toril

100100101010
Preferred DM type: A serious, somewhat realistic (in game, obviously) campaign. Pragmatic and Heroic fantasy seem to work best, but any campaign type is fine as long as it's not just a series of joke adventures.

Preferred Player Type: A serious, engaging campaign with a challenging story, moral conflicts, and the opportunity to affect the world.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
I design and prefer to play games that are goal-oriented. I don't even really care if they're railroads if you can keep me interested. What I absolutely can't stand are "pure sandboxes" where the DM just dumps you in a world and gives you no direction at all, and players who prefer to kick about doing nothing at all in the woods rather than go on cool adventures. I live in Wyoming, I can kick around in the woods any day of the week. What I can't do is fight dragons, save princesses and go on plane-hopping adventures.
Agreed! I am not a fan of “find the fun” games. Open structure adventures, where there are interesting things to do that you can tackle in any order and pace you want can be great, but “pure sandboxes” are an absolute bore to me.
 

Myzzrym

Explorer
I love DM'ing for players that get invested in their character. Extra points of course if they start feeling for NPCs or start caring deeply about the story, but I find it most difficult to DM for players who don't feel attached to their own character.

After that? I run whatever I see my players like the most. Some like building up their story, others like a good fight, some are more intrigued by the world around them. As long as there's a red line to push them along so they don't end up getting bored wandering around aimlessly.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top