What does "Support" for a play style mean to you?

[Tony Vargas]

Part of 5e's mission is to support many play styles. But, what does "support" really mean? That is, in the context of a system "supporting" a play style.

(For purposes of this poll, 'play style' can mean whatever works for you - whether that's GNS or CaW/CaS or roll vs role or even just "the way I play the game" without examining what that 'way' is.

I'm interested in what people mean by 'support,' when they complain that a game doesn't 'support' what they want to do.)


I'll add clarifications to the choices in this post, if anyone has questions or objections:

• The game works smoothly when I play it in my prefered style.
• Others can play in their styles at the same table without getting in the way of my style.
• The game mechanically rewards my play style. 'Rewards' would be actual mechanical benefits - bigger bonuses, more abilities, greater effectiveness. In retrospect, I guess this is a player PoV thing.
• The game mechanically punishes discourages play styles I dislike. 'Discourages' would be the polar opposite of 'rewards,' adopting a disfavored play style reduces your effectiveness - penalties, loss of actions, loss of options, etc...
• Playing the game by the rules-as-written naturally leads to playing it in the style I prefer. That is, leads anyone playing it naturally to that particular style.
• Optional rules allow me, as a player, to customize it to better fit the style in which I play.
• Optional rules allow me, as a DM, to customize it to encourage the style I prefer my players to use. 'Encourage' here would be much like 'reward' above, the system grants advantages to PCs if the player adopts the preferred style
• The system is rules-light enough for me, as a DM, to impose a style upon it by adding and modifying rules on the fly.
• The system is open to modification, by the DM, to support a style in one or more of the above ways.
• Other (please elaborate in a reply)

 

[GX.Sigma]

• The system is rules-light enough for me, as a DM, to impose a style upon it by adding and modifying rules on the fly.

I wouldn't call this support, but this is my minimum requirement. (e.g., The playtest rules worked for me because I was able to easily add exploration rules, even though they weren't in the doc).


I don't understand what you mean by "rewards my play style."

 

[Black Knight Irios]

I must be honest I first thought after reading your threat title you wanted to discuss the notion of playing a supporter (buffer/debuffer) character. Reading skills...


a) Support, for me, means that the RAW support the playstyle.

b) All options that enable players/DMs additions to RAW are not supporting a playstyle they are not forbidding it.

If there was a Module to support the playstyle my answer would be a).

 

[Balesir]

• Other (please elaborate in a reply)

I'm saying "other", here, because I really don't have a single "play style" I want to see. I just want to see any one play style that appeals to me supported coherently. What I mean by "supported" is that the rules as written - either core or with modules - reward that style coherently (i.e. they reward that style consistently, they don't sometimes reward it and sometimes punish it).

By and "reward" what I mean is that playing in the style allows the player some measure of control - allows them to determine (or at least strongly influence) the in-game outcomes. This can crop up in surprising ways. A recent suggestion for spells to have multi-round casting times, for example, hurts tactical play of spellcasters because it means that they have reduced control of the tactical position at the time the spell goes off. This reduces the "reward" that is available for tactically planning when and where to cast spells.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I answered something, but - what is a play style actually? We throw this word around so much, but it seems something very nebelous and ill-defined. Maybe that's actually enough, because play styles are varied much, but what really define a play style? What are the elements? Is the term really that useful?

 

[Black Knight Irios]

I answered something, but - what is a play style actually? We throw this word around so much, but it seems something very nebelous and ill-defined. Maybe that's actually enough, because play styles are varied much, but what really define a play style? What are the elements? Is the term really that useful?

Could be a new topic. Playstyles: definitions.

I think we can discuss the question at hand w/o defining a list of playstyles b/c the question is rather vague itself and can be answered in a general way.

Take a look at the two posts before your own as an example.

 

[Underman]

By and "reward" what I mean is that playing in the style allows the player some measure of control - allows them to determine (or at least strongly influence) the in-game outcomes. This can crop up in surprising ways. A recent suggestion for spells to have multi-round casting times, for example, hurts tactical play of spellcasters because it means that they have reduced control of the tactical position at the time the spell goes off. This reduces the "reward" that is available for tactically planning when and where to cast spells.

Multi-round casting is tactical, in the same way that chess is tactical -- you try to plan 2+ moves in advance, and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, in which case you change tactics. And I believe am I correctly using the term "tactical" as in a short sequence of moves for a tangible gain vs "strategic" which is a long term plan or idea. Instant immediate reward every round is one playstyle, but it's not necessarily more tactically rewarding, just differently so.

 

[Minigiant]

Well I don't like any particular playstyle.

In fact I hate to play the same kind of game for multiple times in a short duration.

But I would like support as rewarding the playstyles mechanically and allowing the playstyle to run smoothly.

I DON'T WANT:

• Playstyle discouragement (because I prefer multiple playstyles)
• An enforced RAW playstyle (see above)
• An extremely rules light system with few modules (as this put more work in the group's hands and leads to hostilities if the group lacks definition of their preferred playstyle early)

 

[Dice4Hire]

Yes, I want the basic version of 5E to support my playstyle.

I want optional elements to enhance what the basic game does for my playstyle.

I do not want the basic game to hurt otehr people's playstelys, but i see that as inevitable as I do not think all playstyles can fit under one roof even with optional rules elements.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well I don't like any particular playstyle.

In fact I hate to play the same kind of game for multiple times in a short duration.

But I would like support as rewarding the playstyles mechanically and allowing the playstyle to run smoothly.

I DON'T WANT:

• Playstyle discouragement (because I prefer multiple playstearly
• An enforced RAW playstyle (see above)
• An extremely rules light system with few modules (as this put more work in the group's hands and leads to hostilities if the group lacks definition of their preferred playstyle early)

Yeah, I'll have to pretty much join Minigiant on that one. I'd even go further and say that I don't really like to see a single campaign where things go on and on in the same vein forever. For any given group and game there are going to be some things that are just natural to that group, but there's no reason why a game should be narrow in scope even then.

I find it difficult for instance to put any kind of classification on the game I am currently running with 4e. Sometimes it is hack-n-slash with a bunch of sessions of grim fights. Other times it is highly expositional and mostly RP with whole sessions between fights or where dice never even come off the table. There are just no easy generalizations. One week I might run a bunch of things as SCs, and another week I might just leave it to the players to decide to make checks or just tell me what they're doing. Perhaps I'm highly inconstant as a DM, but it works. People keep playing, so I presume it works for the players too, lol.

Mostly I don't want to have to pay a lot of attention to the rules, but I'd like to have good ones that work and don't need tinkering either. Again, maybe I'm weird, but I don't really want to sift through lots of options or think about play style. I can come talk all about theory and practice on a board like this, but it means jack at the table.