Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What does "Support" for a play style mean to you?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5980613" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>Many of my playstyle components vary from campaign to campaign. A few of them even vary session to session, as my rotating cast of players has different preferences. So active support from game elements is nice when I can get it, and there is a certain minimum needed there, lest I be better off choosing another game. But mainly I want options--which means as much as possible no playstyle assumptions embedded into the framework around which the game is built. </p><p> </p><p>Then after that, as I said elsewhere, I want the game to do what it says it does. No more, no less. If it says it supports A and B playstyles, which I know full well are mutually incompatible under certain circumstances, then I darn well expect there to be clear options for A and B, called out as such, and working to produce those styles at least a little. This is in contrast to, say, a mushed together mechanic with some vague language that you could take to be either A or B, with the strong implication that the DM will take this mushy stuff and stick it into holes to cover up problems. <strong>I can do better than that by myself</strong>, provided that I don't have to shovel all the manure out of the way first to find the darn structure--if any even exists. </p><p> </p><p>Supporting a playstyle means having the courage to actually support it. Supporting multiple playstyles means also having the courage to tell people that this part of the game over here isn't for them. They should use that part over there, instead. You can't display such courage if you aren't clear in your own mind about the nature of the stuff over here and over there. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></p><p> </p><p>If followed, this means that some pieces of some playstyles--and in some cases whole playstyles--won't be supported, and there won't be any doubt. For me, that means that I'll respect the game more, and buy it to run when the pieces are there work for me. If it claims to do something it doesn't, OTOH, I find that I buy a little of it (if otherwise good), shed the manure, and then go off on my own with it. So even in the latter stages, "support" means "does what it says it does." </p><p> </p><p>BTW, whatever else people may like or dislike about him, I think Monte Cook did a very good job of this with his Malhovic products. I didn't want half of them, but it was always crystal clear which ones I did and didn't want, even before release.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5980613, member: 54877"] Many of my playstyle components vary from campaign to campaign. A few of them even vary session to session, as my rotating cast of players has different preferences. So active support from game elements is nice when I can get it, and there is a certain minimum needed there, lest I be better off choosing another game. But mainly I want options--which means as much as possible no playstyle assumptions embedded into the framework around which the game is built. Then after that, as I said elsewhere, I want the game to do what it says it does. No more, no less. If it says it supports A and B playstyles, which I know full well are mutually incompatible under certain circumstances, then I darn well expect there to be clear options for A and B, called out as such, and working to produce those styles at least a little. This is in contrast to, say, a mushed together mechanic with some vague language that you could take to be either A or B, with the strong implication that the DM will take this mushy stuff and stick it into holes to cover up problems. [B]I can do better than that by myself[/B], provided that I don't have to shovel all the manure out of the way first to find the darn structure--if any even exists. Supporting a playstyle means having the courage to actually support it. Supporting multiple playstyles means also having the courage to tell people that this part of the game over here isn't for them. They should use that part over there, instead. You can't display such courage if you aren't clear in your own mind about the nature of the stuff over here and over there. :D If followed, this means that some pieces of some playstyles--and in some cases whole playstyles--won't be supported, and there won't be any doubt. For me, that means that I'll respect the game more, and buy it to run when the pieces are there work for me. If it claims to do something it doesn't, OTOH, I find that I buy a little of it (if otherwise good), shed the manure, and then go off on my own with it. So even in the latter stages, "support" means "does what it says it does." BTW, whatever else people may like or dislike about him, I think Monte Cook did a very good job of this with his Malhovic products. I didn't want half of them, but it was always crystal clear which ones I did and didn't want, even before release. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What does "Support" for a play style mean to you?
Top