Will you mix playstyles?

[Blacky the Blackball]

My players have preferences, not demands.

They're reasonable and mature adults who would rather play their second choice than not play at all because they have an attitude of "first choice or nothing".

Unsurprisingly, that makes it relatively easy for is to play any edition in a way that keeps everyone happy, even if most of the table would rather be playing other (but not the same other) editions.

So no, I don't think it's impossible to mix playstyles at all.

 

[PeelSeel2]

I mix 4e and 1e or any edition I want to frequently. It is possible, it is fun. My players and I love the random magic item tables, random encounter tables, and random loot. I do not mind if they "have too much treasure", I can always find a way as a DM to whittle it down.

 

[Agamon]

Considering some of the attitudes and conversations I've seen around here lately, I think you'd be surprised.

ENWorld isn't a typical gaming group.

 

[Mallus]

ENWorld isn't a typical gaming group.

And the online world isn't the face-to-face world.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

ENWorld isn't a typical gaming group.

And the online world isn't the face-to-face world.

My thoughts, exactly.

 

[malkav666]

I have no problem mixing playstyles as long as some elements remain constant for the whole group like:

Pacing- whatever playstyles exist they need to all be able to be done well at a single pace. When I speak about pace I mean the amount of combats between rests and the overall relative amount of resources used and gained with the conclusion of each combat encounter. I am willing to to look at many playstyles as long as they can be played with some type of balance. I am willing for slight variation here as I can adjust the pace to make a slight outlier shine. But if these playstyles both interact in grossly different ways to similar pacing then its a no go for me. I need to be able to set a pace for the group that challenges everyone. In fact pacing is probably the most important part of good gaming aside from story to me. The pacing sweetspot needs to be the same or sameish for all playstyles or I wont be able to mechanically induce urgency or ease with any amount of regularity, and that is pretty hard to overcome.

Power curve- Once again I am looking for a same ballpark type of balance here. I don't need the playstyles to have the exact same uniform options, but I would not want one playstyle to dominate the whole curve. Im cool if some start out slow and then get powerful and some come in hard and even out, or anything in between. But an approach that keeps a playstyle at the top of the curve always, is a no go for me.

Behind the screen rules interaction- regardless of how many playstyles they choose to have they need to all resolve the same way behind the screen. I have enough to do without having each player have their own specific playstyle inherent resolution mechanics. I am cool with exceptions for spells/special abilities. I am talking about core resolution for things that all characters can do.

My other concern is thematic in nature. But TBH D&D has never had a constant theme in core, thats what campaign settings are for, and I would rather see many themes presented and pick and choose what i like than have to design stuff myself that is simply not present, So that is not something I need them to address in the book, but will be addressed at my tables as far as mixed playstyles are concerned.

There may be a few others i add to the list once I get to thinking more on it but in large those are my caveats.

love,

malkav

 

[Kzach]

You mean there are other reasonable people playing D&D, besides me and my friends? This is excellent news!

If you're reasonable, then you're not a grognard

 

[PeacemakerSG]

"Mixing play styles" is too broad a statement or question this case. Mechanics, which is generally what we are speaking about, can be blended but not of course 100% used simultaneously. However, from my perspective, I have found a way to have nearly all the D&D type stuff in a single system. Frankly I'm surprised that Wizards hasn't figured it out yet but then again they have gamers on the projects not process engineers like myself. They got stuck on a path of increasing options without creating the base to coordinate those options. Rookies!

So I know it can be done, with the exception of a few very specifics mechanics that don't jibe. On that note, I believe 4e should be taken further down its path towards a distinct tactical combat game (War Hammer lite). Editions 1-3.5 can be blended very well.

But ultimately, by way of another seasoned nod to reasonableness, as long as any set of mechanics is readily playable, people that enjoy the actual role playing aspect of role playing, can and will make it work and concentrate on the fun, not the minutia. People like role playing, they like D&D, and if 5e can include the stuff people like in a cohesive non-clumsy manner that does not require a daunting amount of reading just to generate a character, then it will be well received.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I think that the thing about DDN that will most likely and most explosively blow up in WotC's face upon launch is the claim that you will be able to mix playstyles in one group, not just from a mechanical perspective but from the perspective that all will have a satisfying experience at the table.

It's just not possible.

Now, having said that, if they somehow DO manage to pull off the impossible and it all does work, a cosmic event that requires Nuitari, Lunitari and Solinari to align for sure, then the all important question becomes: WILL you mix playstyles in your group?

The explosive potential of having a diehard grognard sit next to a 4tard (I'm allowed to say that because I'm a 4e fan) is just too good for me to pass up. I'm already planning on how I will rope in players to test this new, non-nuclear, WMD just to see the destruction it will leave behind and witness the devastation as it unfolds at ground zero.

So... up for a game?

Yes, but you will not be invited.

Not even out, not even in Beta, and already this negative?

 

[RandallS]

So no, I don't think it's impossible to mix playstyles at all.

That's true for some styles of play, but not really true for others. For example, two players are playing in a game. One wants combats to be very short (an average of 10 minutes max) and abstract (no minis, no battlemats, with tactics limited to real world type tactics), and does combat as war. The others wants detailed tactical combat with minis and battlemats, thinks combats that take 10 minutes or less are a waste of time as it can take almost that long just to set up battlemat and minis, and wants a lot of rules mechanics tactics and does combat as sport. Expecting these two styles of to co-exist in one game is probably unrealistic even if the GM is equally adapt with both styles. The players want far different things from the game.