Will you mix playstyles?

[exile]

I'm just going to keep playing Pathfinder.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. That said, I don't see the group that I do most of my gaming with switching from Pathfinder to anything else for our primary game. Still, we do dabble with other games, and we'll probably do that with 5E/DDN too. It's too early to guess what modules we as individual players or as a group will embrace.

When I get together with my friends in Ohio, I'll probably play whatever they are playing. Given the looks of things, that might be 4E even after 5E/DDN is released-- but, who really knows for sure?

When I go to conventions, I'll probably keep playing Pathfinder Society and whatever organized play option we have from WotC and/or their subsidiaries. What I'm really curious about is this-- what options/modules will 5E/DDN embrace? Will they vary from campaign to campaign (will their be more than one) or even game to game?

Chad

 

[Blacky the Blackball]

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.

So most smaller combats are done simply and the big important ones are done in detail.

The player who likes combat to be quick is glad that the lesser combats don't take too long; the player who likes combat to be tactical is glad that the important combats are detailed; and they both put up with the combats that are not done to their style because they would rather compromise than not have a game.

 

[Gundark]

Realistically I think when these two sit down to play 5E together they will each have to make sacrifices in terms of modular options.

Yep

 

[jbear]

Err... where has the Original Post gone???

Anyway, to answer the title ... will I mix styles ... errrr .... yep.

But I don't play D&D with mad folk like us that actually spend time on RPG opinion forums like us. I play with normal folk (not suggesting you the reader aren't normal. I'm sure you are! ... sometimes at least ... maybe ... but I doubt it.)

Hehehe ... But what I mean is, I'm not going to have issues of "I want to make a 3.5 character style and I want and AD&D character style".

But as a DM I look forward to mixing up styles. Take combat for an example. Quick, dirty, mapless/miniless fights mixed with quick dirty fights with minis and full on tactical battles of epic scope that might take a whole session.

Sometimes I'll use some rules (eg. OATks) and sometimes, in the interest of flow I just won't bother, and just allow a flowing series of descriptions. Sometimes the barbarian will be able to kick down the door or jump the hole without having to roll ... but when the situation calls for it those elements can change to requiring a roll.

I think that doing that allows the DM to endow the game with a good rhythm. The parts that are important can be fully developed, but the area that surrounds it can be properly fleshed out without the PCs having to slog through it all. They can go through it all, but without the slog. That sounds like a great idea to me!

 

[Lwaxy]

We are mixing play styles for years. Heck, I had people from different games at one table, not only different editions )