A Civil Playstyle Discussion

[Kobold Catgirl]

We all like to talk about the different ways we play. Actually, that's one of the few recurring arguments on these forums I don't totally hate! Yet. The trouble is, we like those conversations so much, we tend to sidetrek other threads with them.

This thread is intended as a general "forum" for talking about playstyle. That primarily includes, but is not limited to:

• Roleplaying-to-combat ratios
  
• Rules vs. flavor
  
• Powerful and flavorful builds
  
• Evil parties vs. noble parties vs. slightly sketchy parties
  
• "Sandbox" (open route, open destination) vs. "railroad" (set route, set destination) vs. "freeway" (open route, set destination)
  
• Silly vs. serious
  
• Genre choices

Currently, there's a discussion about dungeon delving that started here:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Can some of you old timers explain the appeal to dungeon delving?

I know personally speaking I infinitely prefer an open world motif.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Please play nice! Wrongbadfunsters are bound to pay a $50 Paizobucks fine. Oh, don't worry if you can't pay it—you can just take out a small loan from The International Bank of Paizo (we are not a pyramid scheme).

[DrDeth]

As I posted: (speaking as a Grognard, by request)

"We had open worlds too. Just that dungeons had concentrated loot and foes, and usually were built on a level system, with easier monsters up top, and so forth. Whereas wilderness random encounters could result in a TPK, easy.

Outdoors was also "travel, fight, rest- rinse wash repeat". Dungeons included traps, puzzles, mysterious idols or pools, and even wish rooms."

[Bill Dunn]

Dungeons and other confined spaces including castles, tombs, caves, and so on are convenient and relatively easy to manage for GMs. PC options are generally more predictable and often easier to adjudicate.

[Dire Elf]

I've done almost every option described in the OP - sandbox/railroad/freeway, optimized builds and flavorful builds, silly campaigns and deadly serious ones, lots of genres (fantasy, urban fantasy, sci fi, superheroes), rules-light and rules-heavy systems.

But the one thing I've never participated in is an evil campaign, or even a very morally ambiguous one. My group tend to avoid playing all lawful good, but most of the characters are usually good on one axis of alignment. We did try a one-shot Star Wars game in which all the characters were Sith, and I found it extremely exhausting and stressful to be evil for just that 3 or 4 hour period. One of my friends said she felt the same way. I don't think I could deal with an entire campaign of evil characters.

So that's my playstyle - I'll try almost anything, as long as it's not evil.

[kyrt-ryder]

Some of the people you know in the real world might be evil. There have been times I self-identified as evil.

[Steve Geddes]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

This thread is intended as a general "forum" for talking about playstyle. That primarily includes, but is not limited to:

• Roleplaying-to-combat ratios
  
• Rules vs. flavor
  
• Powerful and flavorful builds
  
• Evil parties vs. noble parties vs. slightly sketchy parties
  
• "Sandbox" (open route, open destination) vs. "railroad" (set route, set destination) vs. "freeway" (open route, set destination)
  
• Silly vs. serious
  
• Genre choices

Currently, there's a discussion about dungeon delving that started here:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Can some of you old timers explain the appeal to dungeon delving?

I know personally speaking I infinitely prefer an open world motif.

As a player, my preferences in those categories are:

• Combat over roleplaying but story is greater than both.
  
• Flavor over rules.
  
• Flavorful over powerful builds
  
• Noble parties or slightly sketchy parties are fine. Evil parties dont work for me.
  
• Sandbox is my preference. I don't really see the distinction between the other two - they just seem like different forms of railroading. I think I'd prefer railroad over freeway.
  
• Serious over silly (I rarely enjoy playing in a silly game)
  
• The only genres I enjoy playing in are "traditional" western fantasy.
  
• Dungeons > Urban > Wilderness - as far as adventure settings are concerned. (Combined with sandbox is why I like megadungeons)

Putting a game together, I think it might be fruitful to ask your players a similar set of questions before deciding on the campaign.

[kyrt-ryder]

Kobold cleaver wrote:

• Genre choices

Kitchen sink Western Science fantAsia

[thejeff]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

"Sandbox" (open route, open destination) vs. "railroad" (set route, set destination) vs. "freeway" (open route, set destination)

Sandbox is my preference. I don't really see the distinction between the other two - they just seem like different forms of railroading. I think I'd prefer railroad over freeway.

Interesting. Why prefer the railroad?

At least as I see what he calls "Freeway", it matches most of the gaming I've done. There's a main campaign plot - an main antagonist (or more than one) with plots and plans that you're trying to stop. Often much of the lower level part is trying to figure out how it all ties together, who's the real bad guy and what they're up to.
Distinct from a sandbox in that there is a predefined focus, a problem to deal with, but distinct from railroad in that you've got a lot of freedom in how you approach it.

[Steve Geddes]

thejeff wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

"Sandbox" (open route, open destination) vs. "railroad" (set route, set destination) vs. "freeway" (open route, set destination)

Sandbox is my preference. I don't really see the distinction between the other two - they just seem like different forms of railroading. I think I'd prefer railroad over freeway.

Interesting. Why prefer the railroad?

At least as I see what he calls "Freeway", it matches most of the gaming I've done. There's a main campaign plot - an main antagonist (or more than one) with plots and plans that you're trying to stop. Often much of the lower level part is trying to figure out how it all ties together, who's the real bad guy and what they're up to.
Distinct from a sandbox in that there is a predefined focus, a problem to deal with, but distinct from railroad in that you've got a lot of freedom in how you approach it.

Maybe I read too much into it. It sounded to me that "railroad" was working through a series of pre-determined steps until you reached the climax of the adventure, "freeway" meant you did whatever you wanted but ultimately ended up at the same 'climax'. It sort of seemed like a railroad, but one pretending to give you choice - it doesn't really matter what you do, you'll end up at the same spot. Perhaps it was more just like a railroad but with multiple paths to the pre-ordained climax (?)

My preference is for a sandbox (with no more than an overarching theme - the actual campaign events being driven predominantly by PC interests). If that's not going to happen and there is a stronger DM-driven narrative, I think I'd rather go the whole hog and embrace the railroad (in the interests of a greater story) rather than kind of 'pretend' to be free-acting, masters of our own destiny when in reality we're just heading to the BBEG the DM had planned from the beginning.

I confess the terminology is new to me though - I'm more used to treating railroad-sandbox as two ends of a spectrum, rather than a third axis of railroad-freeway, so I could easily have misunderstood.

[Adjule]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

We all like to talk about the different ways we play. Actually, that's one of the few recurring arguments on these forums I don't totally hate! Yet. The trouble is, we like those conversations so much, we tend to sidetrek other threads with them.

This thread is intended as a general "forum" for talking about playstyle. That primarily includes, but is not limited to:

• Roleplaying-to-combat ratios
  
• Rules vs. flavor
  
• Powerful and flavorful builds
  
• Evil parties vs. noble parties vs. slightly sketchy parties
  
• "Sandbox" (open route, open destination) vs. "railroad" (set route, set destination) vs. "freeway" (open route, set destination)
  
• Silly vs. serious
  
• Genre choices

To copy Steve, I'll make a list in response to each

• 50/50. Some of my favorite sessions had little to no combat, but I enjoy the combat side.
  
• Not sure if I quite understand this. I like when the rules and flavor are mixed together, influencing each other, and not so much either/or.
  
• Flavorful builds. If a choice fits the character concept, then that is what I will choose. Doesn't matter if people think I should have this because my class is this and makes it stronger. But I am not going into detail with that as I have been told I do it wrong too many times.
  
• Noble parties is usually what I prefer to play in as well as DM for. Those are rather rare, and the "slightly sketchy" ones are usually what I end up with (mostly since many GMs say "no evil characters"). I don't do evil parties. Tried it once, had 0 fun.
  
• I enjoy sandbox games the most, but I have no problem with railroads. Really, I have fun with any of the three, just depends on the people involved.
  
• I tend to prefer a more serious toned game, but not DC movie universe serious. I like some silly sprinkled on my serious.
  
• Genre choices is fantasy based. Generic "western fantasy"; generic fantasy with western and eastern; fantasy with slight steampunk. So long as there are dragons, elves, wizards, knights, and so on, there's a big chance I will enjoy it. There's even a slight interest in a modern setting with such things (think d20 modern), though I prefer "medieval knights in armor fighting dragons" fantasy more.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Maybe I read too much into it. It sounded to me that "railroad" was working through a series of pre-determined steps until you reached the climax of the adventure, "freeway" meant you did whatever you wanted but ultimately ended up at the same 'climax'. It sort of seemed like a railroad, but one pretending to give you choice - it doesn't really matter what you do, you'll end up at the same spot. Perhaps it was more just like a railroad but with multiple paths to the pre-ordained climax (?)

My preference is for a sandbox (with no more than an overarching theme - the actual campaign events being driven predominantly by PC interests). If that's not going to happen and there is a stronger DM-driven narrative, I think I'd rather go the whole hog and embrace the railroad (in the interests of a greater story) rather than kind of 'pretend' to be free-acting, masters of our own destiny when in reality we're just heading to the BBEG the DM had planned from the beginning.

I confess the terminology is new to me though - I'm more used to treating railroad-sandbox as two ends of a spectrum, rather than a third axis of railroad-freeway, so I could easily have misunderstood.

I see "freeway" as falling in the middle. I don't see it as a pretend freedom—you have plenty of freedom to decide your route, as long as you stay aware of where the campaign is heading. A lot of adventure path GMs tend towards that style.

[kyrt-ryder]

'Freeway' implies one long route with the ability to change lanes.

'Highway' might be more appropriate, there are often a number of highways one can take to get to the same place, though some are shorter than others.

[thejeff]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Maybe I read too much into it. It sounded to me that "railroad" was working through a series of pre-determined steps until you reached the climax of the adventure, "freeway" meant you did whatever you wanted but ultimately ended up at the same 'climax'. It sort of seemed like a railroad, but one pretending to give you choice - it doesn't really matter what you do, you'll end up at the same spot. Perhaps it was more just like a railroad but with multiple paths to the pre-ordained climax (?)

My preference is for a sandbox (with no more than an overarching theme - the actual campaign events being driven predominantly by PC interests). If that's not going to happen and there is a stronger DM-driven narrative, I think I'd rather go the whole hog and embrace the railroad (in the interests of a greater story) rather than kind of 'pretend' to be free-acting, masters of our own destiny when in reality we're just heading to the BBEG the DM had planned from the beginning.

I confess the terminology is new to me though - I'm more used to treating railroad-sandbox as two ends of a spectrum, rather than a third axis of railroad-freeway, so I could easily have misunderstood.

I see "freeway" as falling in the middle. I don't see it as a pretend freedom—you have plenty of freedom to decide your route, as long as you stay aware of where the campaign is heading. A lot of adventure path GMs tend towards that style.

Hmmm. I was thinking something even more open than that. APs tend to be at least moderately railroady - there's all this content I bought, we've got to make use of it.:)

More like what most homebrew GMs I've played with have done. Basically running from the outline of an AP. Here are the villains of the campaign. Here's what they're up to. Here are some ways to get you hooked into the various plots. The overall campaign arc is still about the undead elven prince trying to murder his usurper brother, which is how it's different than a sandbox, which doesn't have an overall campaign arc, at least until after the fact. And different from a railroad in that there's a ton of freedom in how you go about even figuring out what's going on and eventually trying to deal with it.

[Almonihah]

Interesting! Though it seems like this is becoming a bit of a "answer the survey" thread instead of a discussion, like I think you were going for... but I think there's value just in seeing what different combinations people have.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

• Roleplaying-to-combat ratios
  
• Rules vs. flavor
  
• Powerful and flavorful builds
  
• Evil parties vs. noble parties vs. slightly sketchy parties
  
• "Sandbox" (open route, open destination) vs. "railroad" (set route, set destination) vs. "freeway" (open route, set destination)
  
• Silly vs. serious
  
• Genre choices

• Roleplaying-to-combat ratios
  I'm... actually all over on this spectrum. I enjoy both almost-total-wargame campaigns and wait-do-we-even-have-swords games. My ideal is probably somewhere in the middle, but I enjoy almost the entire spectrum.
  
• Rules vs. flavor
  To me, rules in tabletop RPG's exist to codify the ways your character might try to interact with others. If they get in the way of doing something that seems reasonable within the genre to do, the rules should be changed to fit the flavor. They're not the laws of physics of your world--they're an approximate simulation of the laws of physics. So I guess my view is that Pathfinder is the Kerbal Space Program of a fantasy world. XD
  
• Powerful and flavorful builds
  I always have some central Concept driving my build, whether this be "Dashing Kitsune Swordsfox" or "Dour Half-Dragon Ranger". While it's important that my character come out at least competent at adventuring, trying to capture the Concept is more important for my tastes than aiming for the most optimal choices.
  
• Evil parties vs. noble parties vs. slightly sketchy parties
  I tend strongly towards noble parties, but I do enjoy the occasional evil party--as long as it's more "Saturday Morning Cartoon" evil than "Would Commit Genocide to Further Goals" evil. If that makes sense.
  
• "Sandbox" (open route, open destination) vs. "railroad" (set route, set destination) vs. "freeway" (open route, set destination)
  It's more important to me here to know ahead of time which option it will be than exactly which option it will be. I enjoy all three, but I don't enjoy planning for one and then finding I've gotten myself into another.
  
• Silly vs. serious
  I enjoy silliness as long as it's in-character for the characters. Not as fond of meta-silliness.
  
• Genre choices
  "Classic" Fantasy and Space Opera, I'd say. Not as fond of Urban Fantasy, though I can be talked into it if I have a strong enough character Concept strike me. Not a fan of anything really 'gritty'.

[Kobold Catgirl]

As long as nobody brings up politics, I will consider this thread a success.

[kyrt-ryder]

*blows a trumpet*

[Almonihah]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

As long as nobody brings up politics, I will consider this thread a success.

I'll admit, I was tempted to immediately make some reference to Andoran's current leadership and how I'm not going to vote for them next election. XD

[Steve Geddes]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Maybe I read too much into it. It sounded to me that "railroad" was working through a series of pre-determined steps until you reached the climax of the adventure, "freeway" meant you did whatever you wanted but ultimately ended up at the same 'climax'. It sort of seemed like a railroad, but one pretending to give you choice - it doesn't really matter what you do, you'll end up at the same spot. Perhaps it was more just like a railroad but with multiple paths to the pre-ordained climax (?)

My preference is for a sandbox (with no more than an overarching theme - the actual campaign events being driven predominantly by PC interests). If that's not going to happen and there is a stronger DM-driven narrative, I think I'd rather go the whole hog and embrace the railroad (in the interests of a greater story) rather than kind of 'pretend' to be free-acting, masters of our own destiny when in reality we're just heading to the BBEG the DM had planned from the beginning.

I confess the terminology is new to me though - I'm more used to treating railroad-sandbox as two ends of a spectrum, rather than a third axis of railroad-freeway, so I could easily have misunderstood.

I see "freeway" as falling in the middle. I don't see it as a pretend freedom—you have plenty of freedom to decide your route, as long as you stay aware of where the campaign is heading. A lot of adventure path GMs tend towards that style.

I don't know really. I'm not sure if I've ever played in that kind of campaign - I guess a sandbox could be like that, if the DM introduced a 'world ending threat' that the players are almost certain to respond to.

I suspect it's just terminology really. I consider RotRL (or any AP) to be a railroad.

Rise of the Runelords:

When you encounter fort Rannick and learn it's been over-run by ogres, there are lots of potential ways to deal with that. Does that make it a freeway adventure, in your eyes? To me, it's still a railroad adventure.

I don't see much distinction, unless there are "extreme" campaigns out there which are literally just sequences of pre-ordained encounters. That's not what I mean by railroad though.

[Lady Ladile]

Okay, I'll bite! Let's see...

Roleplaying to Combat Ratio
I'm probably either a dead 50/50 or maybe a 60/40 with roleplay edging out combat. But as much as I enjoy roleplaying I also want to play a game and not just sit and have storytime so combat and the dice have their place.

Rules vs. Flavor
I try to be pretty go-with-the-flow on this one though I have a preference for flavor and the application of Rule of Cool if the situation seems to call for it.

Powerful and Flavorful Builds
Er...why not both? Though I'd rather use the term 'effective' as opposed to powerful.

Party Type
By and large I prefer playing a good guy because while gaming is fun for me it's also something of an escape mechanism as well. However I also enjoy slightly sketchy groups under the right circumstances. Still trying to get the hang of playing evil but it's not a concept that I reject outright.

Sandbox vs. Railroad vs. Freeway
Seems like this one depends on your definition of each term. I suppose I lean more towards a mix of railroad/freeway - I primarily play in APs/modules where there's a definite end goal but there's some flexibility on how to get to that end goal. This suits me just fine.

Silly vs. Serious
I prefer a healthy mix in most games. I can do a primarily serious or primarily silly game but in those cases I like to know ahead of time so I can be sure to have a character that fits the tone.

Genre
Harder to pin down for me since I don't have much experience with systems outside of the PF/D&D sphere. I will say that I enjoyed my brief time with Deadlands and Dark Conspiracy and I'd love to try Call of Cthulhu sometime.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Do you guys think we often assume we have a higher ratio of combat-to-roleplay than we really do? Sometimes I get that sense. The game has a lot of combat, after all. It even has a whole mechanic for no-plot-strings-attached combat: Random encounters!

[thejeff]

The distinction I see, and I don't want to speak for KC as I think he's coming from a slightly different approach, is that in the driving metaphor you might avoid the fort entirely. There'll be multiple roads you can take that lead you from the initial hook back in Sandpoint to stopping the Runelord. Done well, how you approach it will affect the outcome - lead you to a different place to confront him, get there sooner, make different allies, destroy more minions, etc.

I'd agree that APs are basically railroads - though individual issues may have more or less freedom, you've still got to move on to the next issue in the end. You're still going to come to that fort and deal with what's there.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I think thejeff is explaining it better than I did.

[thejeff]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Do you guys think we often assume we have a higher ratio of combat-to-roleplay than we really do? Sometimes I get that sense. The game has a lot of combat, after all. It even has a whole mechanic for no-plot-strings-attached combat: Random encounters!

I'm pretty sure most games I've played in have a much lower combat to anything else ratio than average. We rarely play published adventures and reading them I'm always astounded by how many encounters they pack into them.

[Bruunwald]

RE "Railroading," "Freeway."

Well, I would like "route" and "destination" to be clearly defined.

If we're using the terms in the abstract to mean "means of discovery" and "unavoidable conclusion" then, yes, that's railroading.

If we truly mean "road" and "location of castle at the end of the road, etc." then, no, this in and of itself is not true railroading. There can be a single physical path that characters must follow to a specific important destination within a world, and still have the freedom to make important, world-altering and personal decisions within that context.

You can frame an adventure in such a way as to create a boundary that increases challenge and actually provide MORE freedom of personal choice within those boundaries. It depends on the sort of world you're building.

But there are also worlds that MUST be built with these sorts of boundaries, or they cannot accomplish their goals. Real horror, for instance, demands some measure of what most call "railroading." Inevitability is part and parcel to the genre.

I think "railroading" is too broadly applied a term in most quarters. Most players and GMs are casual enough that they don't have the depth of experience with multiple playing styles, that they really can honestly apply the term or understand it in any context other than the negative. So the knee-jerk reaction prevails, and it is applied to situations that, if you look closely enough, are more complex than that, and it is avoided at all costs, rather than treated like the useful tool it can be (when applied rarely and judiciously).

[Daronil]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

• Roleplaying-to-combat ratios
  
• Rules vs. flavor
  
• Powerful and flavorful builds
  
• Evil parties vs. noble parties vs. slightly sketchy parties
  
• "Sandbox" (open route, open destination) vs. "railroad" (set route, set destination) vs. "freeway" (open route, set destination)
  
• Silly vs. serious
  
• Genre choices
  
• dungeon vs open

Roleplaying-to-combat ratio for our group would be about 50/50, I'd say. I will often ditch combats from canned adventures and run either a roleplaying encounter or an environmental encounter (a storm, or fire, etc).

Rules vs. Flavour - definitely flavour first. I tend to be very "narrativist", which is what my group wants.

Builds - definitely flavourful. I worry sometimes that my players nerf themselves too much in order to get a fun, flavourful character.

Noble or slightly sketchy parties, absolutely. Our Carrion Crown campaign has a mix of both, actually. Evil parties/characters are a no-no at our table. The players understand this, and it's never been an issue.

Sandbox vs railroad vs freeway - depends on what we're playing. We mainly play adventure paths these days (as I don't have time to come up with all the stuff on my own), so it depends on the AP.

Silly vs serious; serious. No question. That's not to say we don't laugh out loud a lot during the sessions, but we do take the game seriously.

Dungeon vs open - again, depends on the actual game we're playing, but we tend to prefer open.

Genre choices - just for Pathfinder? If so, then standard fantasy with a few twists, such as a bit of horror (Carrion Crown), or a "feel" (eg. Mummy's Mask). Definitely not mixed with sci-fi or tech, though (no Iron Gods or gunpowder, for example).

If you're talking about genres overall, then we play a bit of an eclectic mix: Pathfinder, Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars, Star Trek, Apocalypse World are what we're playing at the moment.

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Oooh, fun thread...

Roleplaying-to-Combat Ratio
I love me some roleplay, but games without any combat are just boring. More often than not, it ends up being only one or two players who do most of the talking, leaving everyone else twiddling their thumbs. Put me down for a 60/40 split, w/ combat over roleplay.

Rules vs. Flavor
As a former Warhammer/Heroclix junkie, I prefer a pretty strict run of the rules. I don't mind if GMs add house rules, so long as they are consistent and add dimension to the campaign world. That said, I'd prefer not to watch GMs winging it because they don't know the rules, and surprise house rules are the absolute worst.

Powerful and Flavorful Builds
I prefer flavourful builds, if not downright eccentric. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be powerful, though. Always fun to vanquish evildoers in style!

Evil parties vs. noble parties vs. slightly sketchy parties
Noble parties. I always want to play the hero, even in more neutral/antihero type settings. I'm fine with slightly sketchy parties as well, but evil parties just suck. I avoid those of games like the plague.

Sandbox" (open route, open destination) vs. "railroad" (set route, set destination) vs. "freeway" (open route, set destination)
I prefer to have a set destination, but with some flexibility. Put me down for Freeway, though I'm fine with the other two (within reason).

Silly vs. Serious
How about: Serious game w/ silly players? I always have more fun playing silly characters over grimdark ones.

Genre Choices
I prefer variants of Medieval Fantasy rather than straight up Tolkienism. Horror Fantasy, Dark Sun, political intrigue, these tend to line up more with my sensibilities.

[Haladir]

I'll preface this by saying that my group and I have gotten rather burnt out by the complexity and fiddliness of the PFRPG ruleset, and have (for now) mostly moved on to more narrative-style RPG systems (mostly Dungeon World and FATE Accelerated).

Here goes...

Roleplaying-to-combat ratios
Probably 4 to 1 in general (roleplay v. combat), but it depends on the genre we're playing. In PFRPG, it's probably more like 2 to 1; in Call of Cthulhu it's probably more like 10 to 1.

Rules vs. flavor
Flavor. The rules serve to further the story and to provide a framework on what a character can do (and how well). Different rulesets work better for different stories... I wouldn't try to run a heroic fantasy game using the rules from Dread, but boy oh boy does it work for horror one-shots!

Powerful and flavorful builds
This totally depends on what game system you're playing. For example, in a game like Champions, your mechanical build plus the skin pretty much is the flavor of the character. But in a narrativist "rules-lite" game system like Dungeon World, "builds" aren't really a thing: It's pretty much all flavor, as all of the moves are deliberately generic. Back when I primarily played PFRPG, I tried to strike a balance: The flavor was more important to me than sheer numeric power, so I'd occasionally take options that many would consider "sub-optimal" if that choice made more sene in-character. (e.g. my wizard Dr. Stefan von Herzog: a physician by day and hunter of the undead by night. He has the trait Caretaker and took the feat Skill Focus (Heal) at level 1 to reflect the fact that he is an actual doctor; He always maxes out his ranks in the Heal skill.)

Evil parties vs. noble parties vs. slightly sketchy parties
I'll say that I generally prefer noble parties to "slightly sketchy" parties; it seems that the last few times we've intended to play the self-interested mercenary types, we ended up being the Big Heroes despite ourselves. I'm generally not a fan of playing evil parties: it's not usually a style of play that I enjoy.

"Sandbox" (open route, open destination) vs. "railroad" (set route, set destination) vs. "freeway" (open route, set destination)
When I was playing in the D&D family of games, I really didn't enjoy sandbox-style play, either as a GM or as a player. We had a tendency to just flounder around and never seemed to do anything. The last time I tried to run an open sandbox game, the players never took any of the hooks I presented, including those that were informed by their characters' backstories. My players were complaining that "nothing was happening" and that the game was boring. So, I ended up just re-skinning a published adventure and they happily jumped aboard the railroad and enjoyed the game much more.

However, in a system like Dungeon World, the focus is on collective storytelling, and you never know exactly where the story is going to lead. In DW, the players are an active part of world-building.

Silly vs. serious
Once in a blue moon I enjoy a silly one-shot, but I prefer serious stories. That doesn't mean that a serious story can't have moments of levity, but I'm generally not a fan of gonzo Monty Pythonn-esque absurdity in my games.

Genre choices
While I have the most fondness for heroic fantasy, I do enjoy just about any genre of game. I'm currently playing in a journey-based heroic fantasy game (Dungeon World), a more traditional fantasy game (D&D 5e), a Lovecraftian horror game (Tremulus), and a hard sci-fi game (FATE Accelerated). That's in addition to five Pathfinder PbPs on the boards (my conversion of AD&D module I6: Ravenloft to PFRPG Core Rules, Runelords, Carrion Crown, Shattered Star, and Legendary Planet). So, I guess I'm all over the map!

[Pan]

Roleplaying-to-combat ratios
My groups tend to play multiple systems so it can vary. On a general scale Id say its about 60-40 RP vs. combat for PF. Combat is fun but if we end up in an endless chain of combats we lose interest quickly. So dungeon delves tend to be quick events for us and a mega dungeon is unimaginable.

That said, sometimes we take a break from our serious gaming and do some old school meatgrinder slapstick. In that case, we go with DCC and megadungeons are a-ok since we are not really concerned about anything but drinking beer and rolling dice.

Rules vs. flavor
I think both are important to an enjoyable TTRPG. Some systems are more crunchy and in those systems the rules matter more. For us its a constant battle of having a solid ruleset, with a rulings over rules philosophy. The goal posts are always moving in this dynamic which we are fine with. For us the custom level allows us to make the game the way we want. I am fully aware how that might drive some folks bonkers.

Powerful and flavorful builds
Not entirely sure how to discuss this topic. I am not in the camp that believes an optimized character is a poorly role played one. I prefer folks put thought into their characters and love Paizo APs because they give players a neat world to play inside of. I know some folks find that limiting, but I enjoy have some parameters to work within. So published campaigns or well thought out homebrews are ok if not preferable to open world poorly thought out campaigns. The mechanics allow powerful builds in any setting so I guess im powerful pro?

•Evil parties vs. noble parties vs. slightly sketchy parties
I have two groups. The first is a bit silly and more of the beer and pretzel types. In that group evil parties simply do not work. Hell half the time good and neutral parties don't work. They tend not to be good team players and its every man for himself. Therefore, in this group we don't do the evil thing just to save the headache of an incoming campaign nuking.

My second group is far more into story and character telling. In this group we could probably do an evil party allright but have not attempted yet. We tend to have a rule if you are going to be a jerk, do it to NPCs and don't screw over the party. As long as you abide by that everything works out in the end. We are very team oriented too so sometimes you have to pass up opportunities for an evil character in favor of keeping the game on track.

"Sandbox" (open route, open destination) vs. "railroad" (set route, set destination) vs. "freeway" (open route, set destination)

I only like sandbox when I am playing Traveller. Not sure why, but in my experience the system just plays better that way. Maybe its the no leveling of the system? Maybe its the huge expansive universe, but little published campaign plot support that lends to sandbox? Whatever the reasons I love to play in a Traveller sandbox, PF not so much.

I like the APs from paizo quite a bit. Often, they lend themselves enough to "freeway" style of play which I really enjoy. Part of that extends to the set parameters to work within I mentioned during the builds discussion. Though i'm fully aware that the APs also veer into shackled railroading. I try to re-write when that happens. So for PF freeway is highly desired and railroad is ultimately something to avoid if its too limiting.

Silly vs. serious
Honestly I like both. Right now I have one group of each. I get to scratch all the itches and gaming life is pretty great. I tend to spend a good amount of time vetting out groups I join so I know exactly what to expect. It can be a bumpy road figuring it out but once you do its smooth sailing. My advice to finding a great group is to never ever join a long term campaign with people you don't know or have gamed with before. Start with PFS or one shots and walk your way into something more serious. There are many more avenues to good gaming available now than years past so everyone should be able to find the right group.

Genre choices
I like them all, but I also like separating them out by systems. For me horror is very evocative in Call of Cuthulhu. Sci-fi feels right in Traveller. Of course fantasy is perfect with PF/D&D. That said, I tend not to be a big buyer of one size fits all systems. Either they are too streamlined into a particular genre feel, or they are too loose and generic to feel right at all. Which is why you will never see me ask "how do I play star trek/cthulhu/fanatsy football with Pathfinder?" You don't! Instead you find a good system built with the genre in mind. YMMV

[Greymist]

Roleplaying-to-combat ratios:
Both are important and there needs to be a balance, but I've always preferred an emphasis on the roleplaying, puzzles, plotting and scheming -- how can we achieve our goals without dying (or at least reduce the risk of dying).

Rules vs. flavor:
I started playing TTRPGs over 40 years ago, but was into cooperative world-building and game design even before then. As a result, I believe that the rules need to serve the flavor you want, because they control the flavor of game that you end up with.

Powerful and flavorful builds:
I like flavorful and competant builds. Incompetant flavorful builds, especially if everyone has them, are great for a one-off game, just like it is possible to have a great game when everyone has a min-maxed powerful character. But if I'm going to be interested enough in a character to keep playing it, he/she has to be able to make a difference in the game and have attributes that make it fun and amusing to play.

Evil parties vs. noble parties vs. slightly sketchy parties
I've played it all, but prefer the slightly sketchy parties (especially if they are trying to be noble or good) as the flaws in the characters are fun.

"Sandbox" (open route, open destination) vs. "railroad" (set route, set destination) vs. "freeway" (open route, set destination)
My favorite games have been sandbox / freeway, both as GM and player. In these the GM has produced occasional news/rumor sheets telling what is happening around the area. The players can investigate any of these, or do something else entirely. Various potential opponents are also busy with their schemes to become more powerful -- but the where, when and how of conflict are governed by the player choices.

Silly vs. serious
Some humor is great to include, but in a continuing campaign it is hard for me to care about the character with a lot of silliness. Silly one-offs can again be great fun -- including the silly, incompetant, evil party trying to take over the world.

Genre choices
I've mainly played fantasy, it's the easiest to find a group and has the most available rule sets. Post-holecaust mutants, superheroes, Shadowrun and Victorian horror have also been a lot of fun, but sometimes I have found it hard to keep it from being all about the technology (or superpowers).

[Mythic Evil Lincoln]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Can some of you old timers explain the appeal to dungeon delving?

I know personally speaking I infinitely prefer an open world motif.

At its core, the hobby is about being presented with a meaningful decision in a hypothetical situation.

Any plan for a series of meaningful decisions can benefit from a flowchart. The difference between open world games and more site-oriented games like dungeon crawls is one of depth and width.

A heavily improvised, no-tracks open world game is still a series of meaningful decisions. However, because GMs are mere mortals, you hit a point of diminishing returns where addition choices have less meaning, because there was no real thought put into the outcome. They can be interpreted and improvised, of course. But there is an element of impartiality and planning that is lost.

In the other direction, you have the dungeon (or encounter site, if you prefer). This is a GM plan where the variables are all tightly controlled enough that the consequences can really be explored in theory. A dungeon is a flowchart. Open worlds are flowcharts too, but they are so complex that they require more improvisation and it is less possibly to predict the meaning of outcomes.

In a dungeon (or similar planned encounter site), it becomes very easy for the GM to present choices at their most meaningful. The five senses are front and center, and when faced with a decision as elemental as "do I turn left or right", a waft of decaying flesh from the left or a the dulcet tones of an elf-maiden's song from the right become meaningful. It is a natural compromise between player agency and GM control -- make whatever choice you want in the scope this this environment. It's a fairly nature state of affairs.

Neither is superior. But if you want immersion and you don't want your GM to burn out, running around in a flow chart is actually a really good compromise. In a perfect world, GMs could promise the depth of consideration that comes from an encounter site with all the freedom that improvisation allows -- a truly consistent, meaningful sandbox.

But in lieu of that impossible dream, I'll continue to use both tools interchangeably as needed for the campaign.

[PK the Dragon]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Do you guys think we often assume we have a higher ratio of combat-to-roleplay than we really do? Sometimes I get that sense. The game has a lot of combat, after all. It even has a whole mechanic for no-plot-strings-attached combat: Random encounters!

I hated random encounters for years because I looked at them this way, but recently I've been experimenting with using them simply as content generation. I don't assume necessarily that the encounters I roll up are hostile, though in dungeons they *often* are. In general though, I try to think about how to present an encounter in a way that -doesn't- automatically lead to combat.

The random encounter tables for at least one Frog God Games module contain "harmless forest critters" as a shockingly high encounter, so now I'm trying to think of ways to turn encounters with small animals into interesting encounters- the Monty Python method of "surprise, it's actually a deadly predator" is of course an option, but I'm considering non combat alternatives. (If anyone has any ideas, I'd love to hear them!)

[Goth Guru]

The right noncombat items or mutations will help.

If a character can speak with animals, it can help keep the game fun for all. A scarf of speak with dead turns the random dead body into much more than part of the furniture.

[Scythia]

The games I run are usually sandbox with metaplot. Think Skyrim. Although my metaplot won't wait for years. :P

Genre is split in the sense the the setting will have a genre (I've used medieval fantasy, Asian aesthetic, ancient Greek, Victoriana, post apocalyptic barbarian, Viking vs Samurai, and others) but while I encourage appropriate characters the players are free to be whatever they fancy. I take finding a way to fit an unusual character into an incongruous setting as a challenge.

As for dungeons, I'll use them, but no more often than other locations.

I don't really try for a specific combat vs rp level, rather I let the players actions determine it. If they want to talk things out and it makes sense, then that's fine. If they want to kick doors in and skewer things, that's fine too. I do try to make sure that there are interesting NPCs for them to interact with.

[David M Mallon]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

We all like to talk about the different ways we play. Actually, that's one of the few recurring arguments on these forums I don't totally hate! Yet. The trouble is, we like those conversations so much, we tend to sidetrek other threads with them.

This thread is intended as a general "forum" for talking about playstyle. That primarily includes, but is not limited to:

• Roleplaying-to-combat ratios
  
• Rules vs. flavor
  
• Powerful and flavorful builds
  
• Evil parties vs. noble parties vs. slightly sketchy parties
  
• "Sandbox" (open route, open destination) vs. "railroad" (set route, set destination) vs. "freeway" (open route, set destination)
  
• Silly vs. serious
  
• Genre choices

Speaking as a non-typical anti-grognard (AKA under the age of 30) here:

• In theory, role-playing is favored, though I'm spectacularly bad at it outside of PbP game.
  
• Again, flavor is objectively better, but my personal strengths run more to the rules/tactics side of the game.
  
• Flavorful and memorable builds all the way
  
• Noble parties are always more fulfilling. I may be True Neutral IRL, but I love playing capital-G-Good characters in-game (well, at least most of the time). Spoony had it right.
  
• This may be the Mass Effect fan in me talking but... the "freeway" calls to me.
  
• Mostly serious in-game, but silly table talk is OK. To quote Joss Whedon: "Make it dark, make it grim, make it tough, but then, for the love of God, tell a joke."
  
• I love my dark fantasy, but my true home is in the bright, shiny, sci-fi future.

[Pkdragon]

- Roleplaying and Combat are equally cool. Roleplaying is fun but can be tricky, there's something to be said for the stress relief of bashing some heads in.

- Ultimately, I prefer flavor over strict rules... but the rules exist for a reason. They're pretty good guidelines. They allow players a sense of consistency. So if I change a rule, it has to have a good reason.

-Powerful AND flavorful builds are the best! Though I don't consider powerful to be "anything that has spells", just "really good at his job". I like making characters that are good at what they do, it enhances the flavor for me. Though being good at what I do may mean "maxing out the potential of a Gnome Barbarian using a greatsword".

- I've always been drawn to slightly sketchy. Evil can be fun, provided you're silly evil and not icky evil, but obviously requires party and GM buy-in. Noble is nice in concept but having a moral quandary every time you fight anything not obviously evil gets a bit old, and I can't help but start thinking about the moral outcomes of my actions if I'm trying to be a good guy. So slightly sketchy is the best for me.

- Sandbox or freeway is fine, these days I'm gravitating more towards Sandbox as a GM, because my chief interest is what PCs do and sandbox situations maximize those choices. But freeways are excellent as well. As a player, I don't mind, either or works. Heck, I'm ok with railroading if the GM is up front about it.

-Both. I play D&D to relax with friends, so some silliness is always present, but I also like players to be invested in the world, and the best way to do that is to be serious as a GM. As a player, I try to be serious but usually fail horribly, lol.

-Genre: Fantasy, space opera, lovecraftian horror. I'm notably not a big fan of Cyberpunk, so Shadowrun never had much of an appeal to me, despite trying to like it.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Here's two new, linked questions:

1. What do you think is the purpose of optimization?

2. If a party was especially well-optimized, would you scale up encounters accordingly, or would you see that as unfair?

Personally, I think the purpose of optimization is to build the closest thing to your character concept as possible. It's not a matter of, "Can I make a strong build?" Make a strong build. Make a weak build. Just balance it with the rest of your party and make the build that matches your concept.

Because of this, I adjust encounters to match optimization. I don't see why I shouldn't—failing to do so just incentivizes players to join the unwinnable arms race of, "Oh, I'd better make my character stronger so I can overcome this set difficulty." Essentially, I feel no particular need to "reward" strong builds, since that's not the point of optimization to me.

[kyrt-ryder]

1: the purpose of optimization is to hack the RNG, to create a character that won't easily die or fail so as to continue to experience the world through that character.

2: increasing difficulty for it's own sake is wrong. Minimal interference for the sake of fun for everyone at the table is welcome.

[Kobold Catgirl]

That's an interesting perspective. I don't see it as increasing difficulty "for its own sake", but combats aren't fun to me if they aren't generally challenging. Some should be tough, some should be easy, and some should be extremely hard. You disagree?

Or is your point that if players make powerful builds, it's a sign that they don't want challenging combats, and we should honor that?

[Adjule]

This is not indicative of everyone who optimizes. Most that I have run into optimize to make "strong builds", so their play experience is easier, and get a bit hostile when the GM increases the difficulty of what they come across.

I tend not to play with those who are like that. The ones that visit CharOp boards and pour through guides on how to create characters based on theorycraft and such. So I can't really answer #2. And before anyone jumps on me for this, I am not saying they are bad people. It is not the playstyle I enjoy, and they are not having "badwrongfun" or "doing it wrong".

[kyrt-ryder]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

That's an interesting perspective. I don't see it as increasing difficulty "for its own sake", but combats aren't fun to me if they aren't generally challenging. Some should be tough, some should be easy, and some should be extremely hard. You disagree?

I agree in theory, but the differing abilities of the party vs enemies in concert with the randomness of dice rolls supplies plenty of that in my experience.

Quote:

Or is your point that if players make powerful builds, it's a sign that they don't want challenging combats, and we should honor that?

At least communicate with your players first, see whether they want high difficulty or not.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I know a lot of people have their own reasons for optimizing, but I don't think optimizing to make a "survivable" build really has any point to it. Most GMs don't slavishly follow encounter table guidelines, and those that do can still produce some really skewed encounters. Consider witchfires, and orcs, and other monsters that are overpowered for their CRs.

It really is alien to me. The mentality just doesn't add up, which is ironic, since those who are determined to make "survivable" characters have to be pretty good at math.

[DungeonmasterCal]

Roleplaying-to-combat ratios
We're about half and half, with some games having more of one than the other depending on the session's objectives.

Rules vs. flavor
We stick to the rules as much as possible, but the rule of cool and the rule of common sense still play a powerful role in what we do. We recently had a CoCd20 game where the fun quickly deflated because the GM couldn't find a rule that perfectly fit what the PC was trying to do, so rather than wing it or use common sense he ruled it couldn't be done. There were some bad feelings after that.

Powerful and flavorful builds
We tend toward more flavorful builds. In fact, I'm not sure that even as long as we've played most of my party would know how to Min/Max a character as they play more for flavor and interesting characters rather than to see who can do the most damage per round.

Evil parties vs. noble parties vs. slightly sketchy parties
I personally don't have a problem with evil parties. The very first campaign I ever played in back in the mid 80s was evil and I learned that evil can get along as long as there is a motivation for them do do so. You don't have to kill your party mate "just because you're evil". I really like noble parties, where the PCs are actual heroes, but the slightly sketchy party has a special place in my gaming heart, as well, as it often opens up great roleplaying opportunities about what should or could happen.

"Sandbox" (open route, open destination) vs. "railroad" (set route, set destination) vs. "freeway" (open route, set destination)
I've always played a mix of Sandbox and Freeway options. Sometimes I just let the players do whatever they want and let them choose everything, even how the session ends. But I tend to prefer the Freeway method, with an open route and a set destination point. The trick is to let the PCs think they've arrived at the destination point on their own while on the Freeway. If they don't take Exit 1 where the Owlbear is, I simply move the encounter to another exit point and they think that's where it was supposed to happen all the time. I let them have their side adventures while gently coaxing them along in the general direction of where they need to be, with them setting the speed on the cruise control and enjoying the scenery along the way.

Silly vs. serious
More serious than silly, though you have to have at least one silly thing per game to keep things fun (not that we're not having fun already) but a bad decision can make for some hilarious results and sometimes the PCs just play off that and still manage to accomplish the game's goals. I guess it also asks the question "What do you consider silly or serious"? We've had some very serious games lately as they players are rising in power and becoming noticed by the more powerful entities of the game world and not in good lights in some cases. So there's seriousness there. But every three or four games ike those demand something more lighthearted, so we have them attend a duke's wedding or something where the punchbowl is spiked and silliness ensues.

Genre choices
I'm not sure what you mean by Genre Choices. Are you talking Homebrew vs Published Setting, or Sci Fi vs Fantasy or what? I'll answer with this, and if necessary you can better explain the question and I'll change my answer. I prefer Homebrew over published any day. I've only ever played or created Homebrew games, though I've cherry picked from published settings if something struck my interest.

Whew. That took awhile. I need a Mtn Dew and a Hostess cupcake now.

[DungeonmasterCal]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I know a lot of people have their own reasons for optimizing, but I don't think optimizing to make a "survivable" build really has any point to it. Most GMs don't slavishly follow encounter table guidelines, and those that do can still produce some really skewed encounters. Consider witchfires, and orcs, and other monsters that are overpowered for their CRs.

It really is alien to me. The mentality just doesn't add up, which is ironic, since those who are determined to make "survivable" characters have to be pretty good at math.

The two players I have, well, used to have because they just don't have time to play with us anymore, were heavy min/maxers. I swear they could take the lowest commoner and beat everything I threw at it with their builds. But they are both very competitive players and feel like they have to "win" the game for it to be fun. I'm NOT a competitor and that method of play really ruins a game for me.

[Scythia]

Optimization... strictly in my own experience, every time I've seen a player optimize a character it was for the purpose of making the character more powerful. I don't see that as a good or a bad thing, it's what the player does with a powerful character that matters. I don't think it's usually a matter of concept matching though, because few concepts require additional power. Unless the concept is something like being the mightiest wizard in all of the land. (In that case, put on your robe and wizard hat)

I don't up the difficulty just because players optimize. I'm content to run Dynasty Warriors if that's what the players prefer.

[captain yesterday]

My daughter puts her highest score in intelligence, no matter the class.

She currently has an Android Fighter, with no other aspirations then chopping everything in half with her chainsaw. Also something about killing all humans.

But we don't have any humans so we try not to dwell on that.

[captainyesterday]

my daughter has been missing for many years, a handsome stranger took her and left ten paizobucks in the cradle

[captainyesterday]

he also left behind a clue to his identity, a cryptic riddle: "I am like you if we gave you more space."

WHAT DOES IT MEAN????

[captain yesterday]

captainyesterday wrote:

my daughter has been missing for many years, a handsome stranger took her and left ten paizobucks in the cradle

So, you're the a#$*+*+ that stole our cradle. >:-(