|
I'd like to reach out to this community for help on deciding whether its better to mirror different players' gamestyle preferences (give everyone a little of what they enjoy best) or make players adhere to one style of play (such as ensure all players adhere to simulationist 3.5/PRPG rules as written).
Background: Five players sit around my large wooded game table. This group has played roughly 80 game sessions together since March 2006.
In attendance are:
- 1 Simulationist - d&d minis, grid movement, all rules apply, for fairness PCs should rarely do something outside of the rules; however, this guy really preferrs games where the flow of role-play is very high - but will feel compromised if the DM does any handwaiving for PC actions
- 1 Gamist - wants rewards for actions, expects treasure and gold and power, looks at tons of options before selecting an optimal choice
- 1 Munchkin - Optimizes character, places all benefits into a narrow area of power that functionally causes the PC to be extremely powerful in just a few things; takes game events personally as a reflection of his game choices or rolls
- 1 Narrativist - This guy drops his d20 behind the DM screen, easygoing, loves the story: good or bad things = still equal good story. Believes D&D without rules is just theater, and rules without drama/story is a computer game.
- 1 Shy Guy - mostly keeps to himself, pays great attention to the game, when he speaks its usually a great value added phrase that is greatly reflective of his character.
THE QUESTION: Given the diverse gamestyle preferences, what style (or styles) of play would you recommend? Is it unfair to shape game seesions to address all the different gamestlye preferences? (My simulationist player would like to see this happen). Or do I select one style of play?
- Gamist
- Narrativist
- Simulationist
- A Mix of GNS
- Old School
- Other
Compounding all of this is that I am generally a Gygaxian naturalist who facilitates a world of agendas that will react to player-driven goals. My current attitude is 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Apparently the group enjoys the game enough to religiously keep coming back... but the simulationist would like to see otherwise.
I'll provide more information as needed.... I would love to hear what you think.....??????????
|
|
...And you may be wondering, well, where is the conflict then?
The Gamist gets upset with the munchkin because the Gamist works hard to earn rewards but sees the munchin optimizing rules to make life easy.
The simulationist gets upset with the gamist becuase the gamist always wants to use his Overhand Chop feat, even when he has been enlarged by the sorcerer in a cooridor is less than 12 feet high. The simulationist feels the gamist is always trying to find the rules that benefit him, rather than understanding the limitation and context of the setting simulation.
The narrativist wants the story and game to flow, not get bogged down by the simulationist's details. The simulationist feels by the DM allowing the narrativist to drop his d20 behind the screen that different standards are being used from player to player.
There are other examples if needed.
|
|
@Tiger Tim et. al. ...
So far, what has felt right the most is to treat the players as I would if I were their project manager on a team at work. I play to their strengths. I've learned to listen to the things they like. When I typically weave a cross-section of some of the varied things they like into the game, it tends to please most of them (to greater or lesser degree on a per session basis).
And your wisdom points to my own needs as a DM. You're absolutely right that its important that the DM run a game he enjoys running.
Background: Five players sit around my large wooded game table. This group has played roughly 80 game sessions together since March 2006.
In attendance are:
- 1 Simulationist - d&d minis, grid movement, all rules apply, for fairness PCs should rarely do something outside of the rules; however, this guy really preferrs games where the flow of role-play is very high - but will feel compromised if the DM does any handwaiving for PC actions
- 1 Gamist - wants rewards for actions, expects treasure and gold and power, looks at tons of options before selecting an optimal choice
- 1 Munchkin - Optimizes character, places all benefits into a narrow area of power that functionally causes the PC to be extremely powerful in just a few things; takes game events personally as a reflection of his game choices or rolls
- 1 Narrativist - This guy drops his d20 behind the DM screen, easygoing, loves the story: good or bad things = still equal good story. Believes D&D without rules is just theater, and rules without drama/story is a computer game.
- 1 Shy Guy - mostly keeps to himself, pays great attention to the game, when he speaks its usually a great value added phrase that is greatly reflective of his character.
The Gamist gets upset with the munchkin because the Gamist works hard to earn rewards but sees the munchin optimizing rules to make life easy.
The simulationist gets upset with the gamist becuase the gamist always wants to use his Overhand Chop feat, even when he has been enlarged by the sorcerer in a cooridor is less than 12 feet high. The simulationist feels the gamist is always trying to find the rules that benefit him, rather than understanding the limitation and context of the setting simulation.
I'm a bit confused by those two comments:
- What kind of power is the munchkin getting that he didn't "earn"?
- When you say the simulationist is saying all the rules should be followed with no hand-waving, does that mean "all D&D/Pathfinder rules" or "all the laws of physics/common sense"? Because I don't see a Pathfinder rule anywhere stating that Overhand Chop can't be used without X feet of overhead clearance.
My preferred answer would be to say up front: "The game will be basically like such-and-such [whichever style of game you like the best]. If that's not your type of game, no hard feelings; maybe we can alternate DMs every other session and play your type of game as well."
I find that making it clear and admitting that not every game will be for everyone goes a long way.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
My preferred answer would be to say up front: "The game will be basically like such-and-such [whichever style of game you like the best]. If that's not your type of game, no hard feelings; maybe we can alternate DMs every other session and play your type of game as well."
Pax Veritas, I don't know if it is possible with your group, but this alternating DMs idea works very well for my group. Although, we alternate campaigns. My buddy and I will switch off as DMs to provide a change of pace for our group.
He will run characters up to about 15th level, then take a break. I will then start a new campaign, running characters up to about 15th level. While I'm running, he plans his next set of adventures, and vice versa, which gives each of us plenty of time to really think out our adventures/pick out the modules or adventure paths we will use.
Our DM styles are very different, so it keeps our group fresh, regardless of player preference. My buddy's more of a hack and slash DM, which fits a couple players in our group, and I emphasize more plot-based encounters, which fits a couple of our other players' tastes. All players tend to get things they enjoy, which makes our games a lot of fun for everyone.
My suggestion is to remember that moderation is better than extremes most of the time. Let the simulationist know that you'll worry about whether someone is capable of using their special attack in a closed in area. He should just worry about his character. In fact, most people should pretty much worry more about their own characters. Have the one guy roll out in the open if everyone else does as well. If the munchkin is picking feats and buying items that you oked, then the gamist should back off. In the end the munchkin is probably just robbing himself of fun anyway.
Apparently the group enjoys the game enough to religiously keep coming back... but the simulationist would like to see otherwise.
Whoa, hold up please.
They keep coming back religiously. One, count him, one player has an issue. One.
You're worried about this?
Dude, you got a score. This is like everyone arguing about where to eat and who's picking up the check. There's one guy who whines about the restaurant choice every week while cadging free appetizers from the waitress and getting you guys to cover his dessert and tip.
|
|
You're worried about this?
Dude, you got a score.
Yeah, its actually a pretty amazing group that has defied every expectation I've had in terms of attendance. I've got players who will play on their wife's birthday.
So far I've run up one campaign to 10th level. Took a short break during which I already had everyone do round-robin DMing. Everyone ran 2-3 sessions worth of adventures so we could "experience" each other's DM style. I published a monthly spreadsheet so we could all keep track of which PCs were in which world in which campaign territory. I had a blast, but it was too taxing on most to keep all those character straight. My players basically want to be players, not DMs. I had the most fun with it, but have since started a new campaign and progressed from 1st to 5th.
I've also done some automated surveys and paper surveys. My work in the field of education helped me to get some good level one measurement data on what's been working and not working. Basically, 93% of everything we do rocks! Unfortunately I tend to be a bit of a perfectionist, and a junkie - I am always seeking the next d&d high, the next awesome campaign moment, and trying to fill that last 7% with the "perfect brew" that will bring satisfaction up to 100%.
Many will say this is unattainable. But, I'm trying to get there.
Yeah, its actually a pretty amazing group that has defied every expectation I've had in terms of attendance. I've got players who will play on their wife's birthday.You're worried about this?
Dude, you got a score.
Whoa. Play on the wife's birthday!?
Unless said wife is also part of the gaming group, that's either a very understanding lady or a gaming widow.I made sure to select a mate that would tolerate my gaming hobby, and would even join in (always plays the druid), but I think she'd draw the line at losing her special day to game night.
Although...my present for her this year was all of the Order of the Stick paperbacks. That turned out to be a pretty big hit, actually.
|
|
.... So, Monday night's game left everyone thrilled. They're at the peak of another campaign arc. I kept combat to a minimum, and roleplay at a premium. I introduced some pretty well fleshed out NPC personna's I've been developing in my mind for some time. The effect was good for all involved.
.... Also, I am directing player's who have PC issues with other PCs to take it up in-game. I remind them that, for example, if they don't like the way the Cleric in the group is "selling off" wealth and magic their character needs to talk with that character.
There is a certain level of satisfaction they're feeling when everything just flows, whereever, whenever with a lot of improvisation. That's the stuff they can't get in a video game, and I might have struck onto a chord of interest across all styles.
I recommend different styles for different situations. Some combats are worthy of the battlemat, dungeon tiles, miniatures, etc. And some are rolled completely on the Mind's Eye.
Let's apply this to the Overhand Chop as an example. If you're using the battlemat et. al. and there's some 12 foot clearance requirement and the sorcerer is in a ten foot tall hallway, then the Simulationist can make his point and you nix the Overhand Chop. Simulationist is happy. The Munchkin is happy because now s/he'll get the chance to do their Nifty Whatevah now that the sorcerer didn't do anything effectual. The Gamist is pleased with the story element of the sorcerer having to tug his sword out of the roof. The Shy Boy doesn't much care one way or another.
If its in the Mind's Eye and the Simulationist pipes up with ceiling height, you improvise an air vent at just that spot that provides sufficient clearance.
SIM: "You didn't say it was there!"
DM: "I hope your character is taking more careful stock of the slavering jawed Miss-Jackson-if-you're-Nasty than the ceiling."
SIM: "I should get a Spot check to notice the ceiling, then."
DM: "Very well, make your Spot check. In the mean time, you're flat-footed to the Vorpal Bunny's first attack."
Not that the Simulationist would be that petulant, but Justin Case. The Sim ought to be content with your attempt to make the Overhand Chop realistic. The Munchin should approve of the hand-waving, the Gamist likes the story of the big chop holding the line against [INSERT BADDIE HERE] and the Shy Boy doesn't care one way or another.
In each session I try to make one character the star and the other PC's the supporting cast. They all get some spotlight time, but the session is geared to one PC in particular. I vary my DM style for each. That way, not only does each player get good Face Time, they also get it in their preferred style.
|
|
I recommend different styles for different situations. Some combats are worthy of the battlemat, dungeon tiles, miniatures, etc. And some are rolled completely on the Mind's Eye.
Let's apply this to the Overhand Chop as an example. If you're using the battlemat et. al. and there's some 12 foot clearance requirement and the sorcerer is in a ten foot tall hallway, then the Simulationist can make his point and you nix the Overhand Chop. Simulationist is happy. The Munchkin is happy because now s/he'll get the chance to do their Nifty Whatevah now that the sorcerer didn't do anything effectual. The Gamist is pleased with the story element of the sorcerer having to tug his sword out of the roof. The Shy Boy doesn't much care one way or another.
If its in the Mind's Eye and the Simulationist pipes up with ceiling height, you improvise an air vent at just that spot that provides sufficient clearance.
SIM: "You didn't say it was there!"
DM: "I hope your character is taking more careful stock of the slavering jawed Miss-Jackson-if-you're-Nasty than the ceiling."
SIM: "I should get a Spot check to notice the ceiling, then."
DM: "Very well, make your Spot check. In the mean time, you're flat-footed to the Vorpal Bunny's first attack."Not that the Simulationist would be that petulant, but Justin Case. The Sim ought to be content with your attempt to make the Overhand Chop realistic. The Munchin should approve of the hand-waving, the Gamist likes the story of the big chop holding the line against [INSERT BADDIE HERE] and the Shy Boy doesn't care one way or another.
In each session I try to make one character the star and the other PC's the supporting cast. They all get some spotlight time, but the session is geared to one PC in particular. I vary my DM style for each. That way, not only does each player get good Face Time, they also get it in their preferred style.
And as you put it that way, it all seems so clear now. Very well stated advice. I love these messageboards. Thank you.
|
...And you may be wondering, well, where is the conflict then?
The Gamist gets upset with the munchkin because the Gamist works hard to earn rewards but sees the munchin optimizing rules to make life easy.
The simulationist gets upset with the gamist becuase the gamist always wants to use his Overhand Chop feat, even when he has been enlarged by the sorcerer in a cooridor is less than 12 feet high. The simulationist feels the gamist is always trying to find the rules that benefit him, rather than understanding the limitation and context of the setting simulation.
The narrativist wants the story and game to flow, not get bogged down by the simulationist's details. The simulationist feels by the DM allowing the narrativist to drop his d20 behind the screen that different standards are being used from player to player.
There are other examples if needed.
This might be a good time to secretly introduce "DM Fiat". You sound like a reasonable, well-prepared DM who can handle this, so here is my suggestion at balancing all play styles in a single session (but I also like Dragnmoon's "spotlight" method).
1. No doubt the munchkin enjoys challenges as much as anyone. If you notice a particular enemy is too easy, then fudge the rolls to make the battle harder. Both Gamist and Munchkin should respect each-other more (alternatively, throw in some hard monsters and occasionally fudge things against the softer characters).
2. Rather than saying "the rules say you can't do that", try to find a way to say "here's how you can do that in the rules". In the Overhand Chop example, allow the attack but at a -4 penalty to attack and -2 damage. This method should make the Simulationist happy (more realistic rules) and the Gamist happy (more game rules) as long as things are consistent. If you keep your notes organized and rule quickly, it shouldn't affect your Narrativist too much.
3. If the Narrativist wants flow, then occasionally use a modified version of #1: if you want to speed things up, just create the illusion of following the rules. Roll the dice, but don't worry about adding things up and following all the little rules. Just give the effects, which is what the Narrativist cares about. The other members won't notice, except that you've gotten faster at calculating.
4. Unfortunately, you are using special rules by allowing the Narrativist to drop their d20 behind the screen. I wouldn't recommend continuing this practice, as their is no way to make it appear fair to the players. However, you can always add modifiers to dice rolls: "Well, Narrativist has been jumping off things lately, so now he gets a +2 bonus on that roll which is just enough to make it."
|
|
...And you may be wondering, well, where is the conflict then?
The Gamist gets upset with the munchkin because the Gamist works hard to earn rewards but sees the munchin optimizing rules to make life easy.
The simulationist gets upset with the gamist becuase the gamist always wants to use his Overhand Chop feat, even when he has been enlarged by the sorcerer in a cooridor is less than 12 feet high. The simulationist feels the gamist is always trying to find the rules that benefit him, rather than understanding the limitation and context of the setting simulation.
The narrativist wants the story and game to flow, not get bogged down by the simulationist's details. The simulationist feels by the DM allowing the narrativist to drop his d20 behind the screen that different standards are being used from player to player.
There are other examples if needed.
This might be a good time to secretly introduce "DM Fiat". You sound like a reasonable, well-prepared DM who can handle this, so here is my suggestion at balancing all play styles in a single session (but I also like Dragnmoon's "spotlight" method).
1. No doubt the munchkin enjoys challenges as much as anyone. If you notice a particular enemy is too easy, then fudge the rolls to make the battle harder. Both Gamist and Munchkin should respect each-other more (alternatively, throw in some hard monsters and occasionally fudge things against the softer characters).
2. Rather than saying "the rules say you can't do that", try to find a way to say "here's how you can do that in the rules". In the Overhand Chop example, allow the attack but at a -4 penalty to attack and -2 damage. This method should make the Simulationist happy (more realistic rules) and the Gamist happy (more game rules) as long as things are consistent. If you keep your notes organized and rule quickly, it shouldn't affect your Narrativist too much.
3. If the Narrativist wants flow, then occasionally use a modified version of #1: if you want to...
Thanks for taking the time to post these ideas, Jal. Good stuff. I like best the ability of these messageboards to facilitate discussion between those who can relate, and it sounds like you really do. I hadn't actually thought about the "drop behind screen" being somehow unfair, either. To that effect, I've started moving back to old school regulation of skill checks, where the PCs just give me their modifier and I'll make the roll on things like bluff, intimidate, appraise, etc.,... and so they don't fully know whether it is success or not - the narrativist AND the simulationist both like the idea, so I've found a niche tactic that levelsets - unusual though it is that they both like it.
This is a good thread, please keep the insights coming, they're helping...