Welcoming All Styles of Play

[Mythic Evil Lincoln]

At my table, we have players who don't care much to speak in character. They like to make new characters, experiment, and play them until death, at which time they draft up a new one. Not a lot of backstory. It's not a big deal to them, they like new powers and new rules.

At the same table, we have people who prefer to go deep on story, make a personality first, and sometimes choose sub-optimal options in service to their vision of the character.

We have one campaign that is super crunchy on the XP and GP. We have another campaign that uses GM fiat for leveling and has an abstracted wealth system.

We play other games besides Pathfinder, and I feel this has really honed our expectations of what kinds of campaigns Pathfinder is best suited to.

I feel that my style of play is the best style of play, because it is inclusive. I respect my friends and enjoy their company, even though they all have slightly (or drastically) different opinions of what constitutes a good session of role-play. Because we work to integrate those visions, instead of labeling and stigmatizing, I think the end result we get is genuinely better than what we would get by being forceful jerks about it.

So I want to hear your stories, good and bad, about integrating different styles of play at your table. Tell me what you've had to do to find compromises between players and players, players and GMs. Where did it go terribly wrong? Where did you hit the sweet spot? Did anyone grow to appreciate some style that they started out hating?

[Lincoln Hills]

I may be wrong*, but it seems to me that the 'regular roll-over' players you describe are in some ways guided that way by frequent player death at their tables. It's pretty wrenching to lose a character after you've invested in him, so treating them as interchangeable and disposable toys is a normal enough reaction. I've had to treat characters that way myself at such tables.

I've found that players who find enjoyment in the ongoing story and do what they can to maximize and personalize their role in it tend to pick up the habit at tables where the game is rarely lethal (though often full of other forms of character suffering.)

I don't know where to categorize folks whose character "Susan IV" dies and who have the stats for "Susan V" ready to play before the combat is over. I'm not fond of that type.

* And if so, I'm sure somebody will be public-spirited enough to shout it out. This being the Net and all.

[Pan]

mythic evil lincoln wrote:

We play other games besides Pathfinder, and I feel this has really honed our expectations of what kinds of campaigns Pathfinder is best suited to.

This can not be overstated. Nothing teaches you more about gaming then trying different systems. Too many people try and pound the square peg in a triangle hole. D&D being the big dog often receives just that treatment.

Now people are a different story. A good open group can be molded to fit well together. Most of my gaming group are casuals. However, this one guy and I are pretty hardcore about our hobby. We also differ a good bit on gaming preferences. Our willingness to share our passions and argue our ways allowed us to develop an appreciation for one another as a gamer.

I think all gamers need a certain level of willingness to accept the social contract and to compromise for the benefit of the group. Most people figure into this camp and games proceed as usual. However, there are a couple of types through arrogance or ignorance can derail games simply through stubbornness. These two types just dont get it or just dont care. You can be all inclusive and these types will continue to break the game. There is a point where you reach incompatible play-styles and inclusiveness wont help.

[Digitalelf]

Pan wrote:

This can not be overstated. Nothing teaches you more about gaming then trying different systems. Too many people try and pound the square peg in a triangle hole. D&D being the big dog often receives just that treatment.

I fully agree with the first two sentences; however, I have been gaming for a little over 30 years, and in that time I have played a myriad of game systems, and I have found time and again that D&D (pick an edition) can be used to play any type of game or genre you can imagine without hassle or problem... It's all about the expectations and preconceptions that are brought to the table by those involved, and zero to do with the system itself.

[Haladir]

I totally agree that experience with multiple game systems makes you a better role-player overall. While we play Pathfinder primarily (and D&D 3.5 before that), my group has extensive experience with GURPS, Call of Cthulhu, Amber Diceless Role-Playing, and Champions; we've all played one-shots in Paranoia, Savage Worlds, Fiasco, FUDGE, and Kill Puppies For Satan.

Experience with a breadth of systems allows you to cut to the core of role-playing: creating a character with a background and personality and participating in a collective story-telling experience. What dice you roll in a particular situation is secondary.

I am of the opinion that a good GM can run a decent campaign of any story using any game system. Of course, the system tends to make one type of story easier to tell than others. I wouldn't try to run a modern-day conspiracy game using Pathfinder, for example.

[Irontruth]

Digitalelf wrote:

Pan wrote:

This can not be overstated. Nothing teaches you more about gaming then trying different systems. Too many people try and pound the square peg in a triangle hole. D&D being the big dog often receives just that treatment.

I fully agree with the first two sentences; however, I have been gaming for a little over 30 years, and in that time I have played a myriad of game systems, and I have found time and again that D&D (pick an edition) can be used to play any type of game or genre you can imagine without hassle or problem... It's all about the expectations and preconceptions that are brought to the table by those involved, and zero to do with the system itself.

Games are more than just genre though. Games are also play experience.

For example, D&D can't replicate what Fiasco does, because D&D requires a DM, where as Fiasco only has players. There is no DM experience in Fiasco, as it doesn't exist. The games have an element that is mutually exclusive to the fundamental design. A good DM can emulate the genre that Fiasco does, but the DM themselves will not have the same experience playing D&D than if they were playing Fiasco.

System does matter and affects the outcome of the game. It isn't the only thing though.

The analogy I use is that the system is a set of tools. You could build a house using an auto-mechanic's tools. It would be a lot harder, take more effort and the more experienced at both aspects (the tools and the goal) you are the better it turns out. Using the correct tools makes the job easier (though you still have to know how to use them right) and requires less effort to reach the desired goal.

With enough ingenuity and experience, you can use any system to play type of story. Sometimes though, if you switch systems, it will require you to have less ingenuity and experience to achieve the same effect.

One of my favorite games to run is called Mythender. The players are god-killers, who have zero chance of failure when killing normal mortals. I could run that using d20, but doing so as a one-shot where the players get to make their own characters from scratch and go through multiple combats and kill a god within 4 hours would be difficult at best, especially with people who have never played the system before.