| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There have been a few threads recently about play style differences, "camps" of gamers, and even hostility between gamers whose styles differ.
I'd like to open up a discussion about how to run an effective game when you have players who tend to prefer differing styles. I would like to share my own experience with this, and am also looking for advice on how better to handle it in my next game (with almost all new players).
I'd like to start by talking a little about play style.
I've been playing RPGs now for about 35 years, and I've played in a many different game systems. The way I see it, playing tabletop RPGs is both an art and a science.
I think that a good game needs a healthy dose of both. It's been my observation that problems arise when players don't agree on where that balancing point between the two should be.
On the artistic side, playing an RPG is an exercise in group storytelling. Artistic players see their own character as a living, breathing person who has a history, a personality, and goals. The joy of the game is to embody the character, to look at the in-game situation through the eyes of an alter-ego, and to develop the character's story, as a part of the overall story. An artistic player tends to pick charcter design choices based more with an eye to the character's story than to, say, combat effectiveness. Most won't bother with long-term planning of character advancement, letting the character's in-game experiences dictate chosen advancement options. An artistic-leaning GM won't let the letter of the rules get in the way of a good story. Such a GM will usually roll his dice behind a screen, and have no qualms ignoring inconvenient dice rolls if they don't serve a compelling storyline.
Players more attracted to the artistic side of RPGs tend to prefer game systems that are light on rules, and provide the GM plenty of discretion on how to interpret situations. Most artistic players still care enough of the "science" of the game to create reasonably-effective characters. ("Hmmm... why would a disgruntled banker and fan of the opera be heading off with a knight to explore a lost crypt? I'll make him a scholar of ancient lore instead...")
--or, those who prefer developing the storylines of their character and then figuring out what rules to use
On the scientific side, playing an RPG is an exercise of learning and understanding the rules of the system. The joy of a scientific player is coming up with a novel combination of the rules that grant amazing statistical advantages in the widest sets of in-game circumstances. This kind of player will painstakingly craft spreadsheets of the cost/benefit analysis of specific weapon choice, feat chains, spells, ans so forth. Scientific players tend to carefully optimize a character for the assigned role: tank, blaster-caster, skill-monkey, meat shiled, healer, etc. They probably have figured out their feat, spell, and skill selections through 20th level, and probably have a long wish-list of specific magic items. (which they will buy or craft if they don't recover them in treasure hordes). Most scientific players still pay attention to the "art" side of the game, often crafting very creative character stories that explain or justify the "crunch" they have so carefully crafted. Players of this sort usually have a highly-developed sense of fairness, and find the idea of fudging dice rolls to be "cheating," something they would never let themselves do! For to do so would be to cheapen the game experience.
--or, those who prefer to dive deep into the ruleset and finely hone their characters, and then come up with enough of a story to justify their choices.
Conflicting Styles
In gaming groups where the players and GM aren't that far apart on the spectrum, playstyle conflict is seldom an issue. Conflict can arise, though, when there is a strong mismatch.
In a game that's dominated by players who prefer the scientific style, an artistic player is likely to feel undervalued. First-person role-playing might not be the group's strong suit, and that player's character will likely seem underpowered in comparison to the rest of the party.
In a game that's primarily artistic, a lone scientific player may very well dominate combat when it happens, but might feel bored on the third session in a row wwithout a fight.
On the boards, we've seen far too many examples of players of one style accuse the players of the other of having wrongbadfun. That tends to cause a shouting match, where people form sides and talk past each other. The thread often ends in flames and is shut down by a moderator.
How I've handled this
I'll confess that I tend toward the artistic side of things, although I like to think that I'm closer to the middle. In my last campaign, all of my players were very experienced gamers. We had one character that was significantly more effective in combat than the rest-- played by a scientific-style player. At first, I found it a serious problem, as that character could chop through pretty much anything I threw at him in a round. But I didn't want to nerf him, because I knew that making the most effective character that he could was this player's strong suit. I ended up re-tooling most encounters to that the party would need to use different tactics to overcome them; this had the added benefit of letting other PCs have about an equal time in the spotlight. As I was running a published AP, that meant re-writing a lot of the encounters. It was a lot of work, but
So, what do you do when you have a mismatch in player styles?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My preferred solution is not to get a mismatch in the first place. I like to know the style of a game I'm heading into, or to ensure prospective players know the style of a game I'm setting up.
I tend to have a bit of a hang-up when it comes to expectations, if I get something different to what I'm expecting I can quickly become disillusioned, so it's very important to me to clearly define expectations on both sides.
I've been thinking for a while about modelling playstyles. So far the easiest way to explain what I've come up with is this (one day I'll write it up in far more detail):
A playstyle consists of three attributes, "System", "Story", and "Game", each rated between 1 and 9. Call it the SSG rating, with a three-digit code representing the three scores.
"System" - How important doing things within the system is. This tends to represent optimization as well as how close to RAW someone wants to play.
"Story" - How important the ongoing narrative story is.
"Game" - High scores tend to be people who want more "game" and balance, while low scores would be more "simulation" and realism.
Players don't necessarily have a fixed playstyle (some do, some don't), just the one they're currently playing. They may well have extents they're not willing to cross in each of those three attributes.
Using the above model, my preferred style is probably an SSG score of 383 (System 3, Story 8, Game 3). If expressed using ranges, I'm probably more of a 1-8,2-9,1-7. If you mapped those ranges as a triangle and measured the area overlap between players, you could probably see how compatible gamers are likely to be with one another.
Here's the thing I've learned this past year: A high score in one of these attributes doesn't necessitate a balancing drop in any of the others. Someone else could easily be a 222, or an 888 - liking one aspect doesn't drop another. A 111 is likely someone who is pretty bored by the whole RPG idea anyway and probably ought to be doing something else, while a 999 is someone that has fun playing no matter what.
(This is a work in progress, I think it's possible to break it into a few more than 3 aspects, for example splitting "System" between the adherence to RAW and Optimization aspects.
I'm posting this to get the general idea across, not to try and insult anyone :) I also don't intend to use this for actually measuring player compatibility for my own games, and wouldn't recommend it to anyone else, it's simply out of scientific curiosity in studying the mindset of gamers.)
(also, edited as I already rethought the "Game" attribute)
In terms of internet discussions, I find it best to keep an open mind about everyone else's playstyle. How someone on the other side of the world is playing Pathfinder doesn't affect me in the slightest, other than to be happy that someone else is playing Pathfinder and supporting Paizo, thus ensuring the game stays around.
One of the things I truly hate seeing is people that post "but if you keep playing like that you're ruining the game for the rest of us, Paizo will not make the changes I want if you're happy the way it is!" - that's probably the most selfish attitude I can imagine for a gamer, assuming that their personal playstyle is the one the game must support to the exclusion of anything else. By all means post what you feel is wrong with the game, but be prepared for people to disagree - I'm all for the game supporting multiple playstyles, but when it gets into wars for Paizo's attention that's an easy way for me to take an immediate dislike to someone. The reason I know how selfish this attitude is is easy... I used to have that attitude myself.
Honestly, Paizo likely have a pretty good handle on how important each playstyle is to them, they're not going to be swayed by anything on the forums considering the tiny subset of the market this board community represents. There's no need to fight over what is, at the end of the day, a game :-| Unfortunately I think this is more a cause of inter-style hatred than actual issues with players at the table - people get scared that Paizo will see someone other than themselves as their target customer base, so they get angry when anyone who plays differently is on the forums, making their voice heard.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am extremely picky about who I play with. My rule numero uno is never ever, I repeat, never ever start a long term campaign with a group I do not know. On the flip side, I love PUGging. I use PFS and meetup to meet local gamers. I start convos with them and find out what people like. During PFS or one shots I find out who I can stand and who matches up to my style. From there I attempt to push aquaintence into friendship then launch long term gaming groups. Thats the secret to my success.
I understand the question was "what do you do when you have mismatching playstyles in the group?" My answer is I dont allow it. I lease or try before I buy. Now I am not saying I have the perfect group there is a bit of compromise and group dynamics that requires buy in from everyone in the group. Some poor experiences in past has lead me to believe that there are sliding scales for both "artistic" and "scientific" styles. My "try before I buy" method helps me discover who I am compatible with.
There are other things to consider beisdes playstyle as well. reliability and commitment are huge too. Some people have a love for gaming, but are socially awkward or poorly mannered. Sometimes these people are your best friends or family. Sometimes your best friends or family make the worst gamers. Dont lock yourself down with them. Life is too short for bad gaming. You can still be firends and family if you dont game together.
Keep in mind this is all subjective. What I find to be nirvana is somebody else's nightmare. It is ok to avoid styles you do not like. Check your badwrongfun though during discussions. Also, FFS leave people alone at FLGS and Cons too.
It's the start of a very interesting discussion, Haladir, but I find that I am like Matt and Pan in that my circle of friends and extended gaming acquaintances all tend to clump around the middle of the "artistic" style scale. (I am amused by your choice of terminology because we have a Ph.D. in pure mathematics who also has a B.A. in Physics from UC Berkeley and the "Chief Technical Architect for Storage at Intel" in our group, and both are definitely 'artistic' players. So calling them "non-scientific" might lead to yet another terminology flame war. Whee!)
And honestly, we've never had to deal with an ultra-scientific type. We've had a couple who *thought* they were being scientific, but they just weren't very good at it.
I've had issues both ways.
We had the "ultimate" artistic player who simply didn't want to be bothered with rules at all. He wanted to loosely define what his character could do and then tell the story, without ever rolling dice or writing any stats down on paper. Unfortunately, he also wanted to be the star, the hero, and have all of us play second fiddle to him, so if we tried to do anything he'd insist on interrupting and tell us why it didn't work, and then what he did to fix it.
We first tried to make him play by at least a subset of the rules, and when that failed, he was invited to stop coming. He never understood why none of us showed up when he declared that he'd invented a "new, rules-light" gaming system that was "much more fun" than anything we'd ever tried.
We had a "scientific" player who was bad at what he did, but lived up to every stereotype you see on the boards: Everyone else's choices in character builds were wrong. We took the wrong feats, chose the wrong items, maxed out the wrong skills, etc. When the GM used effective tactics to counter him, he ended up in long arguments with the GM about how unfair it was. He finally got thrown out of the house in a rather heated exchange with the GM.
In short, I've encountered issues with both types, and those issues were always resolved by throwing out the player in question. (I was going to type that I find "scientific types" far more ready to criticize others for their choices, but I think that's selection bias on my part -- because I play an artistic game, I'm more likely to be criticized by or note scientific types' disagreements with me.)
Not a very good answer to your question at all, Haladir.
But the best game I've ever run is the Rise of the Runelords campaign I'm running now with a group of three players who played a "trial game" with me as a GM, massively clicked, and then cornered me and demanded that I run them in a full AP because we worked together so well.
THAT was our "key to happiness".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think going about it as if you are either artistic or scientific is the wrong way to go about it. Its a common theme though and really at the heart of the dreaded "Roll vs Role" play argument. Think of it as a sliding scale and everyone is on both. Often, folks will turn one slider to 11 and turn down the other but that doesnt mean you cant still care about story and stats.
The most passionate gamers are going to head to the forums. To be honest it’s much easier to have a discussion about "scientific" topics than it is "artistic" ones. If you are hoping to head off unwanted responses you may want to specify in your OP that you wish to discuss one or the other. Be prepared for people to ignore it anyways but at least you should garner a few on topic replies.
I don't think anyone's trying to "pigeonhole" it. I like Matt's 3-point system, and I'm very much like him; maybe a 4-8-(don't care).
My experience is that it's when you get players at opposite ends of any of the scales that you run into trouble.
A 9-8-5 is going to HATE playing with a 1-8-5 because that "1" means, "I really don't care about the numbers so I'll be playing a grossly suboptimal character."
But he's going to HATE playing with a 9-1-5 just as much, because that player is just going to say, "OK. That's done. What's the next fight?"
So Haladir's got a great point: What do you do when you have players who are significantly different on any of the scales? (Sorry, Matt... I don't know how much the third scale matters, but the first two are huge.)
So far, the answer has been, "Don't play with them."
I, like Haladir, would love to see what others have done with this other than the nuclear option.
(Sorry, Matt... I don't know how much the third scale matters, but the first two are huge.)
From looking at threads such as those involving reloading guns, crossbows vs longbows, and "why can't martials have nice things?" the third seems to be pretty major too :)
I know that for me, I prefer a non-caster character to be constrained by the same physics as someone in real life, while for others they'd rather have them gain abilities of a magical/mythic nature in order to keep them on scale (in both mechanical balance and feel) with the casters.
There's an argument that tends to get brought up in such discussions along the lines of "how can you argue for realism in a game where people are throwing fireballs?" but for me I prefer that anything that has a real-world analogue should work like the real-world version, with only magic getting a free pass to break those limitations.
It currently feels a bit odd, though, in that the first two numbers are "how much you care about something" while the third is more of a balance between game and realism, I may have to rethink that one a bit.
So Haladir's got a great point: What do you do when you have players who are significantly different on any of the scales?So far, the answer has been, "Don't play with them."
I, like Haladir, would love to see what others have done with this other than the nuclear option.
Got to agree with that, I'd love to find another option that would work for me. Saying "no" to someone is currently a task I find unpleasant but necessary.
In our group it seems like we all build to concept rather than put together builds and slap a concept onto it all after. so there will be campaigns when some are naturally a little more stoutly built just by happen stance. Since we are all adults it is always fine...nobody is getting upset that somebodies chocolate to peanut butter ratio isn't the same as theirs.
|
Personally, I make sure to help players who are less optimization-minded to optimize within their concept, and require more mechanics oriented players to come up with backstory and personality for their characters.
This is admittedly easier to do as a GM when you are one of the better optimizers in the group...but it works for me. Where your character started from (rules or mechanics) seems to mean less, in my experience, than where they end up, and with the ideas above I'm usually able to even the elements out to some degree.
So that's what I do.
For this post, I was struggling for terminology that was both descriptive and positive. "Artistic" and "scientific" aren't perfect, but they seem to work for this purpose.
My most "artistic" player is an archaeologist, and my most "scientific" player is a high school English teacher.
In a recent game we both played in, the "artistic" player didn't want to bother building his own character: he described the things he wanted the character to do, so the GM and I designed it for him. A few years ago, he ran a campaign that he described as "D&D 3.5," but turned out to be a weird amalgam of AD&D, 3.x, and "Uh.. Roll a die and I'll tell you what happens," mainly because he thinks that too many rules gets in the way of the story. (He was surprised that no one took him up on his offer of starting a new campaign in a storytelling "system" he devised called "Dice, No Rules.")
In my last campaign (Runelords), most of us were slightly on the "artistic" side of the middle of the continuum, with two outliers (one scientific player and the aforementioned artistic.) I ended up re-writing many of the encounters specifically for my party, to let each character have his turn in the spotlight. It was a lot of work, but it was worth it.
I used the "scientific" player as a resource: I'd ask him to look up rule questions at the table if there was a dispute. I often trusted his judgment on rules question more than my own, but i would overrule when the story was too delicious not to go in a particular direction. The artistic player was also very valuable: he kept track of plot threads and NPC names in his head-- even ones last mentioned months ago.
I am starting a new campaign with some players I've never gamed with before, and I'm not sure of their play styles. We will be starting with a "Session Zero," in which we'll talk about the game without actually starting it. Part if that is to go over my play style, so as to set expectations. This campaign isn't an AP: it's more episodic and open-ended, so it will be easier for characters to cycle in and out... Or if it doesn't work out, I can wrap it up more easily. What I have so far will get the PCs to level 5 or so. We start this weekend!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So scientific vs artistic seems to be a relabeling of optimizer vs role player? ~sigh~ Relabeling something doesn't change it. So the question can we reconcile the two in the same group? Yes, I do it all the time. BUT it takes a group of people who want to work past their differences to enjoy the game in order to do it. Sadly the GM is powerless to invoke such cooperation by edict. It helps a LOT if the players start out as friends outside the game, but it isn't mandatory; I have found myself part of a couple pick up groups with just such an evolved attitude toward inclusion. Perhaps the most important part is to NOT think about what I want from the game, and instead think about what I can bring to the game.
So scientific vs artistic seems to be a relabeling of optimizer vs role player? ~sigh~ Relabeling something doesn't change it.
This. It still tries to put a division between the two, and doesn't handle the case of the "very scientific, very artistic" player. That's why you need sliding scales for each, rather than opposite ends of a single scale. Some people may value one at the expense of the other, but some may value both a lot, and others may value both only a little.
So the question can we reconcile the two in the same group? Yes, I do it all the time. BUT it takes a group of people who want to work past their differences to enjoy the game in order to do it. Sadly the GM is powerless to invoke such cooperation by edict. It helps a LOT if the players start out as friends outside the game, but it isn't mandatory; I have found myself part of a couple pick up groups with just such an evolved attitude toward inclusion. Perhaps the most important part is to NOT think about what I want from the game, and instead think about what I can bring to the game.
I can envisage that. It's like the difference between person A wanting to sit down and watch TV, and person B wanting to sit down and watch a particular TV show. If you get a room full of person A's, everything is going to go better than a room full of person B's squabbling over the remote.
Some of us are person B's by nature. We either have to find it within ourselves to become person As, or to ensure any person Bs we hang out with want to watch the same show :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I make sure to help players who are less optimization-minded to optimize within their concept, and require more mechanics oriented players to come up with backstory and personality for their characters.
This is admittedly easier to do as a GM when you are one of the better optimizers in the group...but it works for me. Where your character started from (rules or mechanics) seems to mean less, in my experience, than where they end up, and with the ideas above I'm usually able to even the elements out to some degree.
So that's what I do.
Our GM is defintely there to give a hand up to those who are less rules versed among our groupe as well. He helps them shape the Banzai tree as it were so that they get the look and feel they want while everything is still healthy and operates as intended.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Matt you do realize your three (system, story, and game) seem to align with the three established play styles (gamist, narrativist, and simulationist) except that you seem to have reversed the meaning of the numbers on the last one such that a lower number is more in favor of realistic portrayal vs that the higher number meaning stronger as the standard definition would have. This is kind of awesome, like someone working out through their own logic process something others have done before and getting a better understanding of it as a result. You should definitely check out the standard definitions and evolve your own work after seeing the work of others.
One bit of advise however, I don't like meaningless numbers. Rather than say 1-9, why not say high, medium, or low with a clear definition of each... or as many points on the range as you can clearly define if three doesn't seem like enough.
Personally, I make sure to help players who are less optimization-minded to optimize within their concept, and require more mechanics oriented players to come up with backstory and personality for their characters.
This is admittedly easier to do as a GM when you are one of the better optimizers in the group...but it works for me. Where your character started from (rules or mechanics) seems to mean less, in my experience, than where they end up, and with the ideas above I'm usually able to even the elements out to some degree.
So that's what I do.
Out of interest, how would you approach the player whose concept is "Someone that isn't really cut out (at least not yet) to be an adventurer"? ;)
The biggest problem I run into on the boards is when you get someone like that attempting to fit into a group that expects each character to pull their weight in-game.
So scientific vs artistic seems to be a relabeling of optimizer vs role player? ~sigh~ Relabeling something doesn't change it.
This. It still tries to put a division between the two, and doesn't handle the case of the "very scientific, very artistic" player. That's why you need sliding scales for each, rather than opposite ends of a single scale. Some people may value one at the expense of the other, but some may value both a lot, and others may value both only a little.
So the question can we reconcile the two in the same group? Yes, I do it all the time. BUT it takes a group of people who want to work past their differences to enjoy the game in order to do it. Sadly the GM is powerless to invoke such cooperation by edict. It helps a LOT if the players start out as friends outside the game, but it isn't mandatory; I have found myself part of a couple pick up groups with just such an evolved attitude toward inclusion. Perhaps the most important part is to NOT think about what I want from the game, and instead think about what I can bring to the game.I can envisage that. It's like the difference between person A wanting to sit down and watch TV, and person B wanting to sit down and watch a particular TV show. If you get a room full of person A's, everything is going to go better than a room full of person B's squabbling over the remote.
Some of us are person B's by nature. We either have to find it within ourselves to become person As, or to ensure any person Bs we hang out with want to watch the same show :)
I dont know I think he tried very hard to not make it a label but a descriptor of aproach. Maybe sensitivities being what they are right now there is no good way to make people happy. I felt like it was a sliding scale not a "your are type a, you are type b." thing. For example I would say I am pretty 50/50. I have ideas in my head of the person I would be happy pretending to be for a year before I ever even get started on numbers. But that doesnt change the fact I want that person to be good at one form of combat, and have at least one secondary function that contributes to the party...trap finder, crafter, social butterfly, smarty pants...whatever.
Matt you do realize your three (system, story, and game) seem to align with the three established play styles (gamist, narrativist, and simulationist) except that you seem to have reversed the meaning of the numbers on the last one such that a lower number is more in favor of realistic portrayal vs that the higher number meaning stronger as the standard definition would have. This is kind of awesome, like someone working out through their own logic process something others have done before and getting a better understanding of it as a result. You should definitely check out the standard definitions and evolve your own work after seeing the work of others.
LOL!
Um, for my next trick I shall sit under this tree and await an apple? :)
But yeah, seriously, I came up with this mostly from studying people arguing vehemently on boards over the past year or two... I see I'm going to have to go google some things!
One bit of advise however, I don't like meaningless numbers. Rather than say 1-9, why not say high, medium, or low with a clear definition of each... or as many points on the range as you can clearly define if three doesn't seem like enough.
Yeah. That would probably work better. Kinda like those surveys when you're sure what 1, 5, and 9 mean but have no idea what a 3 or a 4 would represent, so you just score everything at the extremes...
Like I said, big WIP, so I'm going to go away and research what's already been done and see where it all ties up :) (Damn, such a shame I can't do my dissertation on this...)
Personally, I make sure to help players who are less optimization-minded to optimize within their concept, and require more mechanics oriented players to come up with backstory and personality for their characters.
This is admittedly easier to do as a GM when you are one of the better optimizers in the group...but it works for me. Where your character started from (rules or mechanics) seems to mean less, in my experience, than where they end up, and with the ideas above I'm usually able to even the elements out to some degree.
So that's what I do.
Out of interest, how would you approach the player whose concept is "Someone that isn't really cut out (at least not yet) to be an adventurer"? ;)
The biggest problem I run into on the boards is when you get someone like that attempting to fit into a group that expects each character to pull their weight in-game.
Personally when I DM'ed after I offered my advice, If they indicated they didnt want or need it that was the end of the discusion. I think if you are intentionally making someone who isnt competent for one reason or another you are taking it upon yourself to deal with the issues that arrise with that. If you build a 8 strength, 8 con fighter and you do not live all that long or simply never hit anything it does not fall upon the DM to cater to you by tailoring encounters. Gaming with a group is a social contract. Deliberately sandbagging and then bemoaning your lot in life isnt any more noble than deliberately building a murder hobo who derails plots and refuses to be a team player.
I dont know I think he tried very hard to not make it a label but a descriptor of aproach. Maybe sensitivities being what they are right now there is no good way to make people happy. I felt like it was a sliding scale not a "your are type a, you are type b." thing. For example I would say I am pretty 50/50. I have ideas in my head of the person I would be happy...
Yeah, I think I oversimplified it with the TV example. What I was trying to get across was that recognizing that some people are adaptable (to varying degrees) while others are more picky and approach it from the "I'm looking for a group to play Jade Regent, heavy with the RP, rules-light, and I'm quite happy to not play until I find a group specifically for that" angle.
I tend to picky, so I play in two groups - a regular group where we rotate between what different people want to play and generally enjoy playing whatever comes up together, and a second "medium term pick-up game" group where I gather players that want to play the same thing I do, play it out, then go our separate ways at the end of the campaign.
Personally when I DM'ed after I offered my advice, If they indicated they didnt want or need it that was the end of the discusion. I think if you are intentionally making someone who isnt competent for one reason or another you are taking it upon yourself to deal with the issues that arrise with that. If you build a 8 strength, 8 con fighter and you do not live all that long or simply never hit anything it does not fall upon the DM to cater to you by tailoring encounters. Gaming with a group is a social contract. Deliberately sandbagging and then bemoaning your lot in life isnt any more noble than deliberately building a murder hobo who derails plots and refuses to be a team player.
Yup. See, I'd never make that character in a random group with people I didn't know (such as PFS), but I'm quite happy to look for a game where that character would be welcome (and I tend to run quite a few of them myself, specifically for players looking for something like that.)
Sometimes you just have to accept not every character concept (or every player) is going to work out in every group, and there's no way around that which doesn't involve compromise in some way.
The problems occur when that player walks into the wrong group, sits down, and wants to play that way. That's why I always tell people to discuss expectations before the game, not to just sit down and hope it'll all work out. Sometimes the group expectations are close enough that it can work, but you have to be prepared for the possibility that they're not going to. Sometimes "reconciling differing playstyles" just isn't possible, because most people can only bend so far when you're talking about spending time doing something that's supposed to be fun - we all have a limit (some higher than others) where it just stops being fun, and becomes time that could be better spent doing something else.
Honestly, that's not something that the mechanics support very well.
It can be done through roleplay, with someone not interested in adventure, but rising to the occasion when forced - or playing well below optimum tactically. That's probably the best approach. Leave it all to RP and let the player ramp up his effectiveness as he chooses.Mechanically, it's hard to make a build that represents someone not yet capable without making them permanently incapable. The Str8 Con8 fighter is never going to be effective. There's no way for him to grow into the role.
One possibility would be to take one of the concepts that doesn't come into it's own until the mid levels. Or to take required abilities/feats for such concept in a less effective order.
The simplest possibility might just be to start that character a couple levels lower than the group and then let him catch up.
I guess I'm thinking less the Str8 Con8 Fighter, and more the low-con Mage made iconic by Raistlin, or the Cleric that's scared of spiders (and is played that way even if it means avoiding getting too close to them in combat), or the Paladin that's played so uptight and righteous that they cause (with the agreement of the players) in-character arguments about doing the right thing, and refuses to kill someone that really, really has to die in order for the group to succeed because they're unarmed. The classic one - the fighter who uses a weapon that does d8 damage when there was a d10 alternative, but the player simply can't envisage that character using anything other than their chosen weapon.
Not so much someone that isn't suitable for their role, but someone that has a use within the party, but at times is going to be a burden because they're not used to this sort of life. The thief that's a great thief, but so offensive that they upset half the NPCs you interact with. People whose concept can fit the party's requirements, but also cause issues. In terms of optimization, think the Sorceress that learned a ton of utility spells but not much that can be used in combat, or the Rogue that can fight, pick locks, but is scared of heights so they don't have much climb skill. Sometimes, simply just a choice of feats that isn't the best, but is chosen because it fits the concept of who they are and the things they would be most likely to learn. I see quite a few posts that knock the usefulness of the Iconics, for example, while to me those builds represent who that character is.
Part of the problem with the sliding scales is that it encourages the idea that everyone really should learn to crank them all up all the way. If you're currently very artistic and not very scientific, then you need to learn to be scientific to be a better gamer. If you're the other way around, you need to get better at the artistic side so you'll be a better gamer.
It's nonsense of course. It's not about gaming always being best with both pushed to the top. It's about people liking different things. But it's not uncommon for people to argue that their style doesn't lack anything and that everyone should emulate them. In large part that's the fallacy of the Stormwind Fallacy.
^^ That's why I'm more than happy rating myself a 3 when it comes to rules adherence and using the system to make better characters. It isn't that I can't, it's that I find it tends to make things less fun for me (and for others if they prefer the same things I do.)
The other fallacy of the Stormwind Fallacy is that "There's absolutely no connection between RP and Optimization." Occasionally, one *will* dictate that the other needs to suffer. If I have to optimize for a game, I may not able to build the character I really wanted to play (because, say, they cough and wheeze a bit and had a negative con bonus), and equally if I build my RP-focused character, that may mean I can't optimize because they simply *have* to have that really useless feat nobody would ever dream of taking.
It's not that you can't do both, because you can (it's obvious from the number of people that do) - it's that sometimes you have a good reason not to want to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont know I think he tried very hard to not make it a label but a descriptor of aproach. Maybe sensitivities being what they are right now there is no good way to make people happy. I felt like it was a sliding scale not a "your are type a, you are type b." thing. For example I would say I am pretty 50/50. I have ideas in my head of the person I would be happy pretending to be for a year before I ever even get started on numbers. But that doesnt change the fact I want that person to be good at one form of combat, and have at least one secondary function that contributes to the party...trap finder, crafter, social butterfly, smarty pants...whatever.
Arguing descriptors vs slider bars is moot. Attitude is what makes two dissimilar style gamers able to sit down and enjoy a game together. Lets face it the difficulty of searching out two random gamers with the exact same play style is high. But if they both come to the table with an inclusive attitude then they can both have fun.
|
|
Out of interest, how would you approach the player whose concept is "Someone that isn't really cut out (at least not yet) to be an adventurer"? ;)
I'd suggest playing a Wizard with a skill selection suited to an academic, and a spell selection utterly unsuited to adventuring, but potentially useful long-term (spells like Identify, Comprehend Languages,and Crafter's Fortune), but with maxed out Int. Then they can become suited to adventuring whenever they decide to, and at the speed they decide to, simply by acquiring suitable spells.
Or something else entirely, but that's my first thought. Personality issues making them unfit is also definitely possible...but that doesn't really require mechanical help from me per se, since it's more of an overlay on an otherwise competent character.
The biggest problem I run into on the boards is when you get someone like that attempting to fit into a group that expects each character to pull their weight in-game.
I'd expect them to pull their weight for the simple reason that I don't enforce party cohesion. If a player's being a dick via their character, I'll stop them...but I don't force the PCs to stick with each other through thick and thin or restrict their legitimate IC choices*.
That being the case, if someone's more of a liability than an asset for too long, I'd expect the other PCs would probably kick them to the curb, and I wouldn't stop or penalize them for doing so. Adventuring is dangerous, and people who can't pull their weight probably eventually get left in town. Now, if the other PCs were cool with them being less-than-useful, that's fine...but I somehow doubt that'd be sustainable long-term with any of the groups I've played with. Many of them enjoy roleplaying more than mechanics...but all of them like succeeding.
*As an example, when I was running Legacy of Fire, one of the PCs decided to betray the rest of the group to some villains. This seemed a poor choice on that character's part, but legitimate given said character's personality, so I went with it.
Their sneakiness was, in fact, not a match for the rest of the group's perceptiveness and were found out and rather summarily captured and tied up, then killed while trying to escape (not a euphemism in this case).
Personally, I make sure to help players who are less optimization-minded to optimize within their concept, and require more mechanics oriented players to come up with backstory and personality for their characters.
This is admittedly easier to do as a GM when you are one of the better optimizers in the group...but it works for me. Where your character started from (rules or mechanics) seems to mean less, in my experience, than where they end up, and with the ideas above I'm usually able to even the elements out to some degree.
So that's what I do.
Out of interest, how would you approach the player whose concept is "Someone that isn't really cut out (at least not yet) to be an adventurer"? ;)
The biggest problem I run into on the boards is when you get someone like that attempting to fit into a group that expects each character to pull their weight in-game.
Honestly, that's not something that the mechanics support very well.
It can be done through roleplay, with someone not interested in adventure, but rising to the occasion when forced - or playing well below optimum tactically. That's probably the best approach. Leave it all to RP and let the player ramp up his effectiveness as he chooses.Mechanically, it's hard to make a build that represents someone not yet capable without making them permanently incapable. The Str8 Con8 fighter is never going to be effective. There's no way for him to grow into the role.
One possibility would be to take one of the concepts that doesn't come into it's own until the mid levels. Or to take required abilities/feats for such concept in a less effective order.
The simplest possibility might just be to start that character a couple levels lower than the group and then let him catch up.
I think that you have hit something on the head here..I have long felt the most tactful way of playing the bumbler is to RP him as unintentionally successful. He accidentally stabs the left orc when trying to use his shield to block the one on the right, He cuts the red wire when he meant to cut blue, but it was the right one anyway, he intended to cast fireball and got grease instead just as the giant stepped into the room and slipped on the floor. It is the diplomatic way to be your concept without maiming your party.
Honestly, that's not something that the mechanics support very well.
It can be done through roleplay, with someone not interested in adventure, but rising to the occasion when forced - or playing well below optimum tactically. That's probably the best approach. Leave it all to RP and let the player ramp up his effectiveness as he chooses.Mechanically, it's hard to make a build that represents someone not yet capable without making them permanently incapable. The Str8 Con8 fighter is never going to be effective. There's no way for him to grow into the role.
One possibility would be to take one of the concepts that doesn't come into it's own until the mid levels. Or to take required abilities/feats for such concept in a less effective order.
The simplest possibility might just be to start that character a couple levels lower than the group and then let him catch up.
I guess I'm thinking less the Str8 Con8 Fighter, and more the low-con Mage made iconic by Raistlin, or the Cleric that's scared of spiders (and is played that way even if it means avoiding getting too close to them in combat), or the Paladin that's played so uptight and righteous that they cause (with the agreement of the players) in-character arguments about doing the right thing, and refuses to kill someone that really, really has to die in order for the group to succeed because they're unarmed. The classic one - the fighter who uses a weapon that does d8 damage when there was a d10 alternative, but the player simply can't envisage that character using anything other than their chosen weapon.
Not so much someone that isn't suitable for their role, but someone that has a use within the party, but at times is going to be a burden because they're not used to this sort of life. The thief that's a great thief, but so offensive that they upset half the NPCs you interact with. People whose concept can fit the party's requirements, but also cause issues. In terms of optimization, think the Sorceress that...
I guess I dont run into this that often..nobody at our table does this kind of analysis on anothers character short of "hey maybe you should get a missle weapon" or something like that. I realize though that in a situation like to boards where people are soliciting advise things can get more contentious. Guess I have been fairly sheltered from this sort of thing in my 24 odd years of gaming. Probably why I dont always see what the fuss is about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I dont run into this that often..nobody at our table does this kind of analysis on anothers character short of "hey maybe you should get a missle weapon" or something like that. I realize though that in a situation like to boards where people are soliciting advise things can get more contentious. Guess I have been fairly sheltered from this sort of thing in my 24 odd years of gaming. Probably why I dont always see what the fuss is about.
I'm approaching this from a similar situation. I don't know what all the fuss is about either, but it keeps on flaring up on the boards so I'm trying to understand it :)
EDIT: And given other threads right now, occasionally I just wonder if some people just want to argue for the sake of it :-S
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I dont run into this that often..nobody at our table does this kind of analysis on anothers character short of "hey maybe you should get a missle weapon" or something like that. I realize though that in a situation like to boards where people are soliciting advise things can get more contentious. Guess I have been fairly sheltered from this sort of thing in my 24 odd years of gaming. Probably why I dont always see what the fuss is about.
I'm approaching this from a similar situation. I don't know what all the fuss is about either, but it keeps on flaring up on the boards so I'm trying to understand it :)
EDIT: And given other threads right now, occasionally I just wonder if some people just want to argue for the sake of it :-S
Yes, this is the internet and that's what people love to do on forums is argue endlessly. Fortunately people aren't that way IRL.
Yes, this is the internet and that's what people love to do on forums is argue endlessly. Fortunately people aren't that way IRL.
I guess I dont run into this that often..nobody at our table does this kind of analysis on anothers character short of "hey maybe you should get a missle weapon" or something like that. I realize though that in a situation like to boards where people are soliciting advise things can get more contentious. Guess I have been fairly sheltered from this sort of thing in my 24 odd years of gaming. Probably why I dont always see what the fuss is about.
I'm approaching this from a similar situation. I don't know what all the fuss is about either, but it keeps on flaring up on the boards so I'm trying to understand it :)
EDIT: And given other threads right now, occasionally I just wonder if some people just want to argue for the sake of it :-S
You obviously know better people than I.
A playstyle consists of three attributes, "System", "Story", and "Game", each rated between 1 and 9. Call it the SSG rating, with a three-digit code representing the three scores.
"System" - How important doing things within the system is. This tends to represent optimization as well as how close to RAW someone wants to play.
"Story" - How important the ongoing narrative story is.
"Game" - High scores tend to be people who want more "game" and balance, while low scores would be more "simulation" and realism.Players don't necessarily have a fixed playstyle (some do, some don't), just the one they're currently playing. They may well have extents they're not willing to cross in each of those three attributes.
Thanks for posting this! I was hoping this discussion would keep going after the thread in Website Feedback got sidetracked.
I think meshing playstyles is a hugely important part of having fun, and one that doesn't get enough press.
I think I'd rate myself as a 7-5-7. All are important, but as a player I tend to put more emphasis on system and game. When I GM, I probably bump up story and bump down the others a bit. I don't mind too much when my fellow GMs do the same, but a lot of it is about trust. Do I trust that you're not following strict RAW in an attempt to tell a better story, or do I think you're doing it because you a) don't know the rules or b) don't care about balance?
Personally I like Earthdawn's way of handwaving away the martials==realism thing. All the PCs are magic. That's how they learn so fast. That's how they get so tough. Some blatantly cast spells, others channel the magic into physical abilities.
That, and Shadowrun's physical adepts are what made me change my mind on "martials have to be realistic".
Actually, physical adepts made me love the monk a lot more.
I don't mind too much when my fellow GMs do the same, but a lot of it is about trust. Do I trust that you're not following strict RAW in an attempt to tell a better story, or do I think you're doing it because you a) don't know the rules or b) don't care about balance?
Yep, trust is a huge factor here, and again we're back to ensuring the group has discussed expectations and found enough common ground I think.
When you don't tell someone what you're expecting out of the game, then you've got no reason to get upset when those expectations aren't met. When I don't know what five other people around the table want, I stop everything and find that out (and probably ask myself how I got to the point of sitting at a table that early, as that isn't something I'd do ;))
You can't really trust someone unless you either know them well enough to do so, or have at least spoken to them about any concerns you've got, or just don't have too many expectations out of the game.
My regular group, for example, I can pull pretty much anything on, because they trust me and know I'm not going to do anything stupid even if it seems I am at the time. If I have them arrested and all their stuff taken, they know they'll be able to get it (or at least a better replacement) back, because I've proven that in the past. The rust monster dilemma has been spoken about on the boards before, I can pull that on this group because they trust me to give them plenty of opportunities to replace any broken items, or in some cases I just know that player isn't going to care whether I do or not.
A brand new group, if I go charging in with my "GM godmode" hat on, have them knocked unconscious without saves, and wake up chained to the wall of a cell, they may not react quite as well as my regular group. If that's how the adventure is going to begin, I'm going to find a way to warn them before we start so they don't get agitated. Most likely I'm going to tell them during player recruitment "When this adventure begins, you're going to wake up chained in a cell without any equipment" - if someone doesn't like that, they've then got plenty of time to bring their concerns to me before game day.
Sometimes all it takes is talking to people, something so many people (apparently, from the state of the boards) seem to miss. Obviously that isn't always the solution, but avoiding talking about it is likely to just cause more problems.
Personally I like Earthdawn's way of handwaving away the martials==realism thing. All the PCs are magic. That's how they learn so fast. That's how they get so tough. Some blatantly cast spells, others channel the magic into physical abilities.That, and Shadowrun's physical adepts are what made me change my mind on "martials have to be realistic".
Actually, physical adepts made me love the monk a lot more.
It's certainly a good way to get that kind of martial ability into the game. It's not the sort of campaign world I prefer to play in, but I'm certainly not knocking it for those that do prefer it. If we all liked the same thing it'd be boring :)
As far as rules to support that go, I'm quite happy with abilities either being abstract so they can handle both (such as being able to look at Hit Points either as raw ability to absorb enormous punishment, or the ability to avoid blows through dodging or taking lots of smaller cuts), or simply providing enough choices that people can build their character with either "flavor" (call it "skill-based" or "power-based", for example). Another option is just to provide different base classes for each - the "channelling" fighter vs the "highly-trained" fighter.
I value the option to play a "mundane" character that gains their ability through training and skill, but I also have no reason to object to other options for players that want something else. Lack of options only reduces the game audience, and that doesn't help any of us. The people that argue for "one true way to play" are effectively arguing for a specialized game aimed at a much smaller audience, which is another reason why I just don't understand it.
It's certainly a good way to get that kind of martial ability into the game. It's not the sort of campaign world I prefer to play in, but I'm certainly not knocking it for those that do prefer it. If we all liked the same thing it'd be boring :)
As far as rules to support that go, I'm quite happy with abilities either being abstract so they can handle both (such as being able to look at Hit Points either as raw ability to absorb enormous punishment, or the ability to avoid blows through dodging or taking lots of smaller cuts), or simply providing enough choices that people can build their character with either "flavor" (call it "skill-based" or "power-based", for example). Another option is just to provide different base classes for each - the "channelling" fighter vs the "highly-trained" fighter.
I value the option to play a "mundane" character that gains their ability through training and skill, but I also have no reason to object to other options for players that want something else. Lack of options only reduces the game audience, and that doesn't help any of us. The people that argue for "one true way to play" are effectively arguing for a specialized game aimed at a much smaller audience, which is another reason why I just don't understand it.
Totally hear you there, but I honestly think Pathfinder just isn't going to be the game for everyone. PF is a game of mundane martials and fantastic casters (for the most part), and you're pretty much going to have to play a different game if you want fantastic martials. I don't have any problem with that. It also doesn't make me dislike or not want to play PF.
Of course, it could easily be argued that PF *does* have fantastic martials: Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger. I still believe there is a disparity between them and full casters, but a lot of that comes down to system mastery as well.
I'm not surprised that a lot of people come here to advocate for their favorite playing style. Writing a game is hard, and a lot of people won't put in the effort to write something that appeals to their tastes. Even if they do, they might not be able to find someone to play it.
Totally hear you there, but I honestly think Pathfinder just isn't going to be the game for everyone. PF is a game of mundane martials and fantastic casters (for the most part), and you're pretty much going to have to play a different game if you want fantastic martials. I don't have any problem with that. It also doesn't make me dislike or not want to play PF.Of course, it could easily be argued that PF *does* have fantastic martials: Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger. I still believe there is a disparity between them and full casters, but a lot of that comes down to system mastery as well.
There's also the Mythic Adventures rules as an option :) Many problems can just be solved by grafting in various optional rules, either as written or a modified form (such as allowing martials to take some mythic options to bring them up to par with casters, as was covered in another thread recently.)
I'd really like to see more books like that, which can be used to support games that want a decidedly different flavor to the default assumptions.