Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax Aug 11, 2005 18:43:03	Up till now, I have pretty munch been using "official" as the basis of what I talk about. But I have decided that it not that helpful. So instead I thought about how people play, and decided that I have seen four styles of play 1) Strict Play. These games use mostly core things and disallow a whole bunch of things that Wizards published. For example, you need permission to take a single Prestige Class, instead of assuming it will be granted. Taking multiple Prestige Classes is severely frowned upon. RAW is not good enough, the DM will over-rule it and say, "No, I don't like it, it doesn't work in my game." Dislike the FAQ, Sage Advice cause they are not strict enough. 2) Loose Play (What I thought of as official.) These games use most of the core stuff, trying to stick to the spirit of the rules. They generally follow the accepted game advice such as errata, FAQ, Sage Advice, etc. etc. They might outlaw some things as being abusive despite what the Sage/FAQ/Errata says, but they also might allow things he says are not possible. Multiple Prestige Classes are common, but not mandatory. Home Brew spells are common, Prestige Classes are rare. 3) Power Play. Willing to break the spirit as long as it sounds "cool" and is not ridiculously illogical. They dislike the FAQ and Sage Advice cause they are not powerful enough. Cares some for Balance, but more for good story. Multiple Prestige Classes in such games are mandatory if you wish to live. Home brew Prestige Classes are common, as well as some rare Home Brew "base" classes. 4) Anything Goes. Don't even understand the concept of "spirit of the rules," make up the rules as they go along. Balance is irrelevant. Refuse to read errata, let alone the FAQ or Sage Advice "cause it isn't official." Home brew rules, items and Prestige Classes are common. Home Brew Base classes are common. -------------------------------------- Reactions that other players have to these types of play-- Other players talking about Strict Play: You should buy make or buy more magic items. Other players talking about Loose Play: Strict people saying I wish my DM would let me do that, others saying "My character is much more powerful than yours." Other players talking about Power Play: You would not last 5 seconds in my game (killed instantly because their stuff is either illegal /doesn't work or too weak.) Other players talking about an Anything Goes: No, I don't wish to see the Prestige Class called "Space Ship" you wrote up for your Celestial 1/2 golem 1/2 Dragon succubus.
#2 winter_ayars Aug 17, 2005 17:26:25	"Pretty munch" eh? Freudian, there. Hmm, though. Different styles of play. I think perhaps this could also be termed as "different styles of DM leniency in rules interpretation". What's curious to me is that it deals with how to interpret a gigantic swath of material--implicitly for creating a campaign in which things achieve that mythical quality "balance"--rather than looking at what material is legal and what is not. Let's be frank: if you say "all the official products are legal" (or worse yet: "any d20 product that passes the laugh test (i.e., I don't laugh at it when you try to slip it into my game, can be used) you will get a game in which broken things happen. Much like Vintage in Magic: The Gathering, lots of broken things. This is, I feel, a legitimate style of play. But it requires an attention to detail and a DM who is absolutely devoted to making the game work despite all the madness getting thrown in. So I think that the reason people play differently is because they aren't willing to put in the time or effort required to sort out a million different, sometimes contradictory, supplements including the ones that had materials I will (generously) describe as "mistakes". Frankness number two: in my experience it is usually the DM who doesn't want to play the "anything goes" School of D&D and/or Rules Lawyering (or "loose" or "power" play) and the players, or certain players, who would prefer just being left to their own devices. However: for myself I don't think the "strict play" is necessarily the way to go. I'll give RAW the nod so long as something doesn't become disruptive (which is, mostly, a judgment I make on my own) at which point I will houserule it or something along those lines. Even "strict play", when enough materials get thrown in, is not sufficient to put an end to the death spiral of power-ramp-through-increasing-options. Ultimately: i, and I believe many others, feel that it's not a question of how strictly you interpret the rules but rather what sort of supplementary material you allow into the game. Under that paradigm let me propose an alternate set of playstyles: "Anything goes": WOTC books, the various third party publishers, or something you thought up the other day that might be cool. "WOTC-only": Limited to the official books, usually barring a couple (or a couple parts) that are obviously problematic. (Roughly corresponds to "loose play" above.) "Pick-and-choose": The players can choose one or two supplementary books and use stuff from there, but only that and core (and possibly also the setting book). This is currently what I run when I DM, it works fairly well in my experience. "DM Picks": The DM picks a couple books and lets the players use them. "Core and Complete": The Core books and the Complete series, nothing else. (Maybe the setting book, again.) This one is relatively new as the Complete series was only just completed. I may be "moving" to this style in the future. "Core and Setting": Only the core and setting book. "Core-only": PHB, DMG, and MM1. Sometimes no DMG and/or MM1. I don't think this sort of paradigm is established firmly enough to get what everyone thinks of it. DMs will occasionally bend their "setting" to allow stuff from elsewhere (often in "RP-heavy" campaigns with homebrew material that fits the setting) but there is a wide range of typical responses. Most DMs, I think, run "core-only" games but with a high degree of tolerance for permitting material from other places--but only with the DM's permission; this is the official version as I understand it. Others have very low tolerance for other materials, some flat-out refuse anything that doesn't fit within their paradigm. Most DMs do not formalize their position on different books and so they tend to allow each of the above at varying levels. For example, most DMs who let players use non-WOTC materials still put emphasis on the WOTC products because they are more thoroughly balanced--or at least, there is a perception that they are. They're not going to go busting the fundamental rules wide open, in any case. Anyway, this is another way of looking at "gameplay styles" that could also be described as "what sort of books your DM allows".
#3 zombiegleemax Aug 18, 2005 19:31:53	You forgot 'ridiculous play'. That’s where you bend all the rules to make the game pointless or perverted, whichever suits your fancy at the time. Anything else seems to suck the fun right out of the game. Most of my games are like adventuring with a rabid tribe of jesters. :D