What can be the perfect type of game for one person can be a nightmare to another. There are many arguments on these forums and in many other places over what Dungeons and Dragons should or can be. Everyone has a different view on what the perfect game is.
There are some flavors that every Dungeons and Dragons player should consider. After all, people want to know the flavors of ice cream they are eating so they get it again if they want. You should know what type of game you want to play. Here are some flavors to consider.
Challenge or Sitcom?
Some may treat their Dungeons and Dragon games like it’s a challenge. You defeat the challenge by clearing the dungeon, defeating the Big Bad Evil Guy and saving the world. You lose the game when your character dies. If it’s more like a sitcom, the focus is on the characters themselves and not so much on what they do. You couldn’t care less about defeating the Big Bad Evil Guy and his dungeon. You would rather just experience the world of the game.
Linear or Open Ended?
The DM has written out the entire campaign; how do you feel about this? If you feel horribly constrained by this, you may prefer an open ended campaign. You want a game where anything can happen. You want the freedom to do things that are strange, heroic and fun! You want to go to places that no one has ever been before! If you’re glad there is an entire campaign to play through, you may prefer a Linear game. You don’t mind going through the adventure that the Dungeon Master has planned. A good Dungeon Master can provide a great ride if your willing to go along with it. This also allows the Dungeon Master to use a purchased module, which can be well crafted and time saving. Elder Scrolls IV and Final Fantasy VII are both good examples of linear and open ended games, respectively.
How Many Books?
What books are allowed in the game? People don’t buy sourcebooks just because they like the pictures. People want to equip their characters with the feats, classes, magic items or whatever powers the book has. Some people have over a dozen source books and expect to use them all. Some people may want to ban this book or that book due to flavor or power reasons. Some people may only want to play a core book only game. Generally, more books means more options for characters but a greater chance of unbalance in the game. Less books means less things to worry but less cool stuff to use.
Role Playing or Roll Playing?
What do you want to do in the game? How much combat focus is there? How much social interaction is there? Some people may only want to fight monsters, get loot, and tweak their stats while others will only want to talk with NPCs, have monologs and create dramatic moments. Each style can make a fun game. After all, Diablo II and Kingdom Hearts II are both great in their own way.
Serious or Funny?
This isn’t too hard to explain. How much comedy or drama do you want in your average session? Do you want your sessions to be like “24” or “Friends“?
High System Mastery or Low System Mastery?
You can have two characters with the exact amount of experience, gold, stat points, feats, etc. and those two characters can be vastly different. One of Dungeons and Dragons’ greatest strengths is the near endlessly ability to customize your character’s powers. System mastery is how well you understand the game system and how well you can use said game knowledge to do things like defeat monsters. Some people can make characters that can wipe out Epic Dragons without taking damage while other characters can’t even fight a single Generic Goblin. A game where everyone is generally at the same level of system mastery is fine because everyone is on the same page. In a game where different people have different levels of System Mastery, problems can develop.
These are just some of the flavors that can exist. I’m sure there are countless other vitals factors that I have completely forgotten. After all, one of Dungeons and Dragons' strengths is that it can be anything you want it to be!
I would like to point out that even though I presented these points like you have to pick one over the other, they are not. In most situations, there is a happy middle ground where most Players and Dungeon Masters will be happy with.
The question you may want to ask is how can you play with someone if they want different things out of their game? It’s hard for a football and soccer team to play on the same field. Honestly, I wish I knew that answer. These forums are full of topics that address these questions.
All I can say is that Dungeons is Dragons really is like ice cream. It had more variety then you can count but you must agree that any ice cream is awesome. Who can say no to ice cream?
Elder Scrolls IV and Final Fantasy VII are both good examples of linear and open ended games, respectively.
Don't mean to be nit-picky, but isn't that supposed to be reversed? FFVII is definitely railroaded, where in ESIV, you can play the game for hundreds of hours without advancing the storyline.
Other than that, I wish more people would look at D&D in this way. There is no one single way to play, and people need to understand that.
Challenge vs. Sitcom
Challenge wins. I have always been a fan of stories, but I expect them to have a point and a plot structure. From either side of the DM screen, I have more fun when there is a Challenge to overcome. Otherwise, I just walk around until trouble finds me, at which point, I have that challenge I've been looking for...
Linear vs. Open-Ended
I fall (not surprisingly) into the Linear category here. My DM philosophy is that, YES, the characters should impact the world, but in order for the game to be convincing (suspension of disbelief), I should be able to run the game in a prepared, well-planned fashion.
How this translates into my games is: If you're one of my Players, and you want to do something, tell me a week or two beforehand, and let me write it into the story. Do you want to join the Rogue's Guild? I'm fine by that, but give me the time to prepare that portion of the story. If I do it off the cuff, the challenge will either be too difficult or too easy, which decreases the enjoyment of the game. I'm skilled enough to write anything you want into my story, given time, and it makes it more involving if you don't know when the "Battle with a Minotaur" you requested will occur.
How Many Books?
Many, many books! I love books! I love new material!
Role Playing or Roll Playing?
Middle ground here. D&D assumes a certain core mechanic, and the game breaks down if you ignore it too much, but by the same token, your character is more than a BAB +6/+1 in combat.
Serious or Funny?
I'm a laid back kind of guy, and a well-planned BBEG battle will provide plenty of drama anyways.
High-System Mastery or Low System Mastery?
My friends have nicknamed me the "d20 Guru" for a reason. Rules are a tool to be mastered, effectively bent to my will. However, I also enjoy gaming in the presence of "Low-Mastery" players. Everyone brings something worthwhile to the table.
So, in conclusion, I really like Strawberry Ice Cream.
I like Strawberry Ice Cream. Oh wait, that's not the question. What style of gaming do I prefer? Well, answering primarily as a DM (since I DM about twice as often as I play), my preferences would be as follows:
Challenge vs. Sitcom
Challenge wins. I have always been a fan of stories, but I expect them to have a point and a plot structure. From either side of the DM screen, I have more fun when there is a Challenge to overcome. Otherwise, I just walk around until trouble finds me, at which point, I have that challenge I've been looking for...
Linear vs. Open-Ended
I fall (not surprisingly) into the Linear category here. My DM philosophy is that, YES, the characters should impact the world, but in order for the game to be convincing (suspension of disbelief), I should be able to run the game in a prepared, well-planned fashion.
How this translates into my games is: If you're one of my Players, and you want to do something, tell me a week or two beforehand, and let me write it into the story. Do you want to join the Rogue's Guild? I'm fine by that, but give me the time to prepare that portion of the story. If I do it off the cuff, the challenge will either be too difficult or too easy, which decreases the enjoyment of the game. I'm skilled enough to write anything you want into my story, given time, and it makes it more involving if you don't know when the "Battle with a Minotaur" you requested will occur.
How Many Books?
Many, many books! I love books! I love new material!
Role Playing or Roll Playing?
Middle ground here. D&D assumes a certain core mechanic, and the game breaks down if you ignore it too much, but by the same token, your character is more than a BAB +6/+1 in combat.
Serious or Funny?
I'm a laid back kind of guy, and a well-planned BBEG battle will provide plenty of drama anyways.
High-System Mastery or Low System Mastery?
My friends have nicknamed me the "d20 Guru" for a reason. Rules are a tool to be mastered, effectively bent to my will. However, I also enjoy gaming in the presence of "Low-Mastery" players. Everyone brings something worthwhile to the table.
So, in conclusion, I really like Strawberry Ice Cream.
This is a great example of how this oversimplification is not stereotypical and would provide a fun experience. I my self am more interested in open-ended games, so thats the type of DM I am. I find that games that adhere to a certain path too much downplays the fun of the game. It makes the players feel restricted. I compare it to a "invisible wall" in video games. In my personal opinion, this severely degrades the "realism" in a game.
e.g. My rogue is walking through town and discovers through a random gather info check (or whatever means) that there is a thieves guild in town. I want to join (but I only just found this out), does this mean I have to wait 2 weeks before I can even walk up join just because my DM hasn't fleshed that little detail out.
Not that its to the fault of the DM at all, not everybody has the ability to think quick on their feet. So I would like to use this to introduce one more VERY important aspect to a game that I always consider before starting a new game.
Realism vs. Fantasy
Just how "real" is your game. Are you the person who always argues that a certain mechanic isn't "real" enough for your tastes, or are you the person who says "oh yes, and elves, gnomes, and dragons are VERY realistic". Do you like your fantasy Lord of the Rings, or Final Fantasy, or Typical Anime. Everyone is going to fall somewhere on this, even if they don't realize it yet.
...and my favorite mint chocolate chip. Hmmm...:P
A "PG" campaign can range anywhere from cartoony to dramatic. That said, details cannot be too explicit and situations are generally not too gritty.
In a D&D campaign, there isn't much in the way of "graphic" content per se (unless the DM takes liberties describing critical hits), so a "PG-13" campaign is generally more emotionally disturbing than that of a lighter campaign -- e.g., being taken prisoner and beaten. Some mild "adult themes" on the level of a teen movie can also be expected.
A "Mature" campaign is subject matter for the Mature Boards, but generally speaking, any situation you might see in an R-rated movie can be described and/or role-played in a "Mature" campaign. Mature campaigns can also include controversial themes such as religious strife or political ideology.
Maturity level has a big impact on how a campaign is run. A mature campaign is free to delve into lighter content, but not vice versa. In lighter campaigns, villains are relatively "clean": Even if they are not comical foes like the Rabbit of Caerbannog, they are generally straightforward in their methods. For example, they eliminate enemies by simply killing them and capture victims for generic slave labor. "Mature" villains are more likely to be depraved, using extreme means to cause insanity-inducing suffering on those least likely to endure it, for no reason other than the sheer pleasure of it. Consider this comparison: Although she is a fictional character with magical powers, the villain Queen Bavmorda in the movie "Willow" was far more tame than the real-life serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer.
Players' tastes for content run the gamut, so a consensus needs to be reached prior to playing the first adventure of any campaign, with a "safety first" approach. Meaning, if even one player is opposed to the idea of a given controversial theme, that theme should be abandoned unless careful communication and consideration are taken into account.
There is a critical metric not mentioned here: Maturity Level.
I cannot believe I didn't mention this myself, especially sense I'm running a "R" rated game currently. Its a survival horror game using the d20 modern book. However, I did tell everyone prior to game that this was going to be a "R" rated game with a high level of maturity expected among my players and if anyone felt that this was too much to be asked of them, not to come. I invited 6 or 7 people, ended up with 3 actually showing. Which is great because its not too many, while not too few.
Anyway (I'm rambling now), this is a very important point and I am very glad someone brought this to light because this does need to be discussed with all the player before hand. What type of maturity level is the DM expected to run, how much are the players expecting. If one player is expecting blood, guts, gore, and sex in his game, while another is expecting a "PG" game, then you may find yourself in quit a quandary when game starts.
As a matter of fact, any/all of these things discussed above needs to be discussed among all the players. How much of everything does the DM want to run, and how much do the players actually want.
sorry I wrote so much, but I felt it needed to be said.:whatsthis
Anyways, I DM with friends at home/school but play at a public place at least once or twice a week.
I like games that are a bit open-ended but still have a plot that you can run through. I also prefer games that have a lot of humor in them, but are still serious enough to get through said plot. On the challenge vs sitcom, I choose challenge with a little bit of sitcom...
Basically I like a little bit of everything, and as many books as will fit at the table
(but not players who break their characters, those are no fun)I also agree that maturity level should be a part of game-play. All DMs should find out what kind of players they are going to be DMing for BEFORE actually playing. That way they can alter different details to make the game as enjoyable as possible.
Cheers...Middle of the road for me.
Linear or Open Ended?
Open Ended. Think Final Fantasy VII, with no storyline: there's a world you explore, and you fight monsters in it, but the real meat and potatoes of the game is in the cities and locations you visit. There needn't be any overlapping story arcs, just a large world with lots of roads and no real direction but where the wind will take you. Adventures with certain requirements are fine, and some railroading may be acceptable here and there, but unless absolutely necessary, give me my freedom.
How Many Books?
Six. Core, FRCS, PGtF, and MoF. I've yet to explore the entirety of the Forgotten Realms character possibilities, much less Core's offerings. The COMPLEAT LOLTARD garbage be damned, and don't come to be saying "But I bought it so I should get to use it!" If you say "is this acceptable?" then I'll consider it, otherwise, demands/whining = automatic "no."
Role Playing or Roll Playing?
Depends, but generally when it comes down to it, both are fine, if you can't think of a poem or can't sing worth a lick, it doesn't mean your bard can't.
Serious or Funny?
Funny for sure. I'm playing to have fun, not write the next epic high fantasy novel about good and evil.
High System Mastery or Low System Mastery?
All of the above. New people need to learn, and you can't know everything about the game, so practice makes perfect. Mistakes are made, big deal, learn, be educated, move on armed with more knowledge.
It seems to me the choices presented are supposed to define the whole campaign, you flip the switch to either extreme. Instead have it be something where the campaign can move from one extreme to the next to the middle ground to left field.
As always, it's up to each player/group for the decision to be made, but in your group take some time to watch how it can (and usually does) switch anyway.
I prefer a bit more of a challenge, and I remain serious, while my players provide the fun (as in laughing) part of the game. This is strange, because outside of gaming I am the "comedian" of our circle of friends, and generally draw laughs way more than anyone else.
Linear or Open-ended?
I find it hard to make it linear. I really do. I cannot imagine DMing a straight, railroaded campaign. Generally, the evening before the session, I put down all I will need for tomorrows session, and that is it. I do have a general idea of where the campaign should go, but that morphs constantly.
How many books?
The more, the better. However, my funds are so low that it is pretty much Core right now.
Role Playing or Roll Playing?
Both. A lot more Role lately, as that is what the players really love.
Serious or Funny?
See my Challenge or Sitcom reply.
High System Mastery or Low System Mastery?
For me, high. Very high. Not very far beyond Core though... As in I don't know of every obscure feat in every obscure splat.
For my players, fairly low. They are all fairly new to the game, and are still relatively inexperienced.
And you really can't beat Coffee Ice Cream, especially with Fresh Coffee Grounds on top... Mmmm...
Cooperative vs. Competitive
This overlaps a little bit into other territory (like 'Challenge/Sitcom') but plays a very significant role in determining the tone of a game. This dimension can describe the relationship between different players, or the player-DM relationship. Some groups and campaigns are those where players try to one-up each other--the kind of games where players tally up their kills after each session and try to pull off the most outrageous stunts and attacks in combat. In others, the players do their best to pool both their talents as players and the talents of their characters to overcome different kinds of challenges, without considering who's dealing the most damage per encounter. The former fits a group of neutral or evil treasure hunters, while the latter might be a military unit or a party of crusaders.
The second half of this dimension is the degree to which the DM tries to outsmart or overpower the players, as opposed to dropping hints and adjusting difficulties where necessary to keep the characters alive. Many gamers have experienced the dreaded 'killer DM' who takes malicious joy out of hammering characters to goo, but some enjoy more lethal, competitive games where successful characters and players are those who can rely on their own wits and resources, knowing that their victories are legitimately earned, rather than handed to them. The degree to which DM and players cooperate or compete is a major factor in determining the atmosphere of the game.
Style of play Role play Bash the door is nice but a world full of people and things is a world full of possibilities for not only level advancement but for whole stories and events to take place.
When my friends and I get together to play we try to remember the most important rule. It is not any fun till the DM has a mental breakdown or goes insane.
And most important HAVE FUN if it ain't fun why play?
I would like to point out that even though I presented these points like you have to pick one over the other, they are not. In most situations, there is a happy middle ground where most Players and Dungeon Masters will be happy with.
Is it me or did some people skip this part of my article/post? Listen, I understand that the average game will not be extremely one way or another! The point of the article/post is that different people will want different things from their game.
Navigator, thank you for pointing out my editing error. Yet another example of the need to get someone else to overlook your writing before you make it public.
Sitcom, with some challenges. I make up most encounters as I play, with a main storyline, though. The storyline is pretty general, as I want the players to have some freedom.
Linear or Open Ended?
Open Ended. Last campaign I DMed was had a lot of railroading. Although there will be some things they must do, I will try to give them freedom of choice.
How Many Books?
Varies from case to case.
Role Playing or Roll Playing?
Roleplaying. Combat is rare, we've played six sessions with two combats. If we wanted hack 'n slash, we'd play Diablo II.
Serious or Funny?
Pretty serious, with some comic relieves, such as kender and gully dwarves.
High System Mastery or Low System Mastery?
They are pretty strong, but not broken.
Challenge or Sitcom?
Mostly challenge. I've ran a few solo games where the player actually didn't have a single encounter, but that was because he quite brilliantly evaded them all, which posed a challenge in itself.
Linear or Open Ended?
Definately open ended. My players tend to be somewhere between neutral and evil, so they are quite unpredictable. While they have agreed to more or less follow the adventure I've laid out for them, there is quite a bit more "collateral damage" than you'd have with a good party. This can create unexpected plot hooks, and it makes it almost impossible to plan in the long term. So while my adventures are usually quite linear, the campaign is very open ended.
How Many Books?
All of them. Well, I'd wish, but really, as many as possible. If something is too broken I just fix it or ban it. And we usually play very high powered campaigns (gestalt, LA up to +2 doesn't count and other stuff that will sane DM's go :eek
, so very little is truly broken. The only thing I've outright banned is Divine Metamagic, which they couldn't care less about 'cause they hate clerics.Role Playing or Roll Playing?
Mixed. There's just about as much encounters won by fighting as there are won by them bluffing/diplomacing/disguising etc. their way through it.
Serious or Funny?
A mix. The adventures are mostly serious, but the players and me, we enjoy a good laugh, and situations I intended to be serious oftentimes end up being hilarious. Nobody minds :-)
High System Mastery or Low System Mastery?
They know the drill, as it were, but they're not munchkins. I'm actually the most knowledgeable in the rules and in optimizing characters and such (my skills are not really impressive to any degree, but I can make a powerful character or two). This earned me the questionable honor of being chosen as DM, so now I can come up with a new adventure every couple of weeks... Lazy-ass players :D
Open Ended/Linear: I generally prefer running a game with an over-arching plot device, but allowing player's freedom to explore. I am extremely capable of improvising story, description, encounters, etc...basically DM'ing off the cuff, and often it results in some amazing content. The main plot serves much like the main plot in TV series. Its always there for the "cast" to pursue, but there are many episodes that might not involve it much if at all (ie:X-files, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, etc). But be careful, BBEG's aren't stagnant while the PC's are pursuing the side/sub-plots, and at some points the actions being taken by the BBEG's require a response from the PC's. Essentially I can't say I run a truly linear game, because even modules I run evolve in different directions based on certain actions and situations that arise. My games tend to end up with a life and direction of their own. So I guess open ended would be my main preference.
Serious/Comedic and Mature/Immature: I always prefer a game with strong themes and believable characters. As such all characters who are believable have multifaceted personalities. Even that total hard ass will have moments where something strikes him funny, and the most evil bastard in the world typically has a soft spot for something. Single-faceted personalities that are solely a reflection of one aspect bore me to death in real life, so I don't go for it in game either. So I would say I lean toward serious because even serious games can have elements of comedy, drama, tragedy, what have you. This isn't often true of a comedic game, which usually only is just that. Similarly, I don't play with minors, its a drag, plain and simple. I am a full grown adult, and prefer the more realistic experience that gaming with adults can allow. Its not that there aren't some incredibly advanced minors in the world, but often you can't tell that about them until its too late, and even then, their parents might not be incredibly advanced. As well, an adult themed game means it has the possibly of dealing with strong themes such as sexuality, grisly murder and the psychology behind it, etc, or not. Games in a more PG tone don't in my experience have that same freedom of evolution/direction.
High System Mastery/Low System Mastery: Ideally I would prefer everyone know as much about the system as possible, so they can play their character to the best of its ability within the rules. But this just isn't often the case, so I accept either. In situations where a highly skilled player is running circles around lower skilled players, I encourage those with lower skill to get better.
How many books?: Usually if I have the book its allowed, if I don't, its not. I just don't trust players to tell me a rule. Far too often, either because the player's didn't read the rules correctly, or in some cases deliberately read the rule favorably to them, its a problem for a player to have access to rules I as a DM do not.
That said, it might be interesting to consider what an 'extreme' campaign would be like. For example, completely 'sit-com' or 'roleplay' campaign, might take the form of the PCs trying to found a new thieves guild in a large city. There wouldn't be a lot of combat; instead, there would be careful planning, long term goals, and negotiation. If it was more open-ended, the PCs would set their own agenda- the DM would respond to their actions and occasionally throw an unexpected situation at them. If it was more linear, they would have to work their way up through a pre-established guild, doing adventures at their master's bidding while scheming for their own advancement.
I would propose one amendment to your categories, though. I think a simple dark tone/light tone could encompass serious/funny, mature/immature, and realism/fantasy. A campaign with a darker tone will tackle more serious themes such as ethical dilemmas and real world problems. By default, such a campaign would have to be serious, mature, and realistic. A lighter campaign could be funnier, less mature, and 'fantastic' (note that I'm interpreting realism/fantasy not as 'high fantasy' vs. 'low fantasy' but as real consequences for your actions vs. glazing over the implications of killing an entire orc tribe. 'High fantasy' vs. 'low fantasy' is less of a type-of-game choice and more of a setting choice).
As for books, I agree with Sylian about going on a case-by-case basis. Shadow Adepts from Forgotten Realms are all good and well unless your setting doesn't have the Weave (and Shadow Weave), Fangs of Lolth from Song and Silence won't work (without serious tweaking) if your cosmology doesn't include the spider goddess, and Eberron's Warforged won't fit into any setting that doesn't specifically account for them (eg. Warforged in Faerun??).
To respond to Steelwill, here's what I think (at the moment, and open to debate) the fundamental difference between Role- and Roll-playing is: if the interaction is used to link together encounters relying on action (combat, dungeon delving, trap disarming, etc.), you have roll-playing. If the action is a result of the failure or impossibility of interaction, you're role-playing. In the former, the action is favored, with scenes in between justifying it's necessity. In the latter, interaction is (almost) always the first strategy applied, and only after negotiation breaks down or is impossible (eg. the party encounters a giant spider) does the party find themselves having to fight or escape. Storyline doesn't determine whether a game is role or roll, how the players approach it (and how the DM encourages them to approach it) does.
Of course, most campaigns (I imagine) have sessions of both role and roll, so we get back to the spectrum idea.
As for "Cooperative vs. Competitive," I'm note quite sure I agree with the distinction. If the competition is friendly, then the characters are still cooperating with each other, it's just a character choice that that see who kills the most (probably leaning towards a lighter campaign if this is a major element, unless the characters are evil). If the competition is unfriendly, why is the party working together? They probably don't like each other, and the idea of 'mutual protection' breaks down if each character worries about one of the other characters slitting his throat in the night to steal his loot. And your 'lethal DM' is fine as long as the players enjoy that style of play. That doesn't change the nature of the DM (who should always be cooperating with the players), just the relative power level of the campaign. If the DM is actively competitive against the players (trying to make them 'lose'), it sounds like what you have there is a bad DM.
Just my two cents.
Challenge, because there needs to be a plot structure. With sitcom thrown in underneath as the characters experience fantastic things, and their actions start to define relationships and interests independent of the DM. At which point, the sitcom starts to appear in adventures because you have conflicting priorities, or adventures are being generated directly out of PC choices.
Linear vs. Open-Ended
Both, but more open ended. DM has adventure arcs ready, but larger events occur with or without the PCS. Players actions and choices in the face of those things may eventually come to dictate future adventures.
How this translates into my games is: If you're one of my Players, and you want to do something, tell me a week or two beforehand, and let me write it into the story. Do you want to join the Rogue's Guild? I'm fine by that, but give me the time to prepare that portion of the story. If I do it off the cuff, the challenge will either be too difficult or too easy, which decreases the enjoyment of the game. I'm skilled enough to write anything you want into my story, given time, and it makes it more involving if you don't know when the "Battle with a Minotaur" you requested will occur.
Amen.
How Many Books?
Fewer end of the spectrum. If you keep adding books, player choices with the PCs start to lose significance. PHB, Complete Adventurer, DMG.
Beyond that, Monster Manuals for the DM as you like it, and specialty books depend on campaign events. Cityscape or Liber Mortis can become very useful if a campaign heads into a phase where city delving or a war-scale plot involving undead are in the offing. But they're mostly tools for the DM, not the PCs.
Role Playing or Roll Playing?
Middle ground, mechanics can support either and so can a good DM. The key is that the players are comfortable and get to gravitate toward whichever end they wish.
If a Player wants to roll-play her +25 Bluff PC using the d20, so be it. She isn't expected to personally be the next Miyamoto Musashi with a sword, in order to hit in combat.
Serious or Funny?
Serious. My campaigns tend to have a lot of influence from real-word events, etc. It's sort of like the speech in the Incredibles, where Elastigirl explains to the kids that these folks aren't like the villains on TV, they're going to try to kill you and if you let them, they will do so.
Once the tension is cranked up, however, there are a surprising number of opportunities for what might be called "soldier's humor." Not to mention the usefulness of throwing a humorous event at PCs, and just when they're laughing and the guard is down, BAM!
High-System Mastery or Low System Mastery?
DM should be so high system mastery that low system mastery players just explain what they want to do and the DM handles it, or even makes stuff up on the fly. In a mixed group this can cause tension when the low mastery player does something "impossible" and a high-mastery player objects. Proper responses to such objections include "Your character is thinking the same thing/ So it seems. Wonder how that happened?/ The gods smile on true heroes; capriciously, but they do smile/ Roll a (applicable knowledge) check. Hmm, no, you don't really understand it/ Are you aware of all the contending forces and influences at play here, and their capabilities?/ etc."
It's a heroic game, and the "low-mastery" folks often think outside the box to do the heroic thing rather than the game mechanics edge. Reward that, it makes for better games.
For those low-mastery players, the DM can also serve as a surrogate source of expertise when they must make PC choices. this is best done in private "huddle sessions" off game, asking them what they want the PC to become, giving them a small menu of things to pick from each time that will get them there, and explaining the broad effects of their choices ("If you take this, you're really committing to this, this, and this, which will make you a specialist who (describe resulting signature ability set/ attack sequence/ whatever) and opens (these doors) while beginning to close (these doors) - does that fit your idea of (PC name)?").
That way, their PCs remain competitive.
Challenge or Sitcom
I prefer some degree of challenge, or at least some sense of objective. On the other hand, focusing on characters is all good and well - the character's actions should determine the story (and the character's natures determine their action. As my game has run, it's certainly more of a Challenge game, because if I don't give the PCs a challenge to overcome, they'll sit around twiddling their thumbs.
Linear or Open Ended
I kinda prefer Open Ended games, but they're HARD AS HELL to create. No mortal DM could possibly create everywhere you're going to go... I really don't mind if things are relatively linear (in that one objective is provided after another). As I said above, the players in my current game have no initiative (no pun intended). If I don't force them to go somewhere, they will go nowhere. They still complain, however. I hate players who go out of their way to disrupt the game... if there's a road in the wilderness, you're probably supposed to follow it, not go off in a random direction - that's just being a dick.
Role Playing or Roll Playing
I, personally, like Role Playing. I suck at it, but I like it. I'd rather have some character depth - I don't like 'drama' at all - standing around monologuing does not sound like my idea of fun. Currently, my players have near zero role playing desire, except for one.
# of Books
I don't mind how many books are used. However, I won't accept anything that doesn't fit in the flavor, or is incredibly broken. (One of my players wanted to create a Warforged PC - in a modern, non-Eberron campaign where magic is relatively rare, and it would stick out like a sore thumb.) Also, anyone who so much as thinks the word 'psionics' will be shot.
Serious or Funny
I like something of a hybrid. There's humor, to be sure, and some situations are just plain silly, but it's still serious. I don't want my players to act like morons (I kicked one for being way, way, too stupid) (friends), nor do I want them to all be Lawful Evil 24.
High/Low System Mastery
I suck at optimization. As such, I prefer my players also suck at optimization, so they don't wipe the floor with my NPCs. (I see a 20th level character with 30 AC and think 'wow!', where most specs on the optimization board have that by 5th level).
Realism/Fantasy
I prefer realism. A lot. My games are modern, but I try to capture the epicness of high fantasy - they're still realistic though. Think 'Star Wars' or, better yet, a much kinder, gentler Warhammer 40,000.
Maturity Level
I don't like my games to be too Disney, but on the other hand, I don't want them too intense. (literally interpreting the Book of Vile Darkness is 'too intense). I hate people who use a 'mature game' as an excuse to act immature. You don't need to screw everything with a pulse. I don't mind a little bit mature (I am addicted to L+O: SVU), but it all happens off-screen.
One of the greatest strengths of Dungeons and Dragons is its versatility. Dungeons and Dragons can literally become a million different things. It’s sort of like ice cream in that it has endless unique flavors. There are many flavors that you may like and other flavors that make no sense to you at all. Every person, every game, and every campaign has a different flavor.
Michael,
I think these play styles you're presenting are more representative of the culture of play rather than the game text itself. The rules directly speak to the challenge-oriented, high-system-mastery side of play almost exclusively. The DMG's intro basically acknowledges this, too: the way to play "immersive" or "storytelling" D&D, the authors tell you, is to not use the system in the book.
So this is really more of a testament to the varied tastes of D&D players than to the versatility of the game itself.
-- Alex
- Sitcom/challenge: I'd say each episode happens something, but still in continuous story
- Open ended: since our group has a problem with keeping to the campaign :P
- How many books: I allow anything my players put in front of me on a case by case situation - even if its core, WotC, d20, home made, ...
- I'd say we have a healthy combination of role and roll play. though I use an 'open skill' system: I say you can use any skill as long as you give it an explanation. for example: to barter one could use appraise ("look at the poor quality of the gems on this goblet"), diplomacy ("ah mister store keeper, could you please show me, ...") bluff ("look at the poor quality of the gems on this goblet") , ...
- we play funny most of the time, but still like a serious moment ... its those that make adventurers heroes ... Like the other day the party needed to complete 6 (illegal) objectives in the city.
- Realism: we play very realistic. We use real tactics to do stuff (like when we needed to protect a harbor, some of my players looked it up how this was done in medieval times). Magic is introduced as a part of the 'real world' just as physics. If you blow on a tube with water, the water will come out the other way. If you manipulate 'the weave', you will create a ball of fire.
- Maturity: I magically cut off the legs of the PCs for not saying 'sir' to a megalomaniacal wizard-king, prisoners get beaten, killed, or in really extreme cases ... lets just say 'forceful intrusion' has a meaning ...
How many books: Everything, as long as it is possible in the campaign setting. There are no psionics on Krynn e.g. but most of the time I allow material from all books.
Role play is more important than roll play in my campaigns, except of cause in combat. Social interaction should always be role played and can't be replaced by a die roll. You just can't substitute a gather information check for infiltrating the king's court. I'm sometimes more lenient when dealing with new players, but this are rare exceptions.
I try to balance humorous and serious scenes in my campaign. Tragic events should not by ridiculed by inappropriate jokes but there should be enough fun that each player has a reason to laugh at least once or twice each session.
System mastery: If each player knew the rules by heart it would make the DM's job easier (no more explanations needed, people could use all their abilites and even advance in level without the help of the DM...) - though it would make powergaming easier too. But as most players in my group have little or no knowledge about the rules, I never gave that issue much thought.
- Challenge or Sitcom: Is better to do both in some ways.
- Linear or Open Ended: We should be able to do it in any ways and it changes everything when you do something unexpected.
- How Many Books: All of them.
- Role Playing or Roll Playing: Not as extreme as your views, but in between. I don't want to kill monsters and steal their stuff, if I wanted that I just play ADOM instead.
- Serious or Funny: It should be both.
- High System Mastery or Low System Mastery: Is better to know the system best but even if you don't, it is still a good game.
- Realism vs. Fantasy: Most realistic physics and stuff should be used, but of course, it is just a game, and many things can happen.
- Mature/Immature: I don't want it to be R-rated.
- Cooperative vs. Competitive: I like it when the DM tries to outsmart me and I figure out something else. But you still need to be cooperative as well.
Challenge or Sitcom: Continuum is even inadequate to explain--they are nested one (sitcom exploration of characters in situations) within larger challenge (the quest to stop whomever--BBEG--from doing the Bad Thing). The characters perform actions, find themselves in situations, confronted by obstacles, wherein we learn their priorities, motivations, etc.
Linear or Open-Ended: Well, hmm. I like to be prepared. I've got the adventure written up. And I've got a lot of encounters designed for various reasons (I'm so boring that when I get bored, I design a clever encounter). So, they can follow the plot hooks or go off and do what they want. When they go off to do whatever, I roll lots of dice and mumble to myself a lot and make them role-play like crazy. This would be another occasion for sitcom style character interaction in interesting situations. I'll drop some encounters in here and there, and we'll see where they go. Then we re-plot the adventure to dovetail a new hook with their decisions. But I do make them role-play a lot when they stretch me past the materials prepared for the session. In other words: here's the world for you to explore, but to get far, you'll have to let me explore your character. And be prepared.
How Many Books: Level of system mastery determines. Don't see any reason to expand past core without demonstration of system mastery by the players. There's lots of cool stuff out there, but wildly complicated characters in the hands of players who can't handle them (like the frenzied berserker who was bad at addition and subtraction!!!! oh, oh, my head still throbs) make me want to cry. Show me you can do it, you can do it. But, you better be able to do it. Right?
Role Playing or Roll Playing: See above. I seriously love combat-heavy, tactically deep sessions. But there's always room for good character moments. D&D is like a Tarantino movie: long stretches of character-revealing dialog punctuated by over-the-top splashy violence. No mutual exclusivity at all, for I love it all.
Serious or Funny: The villains, their villainous acts, the consequences of inaction, these things are quite serious. But, as I am an absolutely sarcastic cut-up who must always have the last word, anything else, and I mean anything else under heaven, may be abused for humor purposes. By me or the guys. The guys always make it fun, anyway, but lots in the world makes me laugh, so I just figure characters would have lots to laugh about, too.
High System Mastery or Low: I prefer high, but will adapt to any level. This directly impacts what books are in use, as those with low system mastery should have an incentive to get better, the incentive being the ability to use more and more supplementary materials. This probably sounds harsh, but, honestly, if you want more options show the DM you'll be on top of your stuff enough to NOT be a distraction and drag on the game.
Realism vs. Fantasy: Realistic within the story world. That is, suspension of disbelief shouldn't be abused. Just because it's fantasy doesn't mean anything at all goes. There have to be some boundaries for our consensual hallucination. The players have to feel that the world is consistent, for example. Or, from the original post--more like Lord of the Rings.
Mature vs. Immature: From Tarantino reference above, fair to infer that I run NR games. I guess they are R-rated, but I definitely push boundaries. I read Neil Gaiman, Garth Ennis, Stephen King, Glenn Cook. I was amused by the Book of Vile Darkness, as lots of superlative fantasy writers have imaginations darker then midnight. Descriptions of wounds are quite graphic. Actions of villains are indeed horrible and I will describe what is necessary to evoke the emotional response in the characters that moves the plot. There's the key: evoking an emotional response in the participants. Then the game gets good.
Cooperative vs. Competitive: Ideally cooperative, though I don't give away the farm. They've got to earn it.