Differing playstyles and seperate campaigns - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Differing playstyles and seperate campaigns

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
matteblack
Jun 22, 2010 11:16:29 Through so many thread over the years the constant divide always seems to divide the gaming community. On one side you have the competitive/hardcore player who looks for hyper optimization and the most effective ways to defeat encounters and further hone their character's build. Then there is usually another side who wants more immersion, less refined strategy, more balance across the party or even a more meandering "let's-see-what-happens-next" playstyle. Lets call them "competitve" and "relaxed".

I know I used to see alot of mention of the D&D Championships when LFR began but, now hear less and less of it. To me it seemed like a good way to be able to cater to a more competive playstyle and leave the grander world of the realms to you more relaxed players. Now, two years later, LFR struggles to cater to both ends of the scale and I find myself wonder, "have these two groups ever been successfully catered to in one or seperate campaigns?" and "are there are any upcoming ways that each could have it's own campaign better targetted to how that group plays?"

I have my biases and sort of wonder if the more competitive side of the community truly desires challenge or maybe just carnage and domination but, I'd love to see a way for both to get what they want with less friction between the two.

Lee
#2
Madfox11
Jun 23, 2010 3:41:14
What is your point? There is a D&D Championship at GenCon, and LFR is going to be more story orientated.
#3
smerwin29
Jun 23, 2010 8:44:39
I have my biases and sort of wonder if the more competitive side of the community truly desires challenge or maybe just carnage and domination but, I'd love to see a way for both to get what they want with less friction between the two.

While I understand what you are saying here, I think the issues are much more complicated. You are creating a line between two sides, when there are no clear boundaries or camps. There are literally as many types of preferences as there are players, and the very act of creating something will by definition solidify those who have other preferences. And preferences are fine until they turn into biases.

You would think that creating a separate campaign to cater to a different set of players would be welcomed by everyone. So much for logic! Xen'drik Expeditions was created to appeal to people who were not engaging in the Living Greyhawk campaign for a variety of reasons. And while the campaign did exactly what it was meant to do, and gained a decent following for what it was, those who had different preferences loudly decried the campaign even before it started and/or without ever having played it because it did not match their preferences.

I guess we just have to remember that this is the Internet, and for some people if something does not match their preferences, then it is obviously wrong.
#4
Mommy_was_an_Orc
Jun 23, 2010 22:34:07
Through so many thread over the years the constant divide always seems to divide the gaming community. On one side you have the competitive/hardcore player who looks for hyper optimization and the most effective ways to defeat encounters and further hone their character's build. Then there is usually another side who wants more immersion, less refined strategy, more balance across the party or even a more meandering "let's-see-what-happens-next" playstyle. Lets call them "competitve" and "relaxed".

I think the problem is that the divide is fuzzy, because you have all kinds of different axis to look at...

Examples:
Buildcraft - do you want an optimal build? an impressive build? a build which can do one unusual, but perhaps not optimal, thing well? Given most LFR mods are not that hard, why optimize at all?

Challenge - do you want to be challenged? do you want a walk through the park? do you want the illusion of being challenged, but really, it is a walk through the park? Being convinced that your characters are going to lose the fight any second, but squeak out a last second victory? Is being unable to act okay or not?

Roleplay - do you want to spend most of your time roleplaying? Do you look at Skill Challenges as an opportunity to roleplay or a chore to get through?

Beer and Pretzels - are you expected to be serious or is the goal to crack everyone else up laughing? Or some kind of mix.

---------

I think the dangerous mods happen when mods get geared towards the extreme. As an example, a mod designed to challenge an optimizer has two problems - it will TPK many non-optimal groups and on top of it, just because someone is an optimizer, does not mean they want a challenge(to a certain extent, why optimize at all in LFR if you want challenges as all it does is make mods not a challenge)
#5
matteblack
Jun 24, 2010 12:14:40 I guess I see the point about there being many axises. Maybe they don't converge as in like groups as much as I thought. It just seems like getting everyone under one central tent causes more friction than what difficulty would occur having more focused seperate campaigns. In my head one would be more about kicking back and having fun and less worry about the numbers and more about what the table enjoys while another would slap you in the face, remind you to wear a cup and ask for initative rolls. I suppose you'd still have spilts along "goofy fun"/immersion and challenge/domination lines but, I'd imagine each group would have easier issues to figure out as well as have a more honest target about game play expectations.
#6
Alphastream
Jun 26, 2010 19:13:40 To me, a lot is about clear communication and demographics.

It seems that the game is better off with one clear dominant campaign. LC, LG, LFR, these all have played a good role for the RPGA by virtue of being big and dominant. Everyone talks about them, they are the default choice, etc.

At the same time, there are clearly many who want different opportunities. LD and Eberron are examples. LSpycraft, Arcanis, etc. The problem is often that no one can tell what is going on. Is Arcanis competing with LG? Is there a race going on? GR is an example where it wasn't clear from the top why there were two campaigns. It leads to confusion and seems to duplicate and improperly allocate resources.

However, there can be clarity. DDE has a very clearly different goal and demographic from LFR. On average, it seems to serve almost entirely different audiences. This is huge. A second program is bringing in a second set of players - everyone wins in that scenario (especially WotC, but all of us that enjoy the hobby win as well). Similarly, the current HoR, SRMissions, FantasyCraft, and similar non-WotC living campaigns operate separately and generally bring different players to the overall RPG hobby. (Just post on one of those lists about how you like 4E and you will get some not-so-nice replies... clearly a different base!).

I think the key is to really keep the communication clear and to work on bringing separate audiences without robbing resources. When that can be done, this is really good for the entire hobby.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 matteblack Jun 22, 2010 11:16:29	Through so many thread over the years the constant divide always seems to divide the gaming community. On one side you have the competitive/hardcore player who looks for hyper optimization and the most effective ways to defeat encounters and further hone their character's build. Then there is usually another side who wants more immersion, less refined strategy, more balance across the party or even a more meandering "let's-see-what-happens-next" playstyle. Lets call them "competitve" and "relaxed". I know I used to see alot of mention of the D&D Championships when LFR began but, now hear less and less of it. To me it seemed like a good way to be able to cater to a more competive playstyle and leave the grander world of the realms to you more relaxed players. Now, two years later, LFR struggles to cater to both ends of the scale and I find myself wonder, "have these two groups ever been successfully catered to in one or seperate campaigns?" and "are there are any upcoming ways that each could have it's own campaign better targetted to how that group plays?" I have my biases and sort of wonder if the more competitive side of the community truly desires challenge or maybe just carnage and domination but, I'd love to see a way for both to get what they want with less friction between the two. Lee
#2 Madfox11 Jun 23, 2010 3:41:14	What is your point? There is a D&D Championship at GenCon, and LFR is going to be more story orientated.
#3 smerwin29 Jun 23, 2010 8:44:39	I have my biases and sort of wonder if the more competitive side of the community truly desires challenge or maybe just carnage and domination but, I'd love to see a way for both to get what they want with less friction between the two. While I understand what you are saying here, I think the issues are much more complicated. You are creating a line between two sides, when there are no clear boundaries or camps. There are literally as many types of preferences as there are players, and the very act of creating something will by definition solidify those who have other preferences. And preferences are fine until they turn into biases. You would think that creating a separate campaign to cater to a different set of players would be welcomed by everyone. So much for logic! Xen'drik Expeditions was created to appeal to people who were not engaging in the Living Greyhawk campaign for a variety of reasons. And while the campaign did exactly what it was meant to do, and gained a decent following for what it was, those who had different preferences loudly decried the campaign even before it started and/or without ever having played it because it did not match their preferences. I guess we just have to remember that this is the Internet, and for some people if something does not match their preferences, then it is obviously wrong.
#4 Mommy_was_an_Orc Jun 23, 2010 22:34:07	Through so many thread over the years the constant divide always seems to divide the gaming community. On one side you have the competitive/hardcore player who looks for hyper optimization and the most effective ways to defeat encounters and further hone their character's build. Then there is usually another side who wants more immersion, less refined strategy, more balance across the party or even a more meandering "let's-see-what-happens-next" playstyle. Lets call them "competitve" and "relaxed". I think the problem is that the divide is fuzzy, because you have all kinds of different axis to look at... Examples: Buildcraft - do you want an optimal build? an impressive build? a build which can do one unusual, but perhaps not optimal, thing well? Given most LFR mods are not that hard, why optimize at all? Challenge - do you want to be challenged? do you want a walk through the park? do you want the illusion of being challenged, but really, it is a walk through the park? Being convinced that your characters are going to lose the fight any second, but squeak out a last second victory? Is being unable to act okay or not? Roleplay - do you want to spend most of your time roleplaying? Do you look at Skill Challenges as an opportunity to roleplay or a chore to get through? Beer and Pretzels - are you expected to be serious or is the goal to crack everyone else up laughing? Or some kind of mix. --------- I think the dangerous mods happen when mods get geared towards the extreme. As an example, a mod designed to challenge an optimizer has two problems - it will TPK many non-optimal groups and on top of it, just because someone is an optimizer, does not mean they want a challenge(to a certain extent, why optimize at all in LFR if you want challenges as all it does is make mods not a challenge)
#5 matteblack Jun 24, 2010 12:14:40	I guess I see the point about there being many axises. Maybe they don't converge as in like groups as much as I thought. It just seems like getting everyone under one central tent causes more friction than what difficulty would occur having more focused seperate campaigns. In my head one would be more about kicking back and having fun and less worry about the numbers and more about what the table enjoys while another would slap you in the face, remind you to wear a cup and ask for initative rolls. I suppose you'd still have spilts along "goofy fun"/immersion and challenge/domination lines but, I'd imagine each group would have easier issues to figure out as well as have a more honest target about game play expectations.
#6 Alphastream Jun 26, 2010 19:13:40	To me, a lot is about clear communication and demographics. It seems that the game is better off with one clear dominant campaign. LC, LG, LFR, these all have played a good role for the RPGA by virtue of being big and dominant. Everyone talks about them, they are the default choice, etc. At the same time, there are clearly many who want different opportunities. LD and Eberron are examples. LSpycraft, Arcanis, etc. The problem is often that no one can tell what is going on. Is Arcanis competing with LG? Is there a race going on? GR is an example where it wasn't clear from the top why there were two campaigns. It leads to confusion and seems to duplicate and improperly allocate resources. However, there can be clarity. DDE has a very clearly different goal and demographic from LFR. On average, it seems to serve almost entirely different audiences. This is huge. A second program is bringing in a second set of players - everyone wins in that scenario (especially WotC, but all of us that enjoy the hobby win as well). Similarly, the current HoR, SRMissions, FantasyCraft, and similar non-WotC living campaigns operate separately and generally bring different players to the overall RPG hobby. (Just post on one of those lists about how you like 4E and you will get some not-so-nice replies... clearly a different base!). I think the key is to really keep the communication clear and to work on bringing separate audiences without robbing resources. When that can be done, this is really good for the entire hobby.