PDA

View Full Version : Editions and Play Styles



Glinthall
2009-08-27, 04:50 PM
As I perused the forum, I noticed that a large percentage of the threads were discussing the differences between fourth edition Dungeons and Dragons and Third editions (3.5) Dungeons and Dragons. Most of the threads and posters point out the all important point that each person is entitled to play the edition that he or she most enjoys. I agree with this and have made this thread as a discussion of what causes people to choose a given edition. The point of this thread, however, is not to focus on the differences in the editions, but on the differences in the players. In other words, what is it about the way a person plays the game that makes them choose one edition over another.

To illustrate, I switched from a 3.5 group to a 4E group shortly after the release of the new edition. The switch was initially due to geography and friends moving and not edition preferences. I told my friend in the first group that I was willing to drive the hour plus to make a game at his new house and he told me, "oh, we don't invite you because our play styles are so different. We figured you didn't enjoy playing with us." This gave me something to contemplate as I spent the next couple months playing fourth edition.

I found that the new edition did indeed engage my intellect and tactics in a way I found more enjoyable. I thrive off of measuring distances on a concrete representation of the battle and working as a team to execute strategies and apply synergies. I appreciate the available metrics used to track how much we've accomplished in a given session. Sessions with my new group usually end with me being able to reflect what I actually did to advance the story.

In contrast, the other group recently got together for a last session before our friend moved across the country. I spent 12 hours at my friend's house and we had one encounter. Most of the time was spent laughing, talking, eating, and enjoying each other's company, but I was frustrated since I sat at the game table staring at a character sheet for eight hours and we only fought in one encounter. My wife was mad at me for being out so late and I had no way to explain what we did that took 12 hours (besides a bar-b-q and waiting for players to arrive).

This brings me to my pontifications. Are players' edition preferences due to play styles?

The 3.5 group liked getting time in the spotlight. The 3.5 group was also more about ambiance. We spent most of the night with the DM describing a week long journey through the woods where we saw horrific things that did not help us advance the quest or tell us what was happening in the world. When we finally encountered the enemy, it attacked us in the middle of the night and moved into position before our guard could awaken the rest of the group.

The fourth edition group I play with focuses more on teamwork and advancing the story. Each character is different, but we each know our strengths and use them to help the goals of the team. We do get sidetracked at times, but most of what our characters do is to advance the story or move the adventure along.

Have others in the community seen similar trends? What play styles have you noticed in groups that prefer one edition over the other? Is personality more of a factor than play style or are they too closely related? I know that this topic will probably move into the mechanics that support certain styles, but I want to establish a base of which styles fit which edition before discussing why.

Yora
2009-08-27, 04:57 PM
This brings me to my pontifications. Are players' edition preferences due to play styles?

Yes.

Probably. Mostly.

Of course, if you played a game for years, you will probably like to continue playing it, even if another game might slightly be better suited for most people with a similar playing style.
But the reason I would not bother to rally learn 4e rules, is because I like adventures to consists mostly of talking and planing and figuring out how to solve problems with a limited amount of resources and a wide range of possible abilities. I often get told that D&D is not good for this in general, but I havn't heard why any other game should be better for it.
As it seems, 4e is made for tactical combat. And not "trick it into the trap" combat but "beat it to death" combat. So I don't see nothing in the game that would get my attention.

Skorj
2009-08-27, 05:06 PM
For me, it's my preferred DM style that affects my game choice (even as a player). I want a game where simulationist combat is fast and easy to run. I want that becuase it makes it easy to mix several playstyles.

Tactical minds should be engaged by combats, rather than just talking things to death.
The time spent on normal combats should be constrained so that others don't get bored.
Clever off-the-wall ideas to shortcut combat should be easy to model by the combat system.


I'm happy with any system that lets a variety of playstyles coexist peacefully. Systems that drive either tactical wargamers or roleplayers to boredom are generally harmful to any game, unless the players all share a playstyle.

I think some people prefer games that only really allow for one playstyle so that don't have to associate with other playstyles (and such snobbery can be found in any group, it seems), and that's a shame.

Dienekes
2009-08-27, 05:08 PM
Not trying to start hate flung either way, but around me (and I've played both) 4E was filled with folk who sat around waiting for an encounter at which time they each tried to outdo each other by using encounter powers and saying how awesome there characters were at combat. The plot line was railroaded like all hell, and the character interaction basically was brought to Duke 1: Oh thank the gods, adventurers have arrived to save us from Big Bad Villain. Yes, him, that guy you've seen a half dozen times at the end of a major dungeon/temple/cave but gets away after saying something sinister. Please help my poor town from Big Bad Villains randomly evil plot!

While this may sound sarcastic and even hateful, that was how the game was played. And I'd be lying if I didn't say I enjoyed the simplicity at times.

To best summarize the v3.5 folk, let's just say they spent 5 hours interacting with the environment and various NPC's laid before them in order to assassinate 1 high level character. During the entire time they attempted to uncover plots and determine the intrigue of who was trying to manipulate them. We only killed 1 person the entire time, and I must say I was never bored.

I personally like to think somewhere there is a group for me who takes all the tactics and the intrigue of the v3.5 group and has half the pacing of the 4E group to make a perfect game of excellence.

kjones
2009-08-27, 05:38 PM
Most of the time was spent laughing, talking, eating, and enjoying each other's company

That sounds awful. Fortunately, 4e as a system ensures that you will not laugh or enjoy anyone's company. The eating issue will hopefully be resolved in the next errata.

Weimann
2009-08-27, 05:42 PM
I play 3.5 because I got a crap load of books for free from a friend of mine :P

Or well, I would play 3.5 if I found someone to play with >.>

oxybe
2009-08-27, 05:58 PM
i'd say no.

we play pretty much any edition and the style will vary from the group's thematic & personal preferences, as well as the GM's style, and not the system itself.

a game run by GM "A" will be very much by-the-books and be very tactical-combat orientated, while GM "B" will have on-the-fly quick skirmishes and most of the game will be spent RP'ing out of combat.

the mechanics might influence which aspects of the game are emphasized and which ones are downplayed, but overall a GM will run a game in his style, regardless of system. this has been my experience with GM "B" running D&D the same way he runs WoD & GM "C" doing the same whether it's GURPS or D&D.

FoE
2009-08-27, 06:02 PM
I LIKE TO KILL THINGS!!!

And I prefer 4E. Take that for what you will.

Kurald Galain
2009-08-27, 06:12 PM
This brings me to my pontifications. Are players' edition preferences due to play styles?
Well, obviously.

Do you like having lots of rules? Do you like playing on a game board? Do you like everything to use the same mechanics, or to have different subsystems? Do you find balance important? Do you prefer unique or streamlined effects? What about exceptions? And so forth.

Gralamin
2009-08-27, 06:12 PM
Yes. Games are built towards a certain type of play style. Exalted is built towards Actors, 3.5 is built towards more powergaming and munchkin-esque play (At least, if you believe the designers willingly put in higher and lower power content.). 4e is built much more towards Tacticians and Thinkers. Shadowrun is built towards people who like to shop, thus the huge equipment lists. Etc.

Just because a game has this focus, doesn't mean it is superior in anyway. You can have as much fun in just about any of them, its just certain games will mesh with one's play style better. Exalted is no better at telling stories then 3e, and 3e is no better then 4e, etc. Exalted just awards actor players (See: Stunts), while 3.5 awards power games, and 4e awards tacticians etc.

Dairun Cates
2009-08-27, 06:14 PM
Not trying to start hate flung either way, but around me (and I've played both) 4E was filled with folk who sat around waiting for an encounter at which time they each tried to outdo each other by using encounter powers and saying how awesome there characters were at combat. The plot line was railroaded like all hell, and the character interaction basically was brought to Duke 1: Oh thank the gods, adventurers have arrived to save us from Big Bad Villain. Yes, him, that guy you've seen a half dozen times at the end of a major dungeon/temple/cave but gets away after saying something sinister. Please help my poor town from Big Bad Villains randomly evil plot!

While this may sound sarcastic and even hateful, that was how the game was played. And I'd be lying if I didn't say I enjoyed the simplicity at times.

To best summarize the v3.5 folk, let's just say they spent 5 hours interacting with the environment and various NPC's laid before them in order to assassinate 1 high level character. During the entire time they attempted to uncover plots and determine the intrigue of who was trying to manipulate them. We only killed 1 person the entire time, and I must say I was never bored.

I personally like to think somewhere there is a group for me who takes all the tactics and the intrigue of the v3.5 group and has half the pacing of the 4E group to make a perfect game of excellence.

You know I'm not sure that's a 4th edition thing as a GM and group thing. I've very much been in 3.5 edition games where roleplaying and the stuff inbetween combat was thrown out for the next bad guy encounter, and if it's not the entire group trying to 1-up itself, it's at least one smart arse wizard explaining how his character is the cornerstone of the entire party before the confused rogue almost instantly guts him in one turn. I really do think of that as a style for the group.

Really, I think the two systems boil down to whether you as a group or GM like to improvise or have the rules written out for you. In D&D 90% of anything you could ever possibly want to do has some complex rule set for it. If you memorize it, bully for you, but it can slow things down. 4E is definitely more streamlined, but you have to make a few things up here and there if you want that silly fluff off the walls stuff. I don't really see either as impossible in either system though, and the primary argument seems to be over what's not written over what's written.

Eh, but that's just one take on it. I'm primarily a GM, and definitely not a one-system kind of guy. I've got a nice shelf of my own personal research, and I've learned a lot about systems. The most important one being that 3.5 and 4E aren't the only systems out there (and no, I'm not talking about 2nd Ed.).

Kurald Galain
2009-08-27, 06:16 PM
Yes. Games are built towards a certain type of play style. Exalted is built towards Actors, 3.5 is built towards more powergaming and munchkin-esque play (At least, if you believe the designers willingly put in higher and lower power content.). 4e is built much more towards Tacticians and Thinkers. Shadowrun is built towards people who like to shop, thus the huge equipment lists.
Er, while I agree with the [i]principle[i] of what you're saying, I strongly disagree with every single one of your examples. Well, except the one about 3.5.

(Exalted has too many rules to appeal primarily to actors; 4E has too shallow complexity to appeal primarily to tacticians; Shadowrun is too lethal to appeal primarily to shoppers; otoh 3.5 is probably the most heavily powergamed RPG in existence)

Gralamin
2009-08-27, 06:21 PM
Er, while I agree with the [i]principle[i] of what you're saying, I strongly disagree with every single one of your examples. Well, except the one about 3.5.

(Exalted has too many rules to appeal primarily to actors; 4E has too shallow complexity to appeal primarily to tacticians; Shadowrun is too lethal to appeal primarily to shoppers; otoh 3.5 is probably the most heavily powergamed RPG in existence)

Well, I was massively simplifying it, and going off of some of my experiences with the systems, and some of what I've heard from others. I suppose Exalted is for "Rules-heavy Actors" and Shadowrun is "Gritty-planning shoppers". And 4e encounters can be more complex then you give them credit for, but thats a topic for another argument.

Edit: Though, to be sure, I'm not saying that encounters are usually as complex as say Chess.

Dienekes
2009-08-27, 06:22 PM
You know I'm not sure that's a 4th edition thing as a GM and group thing. I've very much been in 3.5 edition games where roleplaying and the stuff inbetween combat was thrown out for the next bad guy encounter, and if it's not the entire group trying to 1-up itself, it's at least one smart arse wizard explaining how his character is the cornerstone of the entire party before the confused rogue almost instantly guts him in one turn. I really do think of that as a style for the group.

Really, I think the two systems boil down to whether you as a group or GM like to improvise or have the rules written out for you. In D&D 90% of anything you could ever possibly want to do has some complex rule set for it. If you memorize it, bully for you, but it can slow things down. 4E is definitely more streamlined, but you have to make a few things up here and there if you want that silly fluff off the walls stuff. I don't really see either as impossible in either system though, and the primary argument seems to be over what's not written over what's written.

Eh, but that's just one take on it. I'm primarily a GM, and definitely not a one-system kind of guy. I've got a nice shelf of my own personal research, and I've learned a lot about systems. The most important one being that 3.5 and 4E aren't the only systems out there (and no, I'm not talking about 2nd Ed.).

Oh undoubtedly, but around where I game most of the gamers have flocked to these two poles. It could have been for a number of reasons, but that is how it turned out.

Matthew
2009-08-27, 06:30 PM
The most important one being that 3.5 and 4E aren't the only systems out there (and no, I'm not talking about 2nd Ed.).

So... first edition then? :smallbiggrin:

Yes, play style has a huge impact on which games you play. The 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e progression with D&D can barely be called edition change, as 3e and 4e are almost completely reimagined games, the last of which is probably less similar to [I]Original Dungeons & Dragons than even Rune Quest or Role Master (I may be exaggerating a bit here, but not by much).

I generally prefer lighter systems like D6 and Savage Worlds, but I enjoy the complexity of D20/3e from time to time. D20/4e I found to be pretty boring, but I haven't played it much yet.

Saph
2009-08-27, 06:33 PM
I found that the new edition did indeed engage my intellect and tactics in a way I found more enjoyable. I thrive off of measuring distances on a concrete representation of the battle and working as a team to execute strategies and apply synergies.

. . .

This brings me to my pontifications. Are players' edition preferences due to play styles?

To some degree. However, you may find they don't match up in the way you expect.

For instance, I've got a particular interest in tactics and strategy, and I love intellectual puzzles. Since you see 4e as being more intellectual and tactical, you'd probably conclude that I'd vastly prefer 4e to 3.5 . . . and you'd be wrong, as I find 4e tactics trivial compared to 3.5 ones.

To be honest, I think DM styles are probably a lot more influential than play styles when it comes to forming players' impressions of new systems.

Gralamin
2009-08-27, 06:40 PM
To some degree. However, you may find they don't match up in the way you expect.

For instance, I've got a particular interest in tactics and strategy, and I love intellectual puzzles. Since you see 4e as being more intellectual and tactical, you'd probably conclude that I'd vastly prefer 4e to 3.5 . . . and you'd be wrong, as I find 4e tactics trivial compared to 3.5 ones.

To be honest, I think DM styles are probably a lot more influential than play styles when it comes to forming players' impressions of new systems.

As I've had the exact opposite impression (3.5 Tactics beyond "Cast Spell X to win" simply don't really matter, 4e tactics will have a much greater effect and are less trivial), I'd agree that the DM style is probably very important as well. Some games are great under the right DM, but may be horribly boring under the wrong ones.

Saph
2009-08-27, 07:02 PM
I'd agree that the DM style is probably very important as well. Some games are great under the right DM, but may be horribly boring under the wrong ones.

It's more that a player's impression of a system is heavily influenced by the DM presenting it. For instance, in the OP's post:


I found that the new edition did indeed engage my intellect and tactics in a way I found more enjoyable. I thrive off of measuring distances on a concrete representation of the battle and working as a team to execute strategies and apply synergies. I appreciate the available metrics used to track how much we've accomplished in a given session. Sessions with my new group usually end with me being able to reflect what I actually did to advance the story.

In contrast, the other group recently got together for a last session before our friend moved across the country. I spent 12 hours at my friend's house and we had one encounter. Most of the time was spent laughing, talking, eating, and enjoying each other's company, but I was frustrated since I sat at the game table staring at a character sheet for eight hours and we only fought in one encounter.

This sounds to me like the OP preferring the style of the first DM (and group) to that of the second. He's putting the difference down to the switch between systems, but IMO group and DM is vastly more important than what system you play.

In my experience, to get a really solid understanding of how a system differs from others, you need to have played it under several different DMs. Otherwise your opinion's going to mostly reflect the DM running it, rather than any inherent qualities of the system itself.

bosssmiley
2009-08-27, 09:38 PM
This brings me to my pontifications. Are players' edition preferences due to play styles?

Yes...kind of.

I suppose it's partially a case of people gravitating to a system that gives them what they want from a game, and partially people playing what their gaming buddies are prepared to play. After all, it's kind of depressing to find your dream system, and then to realise that it is eye-gouging Kryptonite to those you game with. Most sane gamers are prepared to compromise what they will play for the sake of having something to play.

You'll also find that people's game choices are affected by what they have played first, or played most often. It's a combination of your gaming 'vintage' (ie: when and how you got into the hobby), and an element of the infamous "Wait, there are games other than D&D?" factor.

Some people even make it a point of principle and gaming identity to only/never play anything more recent/older than a particular publication date, or only/never from a particular company/author/system. We call those people 'pompous idiots'. Others (the better looking and more noble among us) avoid these arbitrary cut-off points and cliques-within-cliques and are incorrigible game sluts who will try anything once.* :smallamused:

The Real Men, Roleplayers, Loonies and Munchkin lists (http://firedrake.org/roger/rpg/munchkin.html) were, and are, truer than some people are comfortable admitting to.

* That said the WoD dice pool mechanic is still the vile handiwork of Old Scratch. :smalltongue:

Olo Demonsbane
2009-08-27, 11:31 PM
You sound like you would have just as much fun playing 3.5, if you had a different DM. 3.5 can be about Tactics just as much as 4.0 can.

Example of my group's tactics: Beguiler, Warblade, Wizard, and Rouge, one of my current parties.
A typical turn, assuming they go first:
Beguiler: Casts Distract Assaliant on the foe, then follow up with a Buff Spell (often Haste) or a Save or Suck (Slow is fun)
Rouge: Sneak Attacks, thanks to Distract Assaliant.
Wizard: Casts a party-wide buff
Warblade: Moves up to the foe and uses a manuever (Iron Heart FTW!). Then he uses White Raven Tactics to give the Wizard another turn.
Wizard: Uses an offensive spell.

Skorj
2009-08-29, 04:08 PM
This thread is an example (in a positive way, for once) of why edition wars are stupid: the DM and the playstyle of your fellow players matter so much more.

Crow
2009-08-29, 07:55 PM
For me, the game where you had bbq and a great time with your friends; with an atmosphere-filled adventure sounds like a helluva lot more fun than the other one.

Part of the reason I never got into 4e is that yes, it is very tactical, but all those tactics really don't make a lick of difference once you get past the lower levels.

Eldan
2009-08-29, 09:07 PM
Well, in my group, combat usually goes like this:

Player: "Can we evade the encounter?"

Dm: "No, he already saw you."

Player: "Then let's talk about it... 'Hey, you! I have an important message for...'"

DM: "He is your personal arch enemy and knows your face."

Player: "Oh. I cast fireball."

DM: "He is staggered, but still alive."

Player: *yawn*. "Fighter, go kill him. I'll get a drink, this is boring."

FighterPlayer: "THat's unfair, I don't want to fight!"

Basically, my players start buildling dice towers, getting drinks and talking about what they will do after the fight if it takes longer than half a turn. Also, they refuse to try anything but 3e, even if I think it's awesome. I've just learned to let them fight small groups of CR1/2 enemies on pretty much every level, so they can feel awesome without getting bored.

Also: "THis system can't be good. My gnome sorcerer can't cast Silent Image."
He says that in every game we try. Even if it doesn't have gnomes and/or sorcerers.

Chrono22
2009-08-29, 09:34 PM
Well, in my group, combat usually goes like this:
...
Your group sounds like a couple of idiots. No offense.

I've noticed the main differences in play style come down to how players and DMs construct/wish to perceive the game reality. If players want to perceive their characters as heroic normals in a real world, they won't like 4e. If DMs want 4e to adjust to playstyles outside of the normal range of dungeon delving and hack and slash, he will also likely be disappointed.