Apparently a lot of people on the network have been talking about their gaming preferences using this handy article at Robertson Games. I like following trends, so here I go!
- Comprehensive Rules vs Minimal Rules – I’m not a rules-lite gamer per se, but I don’t want rules to describe every situation. Give me rules for what I need to play, and maybe a few extra. However, I’m not opposed to comprehensive rules as long as their modular (aka, you don’t need every single rule for every other one to make sense). That way, I can toss out the rules I think are unnecessary or overly complicated.
- High Power Fantasy vs Low Power Fantasy – Definitely high power. I like being able to do really cool things, whether it’s changing the laws of the world or something a lot simpler. Powerful magic is why I like fantasy (not that there aren’t good, low magic settings, but…).
- Narrative Mechanics vs Simulation Mechanics – The rules are supposed to govern the simulation part. The people playing should get to act however they want (as long as they aren’t jerks
). - Strategic Chargen vs Simple Chargen – Simple but with enough options is my ideal character gen situation. Savage Worlds does this pretty well, I think.
- Tactical Encounter vs Strategic Encounter – I’m a fan of both. The way people react to fights, both within and without, is something interesting to me.
- Combat Balance vs. Adventure Balance – The players ought to have a chance in every fight. That’s not to say they shouldn’t be challenging, but they should at least have a chance in every (okay, fine, MOST) fights.
- Wargame Combat vs. Abstract Combat – A bit of a disclaimer here – I prefer Abstract combat, but it’s helpful sometimes to have something just to visualize the relative positions of the combatants. I don’t know if you’ve read the Danger Patrol alpha playtest, but it’s something I want to try out.
- GM as Player vs. GM as Referee – The GM most definitely a player – not an adversarial player as Robertson Games suggests, but definitely more than just a referee. I personally am not a fan of his definitions on this topic.
- Fantastic Characters vs. Common Characters – Come on, if I’m going to be living out a fantasy, I may as well do it with a Fantastic character, am I right?
- Established Setting vs. DIY Setting – But I will pilfer heavily from settings I like. Like Eberron.
- Resource Optimization vs. Creative Problem Solving -Definitely prefer creativity over… non-creativity? However, optimizing your resources can be done in creative ways sometimes.
In reality, I can lean either way for most of these arguments, but these are my main feelings. What about yours? And if you have a blog where you posted your opinions, feel free to link to it in the comments – I want to see it.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=bd022f12-9c81-4ab1-a1db-355d25f6da99)
I did this whole thing here:
http://spiritsofeden.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/wyatts-dming-preferences/
If you don’t care for GM as player vs referee, you could think of it as GM must follow all the rules vs GM uses rules as a guideline. No version od D&D has the GM as a full player instead of a Referee after all.
That’s a better version of it. I just don’t agree that the only way the GM can play is adversarially. Pretty much any NPC that isn’t a villain is proof of that.
My problem with this list is half the choices aren’t really oppositional extremes at all, and half the definitions don’t really describe 4e or the way older editions played. In short, I don’t think it’s very good at covering playstyle choices.
That said-
Comprehensive & Minimal is my choice (4e, Savage Worlds) – I like rules to mesh and I like that both systems I use as example give the rules for task resolution then get out of your way.
High Power fantasy – definitely, low power modern, and space opera sci-fi
I don’t see narrative and simulation as oppositional (no Forge here) – rules do both
Simple Chargen – like you, still with a good set of options (again, like 4e and Savage Worlds)
Encounter – both. Everytime the DM is interacting with the players is an encounter, combat, exploration, social, whatever. Encounters have infinite variety and room for about anything you can think up.
Definitely Combat balance – “balanced over an adventure” is not really valid to me, as it leaves players too often twiddling their thumbs while another player or two handles all the action. Everyone got together and play, not watch the skill monkey go through a trap gauntlet, the bard negotiate, and the wizard and fighter take out the baddies. So I like everyone to have functionality in combat and viable outside of it.
Wargame combat is a misnomer, RPG combat does not play like a wargame unless you are doing it wrong. The term is meant to cover combat that focuses on a more directly representative simulation of the action at hand, which is what I prefer – tactics, tools to visualize the situation, solid rules.
GM – both – again, like you, as GM I like to get in there and play the game, too. It’s not about being adversarial at all.
Characters – both – depends on the campaign. I generally like the fantastical, but I get urges to do the common folk thing (I houseruled a system for doing 2e styled 0-level campaign starts for both 3e and 4e).
DIY – this is another area where I disagree with Stuart’s definitions, I don’t feel 4e is setting focused at all, the core books have no core setting like other editions and the DMG details world building and modifying the game to fit your setting, while most other editions take a set of basic assumptions derived from a base setting. I like both. I’m a big fan of Eberron and run games in a homebrewed world I first put to pen in mid 80s.
Problem solving – again, not two oppositional positions. Resource management is a part of every RPG and creative thinking always has a place over just rote application of the system.