"Encouraging styles of play"

[DangerousPuhson]

I see the term thrown around a lot... hell, it practically defined the OSR way back when. The idea being that adventures and rule sets should be designed to encourage - or at least reward - certain styles of play (usually "slow and methodical"). I remember getting into debates about this a few years ago on here, particularly about how certain rule sets likely encourage certain behavior (mostly about logistical-focus or being more scared about death).

Does this not strike anyone else as strange, or maybe a step in the wrong direction? TTRPGs are unique for their "you can take any approach to any situation you can think of", and we want to squash that so the party becomes more effective according to our own personal preferences and metrics? Am I the only person who sees "encouraging styles of play" as basically another form of "I'm going to railroad you into playing the game how I want you to play it"? A meta-railroad, if you will...

By "encouraging a style of play", you (the DM or author) are literally telling the players (via in-game reward or punishment) how they should be playing the game, like training a dog to come when it's called and to not bark at the doorbell - does that not strike anyone else as wrong?

If players started doing the same thing, saying "hey DM, you need to do funny voices and pantomime, or you aren't *really* DMing", would that not also rub you the wrong way? So then why are we ok with doing it to our players? What's wrong with building the sandbox and allowing the kids to play in it however they feel happiest?

I don't know, this assumption that DMs/authors are supposed to dictate how the players are supposed to play, it just grates on me. Outside of a teaching module (and why is it that every module suddenly has to teach every person how to play D&D nowadays?), it makes no sense. It strikes me as a big step backwards for such a freeform hobby. Thoughts?

 

[Beoric]

If you are talking about entirely different systems with different expectations, I think it is entirely appropriate to tailor the mechanic to the expected experience. For example, Call of Cthulhu has a sanity mechanic.

Among similar generalist systems, like the various editions of D&D, I don't think the changes in mechanics have really changed playstyle that much. In my 4e game, the only real compatibility issue is that it is difficult to implement XP=GP after about 10th level. I also think Peter D's GURPS game sounds pretty much the same as most Classic playstyle games, with the commonality that both D&D and GURPS are generalized systems (for GURPS, "Generic" is right there in the name.

I think D&D playstyles are more affected by module design and marketing choices than by mechanics. Looking at modules specifically, it is kind of hard to designing them without a playstyle in mind. It's pretty clear that Dragonlance supports a different playstyle from T1, and it would be almost as hard to run a Dragonlance style game in T1, as it would be to run a T1 style game using Dragonlance. I don't think there is any way to write a module without picking a style, so you can hardly fault people for it.

And looking specifically at the rewards structure influence the game, yeah, choosing a different reward structure is going to affect how players interact. But as with modules, I don't think it is possible to choose a reward structure without picking a style; at some point, you have to decide on what to reward, which automatically affects player behavior.

TL;DR there are no mechanical or design choices that are playstyle neutral.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Fucking useless-ass forum won't post my reply - please hold

 

[DangerousPuhson]

And looking specifically at the rewards structure influence the game, yeah, choosing a different reward structure is going to affect how players interact. But as with modules, I don't think it is possible to choose a reward structure without picking a style

My point is you basically shouldn't have a "reward structure" at all (beyond the mechanically-necessary, like XP), because all you are doing is leading players by the nose, and smacking them down when they don't adhere to your intent. Rewards, like everything else in (most) TTRPGs, are supposed to be neutral elements of the game world, attained based on player approach (i.e. "a gold chalice sits atop a pressure-sensitive pedestal surrounded by a moat of acid - what do you do?"), and I'd argue that there are plenty of mechanical/design choices that are playstyle neutral - the easiest examples are modules that are like "here is a situation/sandbox/location/dungeon, here are the stakes, now what are you going to do?" There's a big difference between "hard to reach golden chalice" and "hard to reach golden chalice with an obvious convenient swinging vine nearby".

The problem I've been seeing is a lot of designers these days seem to dictate ahead of time what that approach is supposed to be ("make the monster unbeatable so the players are forced to evade it rather than fight it", "the zombies wear amulets that mean they can't be turned by the Cleric", "the party will need to disguise themselves to attend the dinner party", "players will need to swing across the vine to reach the chalice", etc.). They label it as "encouraging an appropriate playstyle", and I have a problem with that mindset seeping into my freeform, do-whatever-you-will game.

Point is, there is too often an obvious intent in mind by the designer when they design a scenario or module - swinging on the vine, sneaking past the obviously-unbeatable sleeping dragon, flanking your enemy with alternate routes because the alternate routes are there and must be used, anything where the presumption is "infiltration", etc. - and while they aren't *always* set up to be so prescriptive in solution, they *often* are, and that trend concerns me.

 

[Beoric]

XP was expressly what I was thinking in terms of reward structure, although availability of magic items would also qualify.

What you are describing are various flavours of railroading, which are not-so-subtly pushing players towards particular choices or approaches. They can call that "encouraging an appropriate playstyle" if they want, but I would call it "removing player agency." I've been a player in games like that and they suuuuucked.

I was going to suggest that isn't even really a playstyle, except I thought about Dragonlance, and yeah, being forced to follow the DM's/writer's script is arguably a heavy-handed version of the "Trad" style. To which I definitely say, "No, thanks!"

 

[DangerousPuhson]

What you are describing are various flavours of railroading, which are not-so-subtly pushing players towards particular choices or approaches. They can call that "encouraging an appropriate playstyle" if they want, but I would call it "removing player agency."

Yes, this is my position on the matter - it was a use of that specific term in a blog I read recently that set off this post. Seems counterproductive.

 

[Beoric]

I have just never heard "playstyle" defined like that. It isn't enforcing a playstyle, it's compelling adherence to a plot.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Not so much "playstyle" as "style of play" - I know they sound identical, but there is a distinction.

A "playstyle" is like a whole encompassing genre ("a combat-heavy playstyle", "an easy-breezy playstyle"), but a "style of play" is more like the specific approaches and tactics players use (they probe every room before entering, they never try to open a locked door, they always attack on sight, etc.). I mean, I'd have called those "player habits", but "styles of play" is the term being thrown around the blogroll. Note that having a style of play is not a bad things unto itself, but the trend of authors compelling players to use certain styles goes against the freeform spirit of the game, IMHO.

 

[squeen]

The authors write for a certain audience. That's not coercion.

 

[Beoric]

Well, it's consenting to being coerced. DM-player bondage roleplaying-at-roleplaying.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

The authors write for a certain audience. That's not coercion.

They most certainly do not - most authors' audience is "whomever is willing to pay me money for my work". Especially self-publishing authors writing in niche markets.

Does an author care who buys his book? Does a director care who watches his film? Does a blogger care who visits his blog? No. The metrics are all that matters. They care about reviews of their works, but mostly because they want their stuff to be consumed by as many people as possible (bump up the metrics), and good reviews facilitate that goal.

 

[Beoric]

They most certainly do not - most authors' audience is "whomever is willing to pay me money for my work". Especially self-publishing authors writing in niche markets.

Does an author care who buys his book? Does a director care who watches his film? Does a blogger care who visits his blog? No. The metrics are all that matters. They care about reviews of their works, but mostly because they want their stuff to be consumed by as many people as possible (bump up the metrics), and good reviews facilitate that goal.

Ok, (1) that is not universally true, and (2) I can't speak to squeen's intentions, but the words he used suggest he was not making a claim about all authors.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

OK, (1) that's why I said "most" authors, and (2) I can't speak to squeen's intentions either (who can), but if he had a valid point and didn't want to be misinterpreted, he could have contributed more than 10 words to the conversation.

 

[Beoric]

Fair enough.