Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have recently started to browse about a few boards dedicated to pen and paper RPG games and i have to say there seems to be many styles of play, i was wondering what its like in the groups people here might play in.

For me my group started playing Vampire first and i think that along with some online roleplaying experience in a text only enviroment has somewhat shaped how we play. We seem to favour conversation, investigation, alternative methods and interaction to the combat.

I mean we have recently started to play dark heresy and have had a few games so far, but some of these three to five hour sessions can involve just one fight would this bore other players? we personally prefer it, more talking and investigation seems to us to be mich cooler.

Its also a case for us to interact alot of scenes i know others do not, for example i have talked to players that barely do any real interaction between say fights, even if they go to a shop to resuply its more of a case of just saying they will walk in and looking down an equipment list with the GM telling them whats available. In our group even shoping requires you to talk to a NPC shop keeper even when you not just trying to barter. This can slow the game down but i think you get a stronger sense of each character when a group takes the time to play out un-important things.

Some GMs to seem to take a posistion of being against the player, again i think in our group its about the characters and the story hence alot of dice fudging goes on behind the scenes to help characters survive.

Suppose this is another reason we often use a heavily modified version of the cyberpunk rules for our roleplays, to make getting into a fight a serious decesion because even if you feel you might not die it is very easy to get injured, fights just seem more fun when people are so worried about getting hurt that they are hiding in cover taking the chance blind firing and the like, makes it seem more realistic.

And that brings me onto another point, NPCs how do your group have the enemy behave, just as something to be slaughtered or do they as in the case of our groups have there own motivations, survival instincts and breaking points. Alot of our cyberpunk fights end not in a total masacre but either a retreat or a bunch of weapons being thrown to the ground, i guess we just think the characters want to live so ultimately so do most NPCs.

So anyhow, what kind of styles do people play here, do people play for the role playing, the intereaction or for the dice rolling and leveling up of characters etc.

One last thing is my group stopped playing the D20 systems as we found things started to get boring or just stupid after say level 7+

I'll be digging into D&D 4E tomorrow. Going to the local FLGS to participate in the World-Wide D&D Game Day and then starting up with a regular group on Sunday. 4E sounds like a lot of fun, so we'll see what happens. Supposedly every character is able to contribute something so you don't need one of a certain class in every party, so that sounds cool.

I've played in and run a lot of different styles of game. I'll stick to just the main games.
My first game was a hack and slash GURPS game with a lot of slapstick comedy involved. It was rip roaring fun, but not particularly deep or immersive.
My second game was much more in depth. It was in the In Nomine system, which is a very simple but storyline based system. The players were angels who were trying to avert armegeddon. Social interaction was very important, with combat being slightly secondary. My character was a total pacifist (He actually couldn't commit violent acts except against Demons) so I would generally run and hide in combat, or try to negotiate. The game mostly focused on problem solving and big, weighty ethical questions. It was very challenging and immersive.
After that I ran my first game. It was D'n'D in the Ravenloft setting, which is a Gothic Horror style setting. The style was low power, in a Victorian Londonesque city. They played coppers and investigated wierd crimes and paranormal activities. Most of the games centred around investigation, and trying to avoid being killed by the big bad guys until theu could figure out their weakness. (Gothic villains always have a weakness )
It was very low magic. Combat was generally on the creepy psychological side, and would be around 1-2 fights a session.
After that I ran an In Nomine game of my own, loosely inspired by American Gods by Niel Gaiman. Players were old gods or new ideas living on the fringes of a world populated by humans and guarded by Angels and Demons who had no love for the old Gods. This game ran along mythical themes and ideas. Combat could take the form of a dream game, where players would change form until one found the form another couldn't destroy, or epic battles in shifting dreamscapes, or occasionally, low key battles in Dublin and London. It was a short, fun game.

After those two fairly heavy games, I wanted to run something a bit more light hearted, so I ran an "Monty Haul" game set in the Lower Planes. Blood War. Fight, kill, get loot, see interesting planes and escape them, grow in power. It was a six session blast. Very little plot or character development, just fights and fun!

I've been playing D'n'D in the Ptolus setting for a while and I'm loving it. We're playing a "sandbox" style game. No plot, just the setting. We act inside it and it moves around us and reacts to it. It has been one of the best playing experiences I've had so far. I was so inspired that I'm now running my own Iron Kingdoms game in the same mindset. It lets the players set the mood of the game for themselves. For example, last week a lot of my players wanted to run a big party and have a very social session with no combat. The combat guy decided to go and pit fight for the laugh, and the rest of them had fun betting on him. Everyone wins!

Well, I run a cyberpunk 2020 game.
I'm not the enemy of my players. I'm the architect of their doom (erm, story). I see myself as the writer, director, set decorator and props master.

The player characters don't necessarily have to like each other, but they do have to work together. It's like a workgroup. You probably don't like everyone you work with, but you are expected to put personal doo-doo aside and do the job as a professional.

My campaign style is less heavily combat focussed and more negotiation and research. Most of my players have outgron the munchkinhausen syndrome, and prefer to play the story, rather than the game.

You also have at least one level of necromancer.

Sorry... couldn't help it.

Not like this topic sees much action. Would like to see more. I thoroughly enjoy DMing games of Dark Ages Vampire and good old D&D - whatever edition you like.

Sounds like I'm in the same camp as chromedog.

I currently run a cyber-punk-style game called Fates Worse Than Death, where they all play members of different gangs.
Our group has been playing RPG for (#cough# too many #cough#) years, and playing together in this group for about 5-6 years, so we know each others styles.

We tend to go for quite a bit of negotiation, player-player and player-NPC interaction. Some sessions consist entirely of the players planning, plotting and discussing.

We have a combination of me telling my story, and the players telling their stories.

As to being "against" the players, this is not exactly my position, but I do make sure there is conflict, challenges for them to attempt.
Some they can do easily, others they can't, hope to win. Most will be in-between, with a chance of success.

I can't say that my pen & paper sessions had a similar style. There are always very different constellations of people in the game, which changes the style how it is played automatically.

Most of the time I'm involved with games with custom settings played in the GURPS ruleset. Also I played some D&D, though I didn't like it so much. It feels very classic, but our GM made it rather hard to roleplay at all, focussing a lot on the hack n slay aspects.

The most interesting style of gameplay was actually an IRC based game in a custom space setting on a ship, which featured no ruleset at all. This left a lot of room for improvisation. You could just try and do anything, without thinking on what skills to roll on or anything.
In many cases we decided for ourselves what succeeded and what did not, which lets players take control of situations if they have a good idea where things could be heading. It's all about good ideas in that kind of game.
Of course this does only work with 100% non-dumbasses in the game, but if it does it's a great experience.

every game differs even with the same GM. I have never been keen on the Cyber RPG's but i do have to say that a Good GM makes the game! the last game i took part in *old school session where we dug up the AD&D books just for fun* was by far the best and that was because the GM was fantastic and didn't get mad when we totaly ignored his "set plan" and went about everything a different way. Having a good GM and depending on the people involved you will have good fun, only downside is the odd person who A) dosen't want to play *in char* when everyone else does Or B) the one guy who takes it all so seriouse you spend an hour waiting for them to look things up. (B can be fixed easy by a good GM laying down the law