Gameplay Styles
Inspired by a recent video I watched I thought I might talk a little about styles of play in TTRPGs. Different tables run games differently. No table will play exactly the same. In the video above, the commentator talks about 8 different play styles. I will be simplifying these down to 3 broad styles. I will talk about how these styles of game tend to be run, how we can prep to run a game in this style, and some pros and cons of the style as well.
As with all things in these games, these are not all encompassing. Its also uncommon for a GM to run a game using JUST one style. Its more common for a GM to lean more to one of these styles but also have elements of the other styles sprinkled in. Its even possible for a GM to switch between styles depending on the adventure they are running that day.
Trad Style
Traditional style games are the most common style. These games generally have grand story lines where the players are the main characters. The GM will have some sort of idea of the beginning middle and end of the story line. Its also very likely that the GM is using a published adventure path from one of the big publishers.
How its Run
Players will most likely be playing any of the big systems. 5e, Pf2, Call of Cthulhu. Any system with a lot of big adventures will work for this style. Players know ahead of time what the gist of the story will be about. The GM is also usually going to know how the complete story will play out and is mainly charged with leading their group from area to area. Pushing the story along.
At certain points in the narrative, the GM or adventure path might provide the players a choice on where they wish to go first or provide some options on what they can do. However, the plotted nature of this style means that no matter what choices the players make, there will always be a defined end point for them to reach.
One popular GM that runs his games this way is the amazing Professor Dungeon Master. He does not do overarching plots but does emphasize the importance of having a cool dramatic ending. Making every session feel like a nice self contained high octane story.
How Its Prepped
If a GM is using a pre-written adventure then its very easy of them to skim and take the key details of the story and the encounters. Note the encounters and key story elements you believe will be touched on before a session, then play them out with the group. Bonus points if you can end off the session on a cliff hanger or other interesting plot point. Making players excited for the next session.
If your trying to create your own campaign in this style, then breaking down your story into key Acts that are further broken down into the sessions that make up each act can be a good way to go. For example, say your story revolves around killing Wanda The World Winder, Empress of the Kobold Empire. The first act might involve showing the players Wanda’s dastardly deads and establishing that she needs to be put down. The second act might have the players discovering how to defeat her or discovering the location of her hideout. The final act is the big show down where the players stop her once and for all.
If you only have a single session for each act, you might organize some notes like this:
Session 1 Start: players village is attacked by kobolds Middle: players fight captain of detachment End: players learn that Wanda has the Bloodstone Scepter and she will use it to conquer the realm.
Most modern game systems also give the GM a great deal of help in writing their games this way. Pf2e for example gives exact gold and treasure amounts that players should get per level as well as detailed encounter balance rules. This makes it easy for a GM to fill in the story beats with easy or hard encounters. Accommodating to the needs of the story. As well as sprinkle treasure and rewards between them.
Groups Who Like This and Strong Points
Players that wish to take a more passive role in the narrative or who wish to have a story told to them enjoy this.
Groups that want to have a high level of control of the type of story they will be playing.
Game Masters that love writing and story telling will love this style. This style is also well supported with plenty of adventure paths and pre written content for GMs to use.
The fact that the whole narrative is brought into consideration also means that the overall story of the game is likely to be better and make more sense than with the other play styles. You are much more likely to be able to tell a complete story using this style.
The pre plotted nature of the adventure makes it easy for a GM to give a good estimate of how many sessions the story is going to take. This is especially useful if a GM knows they only have a certain number of sessions that the group can play. Or if the group likes taking turns between GMs or systems. Everyone can know ahead of time that they will play a few games with one GM or system and then be swapping over to another.
Groups that Might Not Like This and Pitfalls
Players who want to have a high level of agency would not be well served by this style.
This style of play can put a significant creative burden on the GM. Leading to burn out.
Its easy for a GM to look at their story with to precious of an eye. Consciously or unconsciously forcing the group down a certain path because they want events to play out a certain way.
The story usually will revolve around the player characters and as such if a member of the party cant make it, the group will likely have to cancel. Miss a few sessions like this and everyone is likely to have forgotten what the story was about or what happened. Once the original passion for the story ends, its pretty hard for a group to get it back. Leading to incomplete campaigns.
If part of the group does not like the story or where its going, then they might not have as much fun or even leave the group.
Conclusion
Detractors of this style will call it a “Railroad”, however, that is only true if the GM does not run this style well. A good GM running a game in this style will be sure to make his players feel important and also provide opportunities for their players to make choices. Good GMs will also know when to improvise or change encounters to account for player actions. Allowing players to shape the specifics of the story while still maintaining the big overarching plot.
The planned nature of this game also allows for some very engaging and fun encounters. GMs can take time to make some fun and engaging boss battles. Establishing alternate objectives or dynamic hazards that could make for combats that are interesting and engaging.
This GM style is also very good for new GMs and players. New GMs frequently learn how to run a new system by running introductory adventures provided by the system. The Pf2 beginner box is a good example of this. Each of the encounters are pre planed and designed to teach the players a different piece of the PF2 rules. The fact the players might also be new is also a blessing because new players are more likely to follow the obvious path of the intro adventure.
The main weakness of this style is its fragility. One session follows directly into the next. Perfect attendance is extremely important for players to have a whole view of the story. Missing a session is like skipping an episode in a show.
This style is also hard to maintain for longer periods. Especially if the GM is making their own story. The entire narrative rests on the GM’s shoulders and once he has exhausted his best ideas it can be hard to keep making interesting story beats.
Ultimately, this isn’t a bad way to run a game. The fragility of the style can be limited by ensuring that stories are short. No more than 5 sessions or so. This reduces the chances of the group having to miss sessions and losing track of the story. Its also a solid way to run an episodic campaign. Where each session is it’s own self contained story and only losely relates to each other.
Collaborative Style
Collaborative games give players the chance to have a direct say in the overall narrative of the game. Some systems are purposely built with this style in mind. Fabula Ulitma has detailed procedures for the entire table to come together and world build together. Cypher System and Fabula have points that allow players to make narrative declarations like saying that their troop arrives or that their character has picked a lock like this before meaning that its easier for them to pick. Powered by the Apocalypse games also usually have questions about the world that players answer and also encourage this style of play.
These styles of game are highly player driven. Players will choose what goals they want to pursue. The game will only have an overarching plot if the players decide to give it one. Pre written material can be used in this style, however mainly as a source of inspiration for the world. Trying to run a pre written adventure in this style would require heavy reworking. It is much easier for the GM to simply ignore the plot of the adventure and simply strip it for locations, NPCs, and encounters.
How its Run
Before the game proper starts, its likely that the group playing a game in this style will have a world building session where they will collaboratively create a world together in addition to characters and their backstories. The group might have a overarching narrative they want to explore but these styles of game generally focus more on world building and character development.
Once the game proper starts details are just as likely to be filled in by players as they are by GMs. Its not uncommon for the GM to constantly ask their players questions like “how does Wendy react to this information?” Or “what is a clear giveaway that someone is a member of the Kobold Cult?”
The overall story and direction of the session might be decided by the players. For example, after a combat the GM might ask a player if the tattoo on the man’s face is the same as the one on the man that killed her mother. The player could answer yes, meaning they have found a lead or even taken revenge. Or they could answer no. Meaning they still need to keep looking. Where the story goes is up to them.
These games also might engage in none linear story telling. The GM might set up a scene where the player characters are not present. Allowing for the group to play out a meeting with the villains and foreshadowing coming threats. In this way the game plays out more like a TV episode instead of strictly following the player characters.
How Its Prepped
The main function of a GM running this style of game is as a record keeper. They must keep detailed notes during the session so that the game can stay consistent. While this can sound like a lot of work, this style of play is actually the easiest to prep for.
With no overarching plot or narrative the GM only needs to know about the location the players are in currently and where they plan on going. Its possible that a GM who is particularly good at improvisation or who has very engaged players might only prep the general idea of the main opposition for the coming sessions and some questions to ask the players to further flesh out that opposition and its relation to the players.
A GM that wishes to have a little more material with them to help with improve might write out a Front. A front is simply a list of 2 - 3 main dangers that might assault players for the session as well as sublists of actions that each danger might take.
For example, say the party is fighting Wanda again. One danger they might face is Wanda’s Kobold Horde. It might be written out like this:
Wanda’s Horde Goal: to protect Wanda and deflect intruders Portents: Scout discovers the party, Scout notifies Winston the Wildshaper of the intruders, Winston pursues the party.
Come up with 1 to 2 more dangers and your done. Now whenever theres a lull in the action, the GM has some problems that he can throw at the party to keep the game going.
The GM might also want to prepare some questions that they want answered about the characters. Things like “Would Wendy ever forgive Wanda?” Using these questions the GM can come up with scenes where they get answered. Maybe the party captures a scout and he directly asks Wendy that question.
Another great way to prep for a game in this style is to use the 8 steps of the Lazy DM from Sly Flourish. This prep style is great for helping to give the GM plenty of resources for improv-ing at the table.
Groups Who Like This and Strong Points
Players get a lot of narrative control. Some like having this control.
GMs have a lot of the burden taken off their shoulders. Running a long term campaign in this style is much easier than trying to do it in the Traditional Style.
GMs and players get to be surprised. No one person at the table knows where the story will go. This leads to fun moments at the table where one person introduces a crazy twist in the narrative that no one saw coming. Or sparks of inspiration that everyone enjoys.
This style is well suited for groups that like to roleplay.
Since everyone gets to add to the world, everyone at the table is more likely to be interested in the world.
Groups that Might Not Like This and Pitfalls
Some players find answering questions about the world to be immersion breaking. Others might find it annoying and unfun. Preferring to just play their characters.
A GM who wishes to have more control on the type or direction of a narrative might find it unfun.
It’s harder to keep the spotlight moving in these kinds of games. The GM has to take special care to ensure that all players are contributing to the world as much as they want to and that no one player is hogging all the scene time.
Groups might have disagreements on what elements to add to the world.
The narrative is sure to be all over the place since its being directed by many people.
Conclusion
Collaborative style games can be surprisingly fun. A lot of games that come out now a days also have elements of collaboration in them. The Electric State Rpg for example encourages players to create characters together and come up with backstories of how they know each other. They also encourage players to come up with conflicts that their characters might have had in the past. There is even a mechanic for player characters gaining and easing tension amongst members of the group. This mechanic is done purely by role play when a player feels that their character might be angry at another character for something they did. They can later have a scene where the players role play their characters easing tension and getting over their differences.
This style of play is also very easy to “splash” into your game. Players ask you a question you don’t know the answer to? Just turn the question back to them. Players want to get a better description of the location they are in but you have nothing written for it? Give the players a prompt to paint the scene.
The main weakness of this system is that the collaborative nature of the world can make it feel arbitrary and loose. Everyone adds bits and pieces and while it can be fun to do so in the moment, after a while the world starts to get to unwieldy.
This style of play is also not for the inexperienced GM or players. A new GM trying this style will have a game that quickly loses all continuity as events and facts established in previous sessions are lost. New players might be paralyzed and not know how to respond when the GM starts asking them questions about the world.
With the right group of people this style of game is very fun and can make for some great games. Its easy to get a game going and you never have to worry about the world being completely uninteresting for your players because all of them had a say in it.
Sandbox / Simulation Style
This style of game is the oldest. Long ago when TTRPGs where first being created this was the only style of game around. This game style seeks to create a living world for the players to experience. Random tables, procedures and generated content drive the game. Player actions are also very important since persistence is important. If a player marks a dungeon wall, that mark will remain till someone washes it off or enough time passes for it to go away. The purpose of this style is to try and maximize player immersion in the world by simulating an alternate reality.
This style is fairly well supported by older adventure modules and some modern modules as well. Play will usually focus on a single large area and the sub areas within. Travel and resources are tracked. There are few “planed” encounters since players are always in control of where they go and there is a chance for players to have random encounters when traveling. Player characters are usually important in that they have a lot of power to influence world events, however the world exists and moves independently of player characters.
How its Run
Dungeon and Hex Crawls are the most popular form of this style of play. Dominion play is also associated with this style but is much less common. The main idea of this style is that the GM or game system might establish procedures for how players go about exploring a location. Usually, movement and searching takes a set amount of time. After a certain amount of time passes, player character resources expire and a check is made to see if a wondering monster runs into the party. The tables these wondering monsters are rolled on might be provided by the system, the pre written adventure or made by the GM. OSR games specialize in this style of game. Usually providing the GM with plenty of tables to help with world creation and random encounter when the group is exploring.
Players are free to explore the world and go where they wish. The GM will usually drop adventure hooks and hits of where key locations are in the form of rumors or patreon quests. Factions usually have significant influence over the world and will work towards their own goals. Players are free to help or hinder these factions.
Between sessions, the GM might take a “faction turn”. A set of procedures and rolls that establish what each faction does over the course of a set amount of time and how these actions affect the world. Players learn about the outcomes of these faction turns through events and exploration of the world.
Big Bad Evil Guys and world ending threats will usually be avoided. Reason being that world ending threats can not be ignored by players. Instead players simply learn about plans that different factions have and they are then free to help, hinder or ignore these plans. If players hinder them, then the faction’s plans dont come about. If they help, then the faction achieves its goals. If they ignore the faction, then they may or may not achieve their goals based on the results of a faction turn.
How its Prepped
Prepping a sandbox game has the largest upfront cost for a GM. GMs don’t just have to detail locations and encounters, they must also fill out tables for wandering encounters, populate the world with factions and the relations they have with each other. The GM also has to fill out rumor tables and key NPCs and figure out ways for players to learn about what is happening in the world. Some systems also dont provide detailed procedures for exploration. In this case the GM must create his own procedures or borrow some from other systems.
This large upfront cost can be limited by not prepping an entire kingdom or large area and instead only creating a few levels of a dungeon. As the group explores deeper levels the GM might create more levels or begin fleshing out other areas of the world that the group has shown interest in.
On the bright side, once the upfront cost of prep has been paid, the game pretty much runs itself. The GM might only have to play out a faction turn between sessions and come up with some ways for players to learn of the results. Since locations are already detailed, the GM simply describes what the characters see. As characters explore, the procedures of the game will generate encounters and challenges for players to overcome. Its not uncommon for players to come back to the same area multiple times. Going deeper each go till they have completed it. Its also easy to have a restocking procedure a GM can do between expeditions. Ensuring that new threats and challenges are present for the party each time they delve.
Justin Alexander’s So you Want to be a Game Master provides a detailed explanation of how to prep adventures and entire campaigns in this style.
Groups Who Like This and Strong Points
This style of game is very nice if you have a variable number of players between sessions. The emphasis is on the world and exploring not a plot. Players who played in the world before can easily jump back into the world. Even if they have not playing in it for a while. Its also easy to introduce new players to the game.
Long running campaigns are easy with this style.
Players that seek a sort of MMO experience from their games are served well by this style. Players that like immersive worlds and having impact are also well served.
Players that like having a lot of agency and setting their own goals are well served.
GMs that like having a bit of surprise at the table are well served. Random encounters and imaginative player plans can make the game go in unforeseen directions.
With some help from pre written modules or a system that supports this style, it also servers as an excellent into for new GMs and players. It isnt as easy to run as a Traditional style game but it helps new GMs and players learn to improvise and play the game. Additionally, this style of game grows with the players and GM. As a GM gains confidence they might prep less but still run excellent games. Leaning more on dice and procedure to generate content at the table. Players will also learn to think strategically, using their knowledge of the world to influence encounters and play factions against each other to achieve their goals.
Groups that are running an “open table” style game or have a lot of players going in and out are well served by this style. This style of play is good for a sort of “Westmarches” style game where multiple game masters and player groups run games in the same world. Groups might even alternate game masters. Following different groups exploring the world.
Groups that Might Not Like This and Pitfalls
Groups that like grand narratives are not well served by this style. Grand world ending threats are antithetical to a sandbox.
Groups that want to have balanced or fair battles are not well served by this style. Its entirely possible for a group to run into a fight they cannot win. Instead players must avoid the fight or figure out another way to overcome the challenge.
Some groups might feel like the game lacks direction. Or they might not care for the world the GM has created.
Some players might not like having so much of what they find be determined by random die rolls.
In a sandbox, player characters are important but are ultimately just other inhabitants of the world. They dont start out “special” and must earn their reputation.
Systems that support this style of play also tend to have player characters be very fragile. This is by design as an adventuring world should be dangerous but fragile player characters can be hard for some players to connect with. Since they are likely to die at any moment.
Its very hard for the GM to know where or when the characters will be at the end of the session or how much of an area the Group will explore. Its possible for a group to get lucky and explore an entire complex in half a session. Its also possible for a group to not even get to their desired location in a session due to random encounters and side quests that spring up during play. This makes it hard to know if a GM has prepped enough material before a session.
The dice can be brutal. Some sessions might get bogged down by non stop random encounters and bad reaction rolls. Turning what should be a fun exploration of a location into a slog.
Conclusion
Sandbox style play is challenging but very rewarding. The longest running campaigns usually have elements of sandbox style play. The challenges of starting a sandbox game can be reduced by focusing on the starting location of the player characters. Growing the world over time instead of preparing everything all at once.
The way this style of play grows with the GM and players is also uniquely rewarding. The level of detail the world has can grow as the GM gets more comfortable with simulating it. The GM can also learn to create their own procedures or adjust other procedures to get the right feel for the game they want. Increasing or decreasing random encounter chance, changing a single die roll encounter table to a bell curve, adding checks for special events at the start of an adventure day. This style is highly customizable.
Like with Collaborative style games, the GM can strip Traditional Adventures for parts to help with world creation. Or just ask the players for their help. There are also extensive generators online and in books that can help a GM create content for their next session in a pinch.
The real weakness of this style is that, like collaborative games, it isnt going to mesh well with some groups. Its possible for players to come into a session with a goal and end the session without making significant progress on that goal. Some players might find this frustrating. Others might feel like the game isnt going anywhere since there isnt a story to advance.
More passive players also will tend to feel directionless or overwhelmed as the GM drops no hooks that interest them or so many possible adventure hooks that they loose track of them.
The upfront prep cost can also be high for GMs. Especially newer ones. Thankfully, if a GM can get over this initial hurdle, then he will be rewarded by not having to prep as much later.
Even so, this style of play was the first style of play ever made. And it has remained popular all this time for a good reason. Groups that are up to the initial challenge will find that this style is highly rewarding. On both sides of the screen.
Final Thoughts
By looking at how we run our games we get an idea of how we can make them better.
I am most experienced with the traditional style game. However I hope to someday run a true Sandbox style game. Collaborative games also intrigue me. I think my ideal would be some sort of mix of the 2 styles.
What style of play do you most identify with?