Libramarian
Adventurer
This is a copy-paste of a post by Armchair Gamer over on RPG.net that I thought was interesting. It's an attempt to categorize D&D based on "flavor" or "feel" rather than edition, but in a way that is even-handed and doesn't implicitly malign any of the styles.
(Some quick context: it's a popular sentiment over there that whenever somebody comes up with one of these categorizations it's biased and designed to make one side look cooler than the other. They tend to think that there's no such thing as "old school D&D", in the sense that different people mean very different things by that and they're just sort of pretending to be a united front in order to make new editions look bad. So basically this tries to blow up "old school D&D" into 4 different flavors.)
Which one describes your preference and what do you think of the categories in general?
Originally Posted by Piestrio
The thing I liked about 2e is the flavor.
I know, I know they "ripped all the flavor from AD&D" and "Watered it down" and "Made it too PC" etc... etc...
I contend that they didn't actually remove flavoring, or tone, or themes or anything.
They just changed them. If you went into 2e looking for the tone and flavor of 1e you would not find it and, alas, far too many people stopped there and assumed that this meant they had removed it.
2e is a game about "Romantic" fantasy (not the sub genre "Romantic Fantasy" but fantasy through a romantic lens). It s about being a hero and doing the right thing by people who depend on you. It's about striving to overcome challenges of the spirt. It a "clean" fantasy, with shining castles and good kings, friendly innkeepers and helpful travelers.
That's what I like about 2e.
However, it’s not strictly limited to 2nd Edition—I’d start it with Tracy Hickman’s adventures, such as Ravenloft and especially the Dragonlance saga, and it also informs later BECMI work as well. It was part of TSR policy for a while; see Jim Ward’s article “Angry Mothers from Heck” in DRAGON #154, where he talks about a focus on ‘saving the princess’ adventures where heroes accomplish some sort of positive goals. (In considering this, I looked back over my formative influences and realized that between Leia, Lucy the Valiant, Adora, Eilonwy, Laurana and even some versions of Princess Zelda, a lot of the ‘princesses’ that inform this generation and their take on the game are pretty darn good at saving and helping out as well as being saved.)
Simulation & Spellcasters (2002+): What 3rd Edition became ‘in the wild’, although one can find roots of it in some earlier approaches to the game. The comprehensive, cohesive and well-defined nature of the rules led to a rise in ‘rules as physics’ and further development of earlier attempts to work out how a D&D world would naturally function. Given the high power of magic, spellcasters become a dominant element in both the world and in gameplay. Eberron has strong roots in this school, and I believe [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] deals with it some as well, if only by virtue of its 3E roots. Here on the rpg.net forum, it’s often disparaged, but we have some strong and eloquent voices in support of it.
Warlords & Warlocks (2008+): This is the one flavor so far that’s largely identified with an edition—namely, 4th Edition. This is largely due to the strong mechanical definition and the shakeups in flavor text that edition brought; no other edition seems to be so successful at carrying and maintaining its decided style. It’s a mixture and evolution of DC&Dm and P&P, albeit more high-action than the former and grittier than the latter, and focused on set-piece encounters, tactical combat, and often a sense of growing scope and power, with an endgame strongly informed by G&G.
Comments, criticism and corrections are welcomed. Many of these could use expansion and refinement, and I’m open to the possibility that there may be one or two flavors I’ve overlooked. I don’t want to divide things too finely, though, and I don’t know that one could really collapse any of the already-identified styles without losing something.
First thing I will say is that I disagree that the OSR mostly favors Knights & Kobolds. The OSR seems to me to be all about Galactic Dragons & Godwars, to the extent where it's actually difficult to find good OSR adventure modules that aren't really gonzo/weird (I know because I've tried). In fact I would say that I'm starting to come around to the GD&G flavor, despite being initially suspicious of it, largely because of the OSR.
(Some quick context: it's a popular sentiment over there that whenever somebody comes up with one of these categorizations it's biased and designed to make one side look cooler than the other. They tend to think that there's no such thing as "old school D&D", in the sense that different people mean very different things by that and they're just sort of pretending to be a united front in order to make new editions look bad. So basically this tries to blow up "old school D&D" into 4 different flavors.)
Which one describes your preference and what do you think of the categories in general?
Flavors of D&D
Well, I’ve been using this as shorthand for a while now, and some folks have noticed, so I thought I’d put it out there for public consideration/critique/destruction. It’s an attempt to provide a shorthand way of referring to the various major ‘flavors’ of D&D, in a way that’s less divisive and dualistic than ‘old school vs. new school’ and more focused on theme, flavor and playstyle than simply referring to the editions. As will be noted, many editions have a foot in two or more camps, and I expect many players will as well. (For a comedic example, Knights of the Dinner Table is about a group of gamers mixing Knaves & Kobolds/Dungeoncrawling & Demons, for example, with one player who’s more suited to Paladins & Princesses and a DM who straddles the DC&Dm/P&P line.)
Bear in mind that this is largely an academic, armchair gamer’s work looking at most of these camps from outside. I’ve tried to be as fair and impartial as possible, but my own biases undoubtedly inform it. (First one to guess which playstyle I really don’t care for here gets a no-prize.) The time frames given are not for the origins of the playstyles, or when they were ‘official’, although some of both is involved—rather, it’s a best guess of when they were at their peak. It's decidedly not meant to determine what's 'real D&D' or 'not D&D', but to help us better identify where we and others are coming from, and perhaps eventually what material and mechanics best support our goals.
Please note that all the titles are meant to be both alliterative and somewhat tongue-in-cheek. It’s about pretending to be knaves/godslayers/dungeoncrawlers/paladins/spellcasters/warlords and warlocks/other fantasy characters, after all; let’s not take it too seriously.
Knaves & Kobolds (1972-1977, 2005+): This encompasses the kind of game discussed by Old Geezer, run by Gygax and Arneson, and celebrated by much of the Old School Renaissance crowd. It’s also referred to as “Fantasy F#&@*!ing Vietnam.” The protagonists tend to be scoundrels and ne’er-do-wells (hence the “Knaves” portion of the title), treasure is the main goal, life is cheap and the game seems to be at a lower, somewhat grimier scale than later iterations (“Kobolds”). Campaigns tend to involve rivalry and fragile alliances as much as cooperation, with a stronger emphasis on high-level soloing and the political endgame than is typically seen elsewhere.
Galactic Dragons & Godwars (1974-1982?): This one was brought to my attention by Lizard; apparently it’s represented by the Arduin Grimoire and similar publications. It’s sort of the mirror image of K&K, with lots of wild, wahoo, over-the-top fantasy, informed by the pulpier and more hallucinogenic sides of sword & sorcery and 70s fantasy. It informs even some material in the official line—Erol Otus’ art fits in here as well as with K&K, I believe, and Deities & Demigods wound up being used as a Monster Manual for this sort of game. It’s not necessarily Monty Haul or crude powergaming, although it can degenerate into that—just as all other flavors of D&D have their dark sides. (Nasty player vs. player rivalries, mindless hack-and-slash, railroading, CoDzilla, and tedious combat encounters, for examples.) Dark Sun is arguably an outcropping of this, crossed with some elements of K&K, emerging at the height of the P&P era.
Dungeoncrawling & Demons (1977-1986, 1998+): The ‘default’ flavor of the second generation of the game, after it grew beyond the wargaming crowd. It’s the flavor suggested by the original AD&D manuals, as they were received by the community: adventuring parties become smaller and more cohesive, combat begins to be more emphasized, and the political endgame starts to fade into the background. This style isn’t solely about dungeoncrawling, but that’s one of the ‘distinctives’ of the game; likewise, while demons aren’t the only opponents, they tend to be very popular ones and held up as one of the key elements that makes this style different from several others (P&P). It’s also the ‘back to D&D’ flavor that 3rd Edition tried to recapture, and that was strongly supported for most of that line’s official run. [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate], I believe, still carries strong elements of this, especially the ‘demons’ side.
Well, I’ve been using this as shorthand for a while now, and some folks have noticed, so I thought I’d put it out there for public consideration/critique/destruction. It’s an attempt to provide a shorthand way of referring to the various major ‘flavors’ of D&D, in a way that’s less divisive and dualistic than ‘old school vs. new school’ and more focused on theme, flavor and playstyle than simply referring to the editions. As will be noted, many editions have a foot in two or more camps, and I expect many players will as well. (For a comedic example, Knights of the Dinner Table is about a group of gamers mixing Knaves & Kobolds/Dungeoncrawling & Demons, for example, with one player who’s more suited to Paladins & Princesses and a DM who straddles the DC&Dm/P&P line.)
Bear in mind that this is largely an academic, armchair gamer’s work looking at most of these camps from outside. I’ve tried to be as fair and impartial as possible, but my own biases undoubtedly inform it. (First one to guess which playstyle I really don’t care for here gets a no-prize.) The time frames given are not for the origins of the playstyles, or when they were ‘official’, although some of both is involved—rather, it’s a best guess of when they were at their peak. It's decidedly not meant to determine what's 'real D&D' or 'not D&D', but to help us better identify where we and others are coming from, and perhaps eventually what material and mechanics best support our goals.
Please note that all the titles are meant to be both alliterative and somewhat tongue-in-cheek. It’s about pretending to be knaves/godslayers/dungeoncrawlers/paladins/spellcasters/warlords and warlocks/other fantasy characters, after all; let’s not take it too seriously.
Knaves & Kobolds (1972-1977, 2005+): This encompasses the kind of game discussed by Old Geezer, run by Gygax and Arneson, and celebrated by much of the Old School Renaissance crowd. It’s also referred to as “Fantasy F#&@*!ing Vietnam.” The protagonists tend to be scoundrels and ne’er-do-wells (hence the “Knaves” portion of the title), treasure is the main goal, life is cheap and the game seems to be at a lower, somewhat grimier scale than later iterations (“Kobolds”). Campaigns tend to involve rivalry and fragile alliances as much as cooperation, with a stronger emphasis on high-level soloing and the political endgame than is typically seen elsewhere.
Galactic Dragons & Godwars (1974-1982?): This one was brought to my attention by Lizard; apparently it’s represented by the Arduin Grimoire and similar publications. It’s sort of the mirror image of K&K, with lots of wild, wahoo, over-the-top fantasy, informed by the pulpier and more hallucinogenic sides of sword & sorcery and 70s fantasy. It informs even some material in the official line—Erol Otus’ art fits in here as well as with K&K, I believe, and Deities & Demigods wound up being used as a Monster Manual for this sort of game. It’s not necessarily Monty Haul or crude powergaming, although it can degenerate into that—just as all other flavors of D&D have their dark sides. (Nasty player vs. player rivalries, mindless hack-and-slash, railroading, CoDzilla, and tedious combat encounters, for examples.) Dark Sun is arguably an outcropping of this, crossed with some elements of K&K, emerging at the height of the P&P era.
Dungeoncrawling & Demons (1977-1986, 1998+): The ‘default’ flavor of the second generation of the game, after it grew beyond the wargaming crowd. It’s the flavor suggested by the original AD&D manuals, as they were received by the community: adventuring parties become smaller and more cohesive, combat begins to be more emphasized, and the political endgame starts to fade into the background. This style isn’t solely about dungeoncrawling, but that’s one of the ‘distinctives’ of the game; likewise, while demons aren’t the only opponents, they tend to be very popular ones and held up as one of the key elements that makes this style different from several others (P&P). It’s also the ‘back to D&D’ flavor that 3rd Edition tried to recapture, and that was strongly supported for most of that line’s official run. [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate], I believe, still carries strong elements of this, especially the ‘demons’ side.
Paladins & Princesses (1983-1998): Ah, this one is going to be tricky. This is my style and era, the kind that I’ve always wanted to get back to—so it’s why I have to be careful to ensure it’s a real thing and not just my own preferences and nostalgia projected backwards. To that end, I’m going to quote another fan, Piestrio:
Originally Posted by Piestrio
The thing I liked about 2e is the flavor.
I know, I know they "ripped all the flavor from AD&D" and "Watered it down" and "Made it too PC" etc... etc...
I contend that they didn't actually remove flavoring, or tone, or themes or anything.
They just changed them. If you went into 2e looking for the tone and flavor of 1e you would not find it and, alas, far too many people stopped there and assumed that this meant they had removed it.
2e is a game about "Romantic" fantasy (not the sub genre "Romantic Fantasy" but fantasy through a romantic lens). It s about being a hero and doing the right thing by people who depend on you. It's about striving to overcome challenges of the spirt. It a "clean" fantasy, with shining castles and good kings, friendly innkeepers and helpful travelers.
That's what I like about 2e.
However, it’s not strictly limited to 2nd Edition—I’d start it with Tracy Hickman’s adventures, such as Ravenloft and especially the Dragonlance saga, and it also informs later BECMI work as well. It was part of TSR policy for a while; see Jim Ward’s article “Angry Mothers from Heck” in DRAGON #154, where he talks about a focus on ‘saving the princess’ adventures where heroes accomplish some sort of positive goals. (In considering this, I looked back over my formative influences and realized that between Leia, Lucy the Valiant, Adora, Eilonwy, Laurana and even some versions of Princess Zelda, a lot of the ‘princesses’ that inform this generation and their take on the game are pretty darn good at saving and helping out as well as being saved.)
Simulation & Spellcasters (2002+): What 3rd Edition became ‘in the wild’, although one can find roots of it in some earlier approaches to the game. The comprehensive, cohesive and well-defined nature of the rules led to a rise in ‘rules as physics’ and further development of earlier attempts to work out how a D&D world would naturally function. Given the high power of magic, spellcasters become a dominant element in both the world and in gameplay. Eberron has strong roots in this school, and I believe [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] deals with it some as well, if only by virtue of its 3E roots. Here on the rpg.net forum, it’s often disparaged, but we have some strong and eloquent voices in support of it.
Warlords & Warlocks (2008+): This is the one flavor so far that’s largely identified with an edition—namely, 4th Edition. This is largely due to the strong mechanical definition and the shakeups in flavor text that edition brought; no other edition seems to be so successful at carrying and maintaining its decided style. It’s a mixture and evolution of DC&Dm and P&P, albeit more high-action than the former and grittier than the latter, and focused on set-piece encounters, tactical combat, and often a sense of growing scope and power, with an endgame strongly informed by G&G.
Comments, criticism and corrections are welcomed. Many of these could use expansion and refinement, and I’m open to the possibility that there may be one or two flavors I’ve overlooked. I don’t want to divide things too finely, though, and I don’t know that one could really collapse any of the already-identified styles without losing something.
First thing I will say is that I disagree that the OSR mostly favors Knights & Kobolds. The OSR seems to me to be all about Galactic Dragons & Godwars, to the extent where it's actually difficult to find good OSR adventure modules that aren't really gonzo/weird (I know because I've tried). In fact I would say that I'm starting to come around to the GD&G flavor, despite being initially suspicious of it, largely because of the OSR.
