Armchair Gamer's Flavors of D&D

[Obryn]

I've been following that thread on RPG.net, and overall I think it's a really good classification system. I like that it's not used to grind axes against playstyles he doesn't personally care for.

I like the original classifications well enough, and I think the additions since the OP have been largely positive.

 

[TerraDave]

Eh.

They seem pretty arbitrary and indistinct: a single campaign, even a single session, could combine much of what is there. They are far from all encompassing. And, like so many of these posts, mischaracterize the "old days".

 

[Manbearcat]

Hmmm...didn't follow the thread on RPG.net so thanks for bringing it over.

Just to make sure that people don't confuse this with creative agenda classifications (GNS, Step On Up, Story Now, The Right to Dream), this appears to be something else entirely; classifications of flavor resulting from the overarching cultures of the times married to the mechanical resolution sets of each edition. In that vain, I find this extraordinarily insightful. The author should be commended. I'm familiar with each and every one of those playstyles and how the rulesets and cultures emboldened them (and how other rulesets would have inhibited or morphed them). I've been a DM for every single one of those tables. My Basic, 1e and 2e games (+ Chainmail/Dragon/Arduin's Grimoire, UA mixed in) covered all 4 of those initial classifications depending on the time, the group I was GMing for, and my evolution as a GM. Beyond that, I think those last two are perfectly fair classification for 3.x and 4e. You could also call 4e "Fighter Strikes Back (sorry George) with Come and Get It" if you wish.

This is a job well done.

 

[Light Knight]

I started with basic d&d, the box set with the blue cover, dragon, module B1...and played through every version. Save 4e. 4e to me was MMORPG's brought to P&P....And it was horrible. I have since switched to PF, and messed with the D&DNext stuff, but for me, I think D&D is dead....

Please talk about what you like, but don't crap on what you don't like - Plane Sailing, ENworld Admin

 

[Obryn]

I started with basic d&d, the box set with the blue cover, dragon, module B1...and played through every version. Save 4e. 4e to me was MMORPG's brought to P&P....And it was horrible. I have since switched to PF, and messed with the D&DNext stuff, but for me, I think D&D is dead....

And here I'd hoped this rather insightful thread wouldn't attract any random, off-topic "crap on edition X" posts! How foolish of me.

-O

 

[Light Knight]

And here I'd hoped this rather insightful thread wouldn't attract any random, off-topic "crap on edition X" posts! How foolish of me.

-O

Like you just did?

Maybe, had I quoted the message I was responding too, it would have been okay? Like you just did?

 

[pemerton]

I like some of the wahoo of G&G, as well as the "romantic" fantasy of P&P. I agree with the OP that P&P, especially in is 2nd ed form, is vulnerable to railroading. I think the key is for the GM to refrain from imposing/enforcing moral requirements, instead leaving this in the hands of the players.

I am not 100% sure that W&W is a distinct category; I tend to agree with the implication of [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]'s post upthread, that W&W is P&P done right: ie with the moral decision-making left in the right place to avoid railroading.

That said, maybe W&W is distinctive in combining P&P story sensibilities with mechanically heavy action resolution.

I also tend to agree with this:

I enjoy a sort of mix between P&P and Sword & Sorcery. I believe they are reflections of each other. One is prim and proper, and the other is savage and bloody, but both touch upon themes concerning nature versus nurture and law versus chaos.

This is yet another consideration in favour of getting the moral decision-making into the players' rather than the GM's hands.

 

[Obryn]

Like you just did?

Maybe, had I quoted the message I was responding too, it would have been okay? Like you just did?

....what?

 

[dd.stevenson]

It seems odd that the last is a blending of several others; I find that a little suspicious regarding the overall applicability of the scheme, but hey ho.

That was my first thought too. It's almost as if W&W was a deliberate cop-out--surely something more can be said of 4E besides "it's a blending of several older styles".

The name "Warlords & Warlocks" itself is pretty non-descriptive and un-provocative. Certainly nothing tongue-in-cheek about it. Going by the posts made by 4E advocates, I would have thought that "Encounters & Empowerment" would be a better fit.

 

[M.L. Martin]

As noted earlier, W&W has been refined and renamed to "Misfits & Mayhem," as well as broadened from just 4E to include late 3E and even some forms of 2E. It's still similar to P&P, but characters tend to be more varied and a bit less clean-cut, tending to get themselves into trouble as much as they help out others. It's also a more high-action game, and a bit more cynical and 'shades of gray'.

As Kai Tave put it on the RPG.net thread, "if P&P is the Jedi Knight then M&M is the smuggler with the beat-up spaceship and the weird alien co-pilot. They're similar enough that they can team up and have adventures together but distinct enough to each have their own flavor. "