Armchair Gamer's Flavors of D&D

[Light Knight]

....what?

You were calling me out on making an off topic quote, by making an off topic quote. And I was simply stating, I was doing the same thing...Making an off topic quote against another's off topic quote, I just didn't quote that quote.

Now that was a mouthful (fingersful)

 

[Obryn]

You were calling me out on making an off topic quote, by making an off topic quote. And I was simply stating, I was doing the same thing...Making an off topic quote against another's off topic quote, I just didn't quote that quote.

Now that was a mouthful (fingersful)

I was more pointing out unnecessary edition warring.

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. "

I think that's a fair grouping, as well. Really, by late 3.5, the grounds for a PC group consisting of a weird bunch of dragon-people, kobolds, yak-men, hellfire warlocks, etc. had been laid with how firmly entrenched monsters-as-PCs and multi-multi-multi-classed characters had become. So thematically, there's a continuum there, as well, and it's less surprising in retrospect that 4e had some of the more oddball stuff from 3.5 (and new inventions) in its own core book.

-O

 

[Libramarian]

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. "

Well, I can certainly see how M&M's emphasis on pacing and high-action distinguishes it from P&P. In P&P you're supposed to have extended periods of just wandering around, soaking up the ambient good vibes, before/after the big bad obvious evil shows up and is defeated, right? It's like the D&D version of Chicken Soup for the Soul. 4e's advice to "get to the encounter, get to the fun" seems adverse to this.

 

[Libramarian]

And, like so many of these posts, mischaracterize the "old days".

What makes you say that?

 

[Starfox]

Agree very strongly that this is all about player genre - how the game is played. At the same time, I find it is often useful to have a baseline assumption as a part of a campaign setup. Or perhaps just to invite a compatible group of players. If some players are expecting P&P and others are expecting something much more gritty, these expectations can certainly clash. That said the GM should not enforce P&P (or any other genre), nor should it be too strongly integrated into the campaign. It is a method of solving an adventure more than a method for making adventures. The GM and adventure just has to be flexible enough to allow for different playstyles.

Edit: From what I hear of my friend's Way of the Wicked campaign, that seems pretty much like P&P to me - it is epic, it is motivated by (evil) pathos rather than mercenary self-interest, and it focuses on characters more than on dungeons. Anyone who played it can expound on this?

 

[Manbearcat]

Agree very strongly that this is all about player genre - how the game is played. At the same time, I find it is often useful to have a baseline assumption as a part of a campaign setup. Or perhaps just to invite a compatible group of players. If some players are expecting P&P and others are expecting something much more gritty, these expectations can certainly clash.

I very much agree with this. Genre coherence is extremely important to finicky movie-goers and book-readers. Agreeable mood, pacing, tropes/conceits are a large part of quality of product for me. I don't know if this is inherent to my mental framework or something that has just developed over time, but it has transcended those two mediums and is very much present in my gaming. My players share these same concerns. As such, any dedicated, long-term campaign has to have this interest as a centerpiece. Making sure folks are on the same page here (so Jack and Sally don't show up and randomly insert clown shoes, slap-stick comedy and kazoos in a grim and gritty game or the inverse in a wahoo game) with their expectations of color, conventions and techniques is a big one for us.

 

[Tuft]

Anyone who played it can expound on this?

[MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION]: Extensive thread at http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?320249-Advice-for-way-of-the-wicked

 

[Tuft]

Making sure folks are on the same page here (so Jack and Sally don't show up and randomly insert clown shoes, slap-stick comedy and kazoos in a grim and gritty game or the inverse in a wahoo game) with their expectations of color, conventions and techniques is a big one for us.

The problem is when the player pool is limited, and some potential players ar strongly-opinioned; how do you work out a compromize in a way that maximize player participation?

 

[Manbearcat]

@Tuft

A heaping helping of clarity. Transparency and overt discourse has to be the catalyst for this.

The rest amounts to putting the big-boy-pants on (being an adult) and making a collective cost/benefit analysis if this is indeed the right group, table dynamics, game/mechanical resolution set for all the respective players.

I have always probed any potential new players for their self-awareness, thoughtfulness, conscientiousness. Its alarming the number of folks (adults, grown men and women) who don't possess these traits. Further, they don't understand their own gaming preferences or how the mechanical resolution tools/gaming systems that they think they prefer are in total discord with how their tastes/yearnings manifest at the table.

The only way to get all of this stuff right (to the best degree possible), you have to possess those traits and talk frankly about them with folks. I think one of the reasons why we all struggle so is because big-boy-pants, willingness to be overt in your language/message (while being respectful and civil) and self-awareness, thoughtfulness, conscientiousness is an amalgamation of traits that seems to be a tall order for a great many people.

 

[Argyle King]

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. "

Forgive the pun, but that description (as well as how W&W has been presented on rpg.net) seems alien to me. I suppose it should come as no surprise to me that my experiences with 4E have given me a vastly different impression of it than what others seem to have -especially since nearly every thread I've been involved in about it has gotten to a point where virtually nobody else (who regularly posts about the game) seems to have had the experiences I've had.

Part of my problem with this set of classifications (as well as others) is that I came to tabletop gaming of my own accord. I wasn't swayed into it by older siblings or anyone else I knew who played such games. One way or another, I just happened across the concept of tabletop gaming, and it is something which fit with my interests. I developed my own likes and dislikes largely independent of outside influences... or at least independent of what seem to be the common influences for other people.