I played a lot of Arduin in the 80s and higher level AD&D was popular, so I have great affection for Galactic Dragons & God Wars. We did pantheon slaying in a great campaign where evil gods of various pantheons allied together and we had to hunt them down and slay them. That's what Dieties & Demigods was for!

My Knaves & Kobolds play was less D&D and more WFRP 1e which I loved. Also, that's how most of RuneQuest games were too back when. We played the hell out of RQ 2e and Stormbringer and K&K would describe those games we played much more than our D&D play.

Dungeoncrawling & Demons is how we played Ravenloft, Dark Sun and Planescape in the 2e years. We had a good time and I'd be happy to play this style again.

I am not a fan of Paladins & Princesses and I loathe Simulation & Spellcasters. I find P&P to be dull because I found the players expect the happy ending to be delivered to them, much more than they were willing to push to make that happen.

I don't think the Warlords & Warlocks definition of a flavor makes sense, especially since the Armchair Gamer can't even explain it except as an amalgam of the other flavors.

Quote from: The Butcher;789088Whining aside, I think there are a few good points being raised about the taxonomy.

"Simulation & Spellcasters" and "Warlords & Warlocks" aren't really terrific categories. First, poor naming, I too like "Grids & Gishes" better. It better captures what set the 3.5e and 4e communities apart from the OSR and fans of previous editions; a lot of emphasis on "tactical" and dynamic combat, wioth movement and attacks of opportunity and whatnot, as well as the importance "character optimization" with builds and choosing right class at the right time, picking up the right feats, etc.

Second, I'm not sure they deserve consideration as separate categories. The above mentioned "new" gaming culture that always existed but became really, really vocal starting with 3e, was probably the driving force behind 3.5e and even more so for 4e.

Third, they superficially look like Dungeoncrawling & Demons (which is probably at least part of the reason why a lot of lapsed 1e players came back for 3e). I remember when 3e first came out and there was some feeling of "the good ol' days of dungeon crawling are back" in the air. Of course, the game did pick up a lot of cultural accretions on the way, such as the dungeonpunk aesthetic and elements from East Asian visual pop art (manga/anime) as well as video games. But those feel mostly aesthetic to me. It's the "grids & gishes" that really make "new school" (3e/4e) stand out to me.

As someone who was fairly involved in both 3.x and 4e at one point before I realized they both kind of made me miserable, I think there was a distinct change in emphasis between them that merits separate categories, but it's hard to quantify. Both were very tactical- and build-oriented, it's true, but I think the experience they cultivated was otherwise somewhat distinct. Armchair points out that characters that start out a lot stronger and are somewhat more motley in nature (especially as far as race) and gameplay is largely focused on setpiece encounters in W&W and I think that's definitely accurate, whereas Si&Sp is very... very simulationist, it's much more about trying to treat the rules as a physics textbook, whereas W&W is much more about making a world that's a place for the PCs to shine and treating the rules as just a function of gameplay. It's hard to describe but I hope you see what I mean.

I like a lot of things in the linked post but it really seems to switch gears halfway through between descriptions of campaign style to descriptions of rules. For example P&P is a great category and while it's most associated with 2ed historically it's not intrinsically tied to any rule set, while the last few categories don't seem to say that much more about play style than "we used 3.5ed" or "we've got a lot of races."

Quote from: LibraryLass;789129I think that's definitely accurate, whereas Si&Sp is very... very simulationist, it's much more about trying to treat the rules as a physics textbook, whereas W&W is much more about making a world that's a place for the PCs to shine and treating the rules as just a function of gameplay. It's hard to describe but I hope you see what I mean.

I definitely can see a difference in focus between 3.5 and 4, but take a look at full-blown Rolemaster, Harnmaster, HERO or GURPS and you'll see a difference between those and 3.5e.  Extreme crunch by itself does not necessarily make a "rules engine as physics" game.  True, 3.5e didn't completely divorce itself from the reality of what was going on through dissociation like 4e did, but a lot of odd elements and situations arose from the adherence to the combat grid and the "tactical challenge" of the rules.

I went with Warlocks and Warlords and Si&Sp mainly because those are the two play-styles I've grown accustomed to over the last decade and a half. They also fit with how my group genuinely approaches D&D as a whole.

I believe I started off with P&P in our late AD&D 2e games but it was mostly because I was pulled in through the CRPG Baldur's Gate and my friend got me into the pen and paper version. The video game was a lot better IMO.

Though as I read the other versions I'm fairly sure I could do nearly most of them with any system, even W&W with the right amount of tweaking. It seriously isn't that hard to make things more deadly or gritty at low levels where any game is concerned and the other parts seem to focus more on theme and attitude of the style rather than physical mechanics.

But i play rogues and ruffians.... Where's my pigeon hole?

The 3e and 4e playstyles are indeed ill defined. I suspect that might be because the creator of the categories doesn't have a lot of first hand experience with the playstyles, but I could be wrong. This is of course all a constructed model, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be made more accurate.

I think there's a playstyle that is particularly well suited for these two editions, but doable in all. I'll try to define it, having played in the style for years:

Actionheros and Aberrations: This one is all about kicking butt and taking names. A low level rogue is James Bond, at high level an adventuring company pretty much turns into The Avengers.

Combat is not seen as something to be avoided, but a central part of the game, a place to showcase the PCs. DMs strive to make the game as cinematic as possible. Character deaths are either rare or resurrections are common.

Aberrations points to this being more prevalent in the newer editions (as far as I know, 3e was the first to present the aberration creature type). It further points to a striving for ever more exotic design in monsters and villains ("half-dragon dampyr centaur sorcerer/bloodmage instead of a “boring” old evil wizard"). If you are not a fan, you can also consider "Aberrations" to indicate special snowflake syndrome in PC creation which ends up with parties that make the cantina scene blush with embarrassment over a lack of diversion.

The style is strongly informed by comic books and animation (both western and eastern), action movies and videogames. Charop becomes a natural outgrowth of gaming in this style, as PCs, much like superheros, are as much defined by their unique abilities as by their personality and background.

This was the dominant style in my old group. It is quite fun, but it doesn't mesh well with my DMing style and it can feel shallow (not to everyone though).

Quote from: Gold Roger;789180The 3e and 4e playstyles are indeed ill defined. I suspect that might be because the creator of the categories doesn't have a lot of first hand experience with the playstyles, but I could be wrong. This is of course all a constructed model, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be made more accurate.

  Guilty as charged. It's based heavily on reading and observation.

  However, the model evolved over the course of the discussion thread(s). We actually did refine Warlords & Warlocks into its own distinct style--"Misfits & Mayhem"--which fits in a lot of the stuff you mention below, with action set pieces, a more frenetic feel, and unique PCs, often with a dose of cynicism towards authority and a few other factors. It shows up heavily in 4E, but you can trace it back to things like the Complete Book of Humanoids in 2E, the Creature Crucible series for BECMI, and Savage Species.

  Spellcasting & Simulation may be overrepresented on TBP thanks to the presence of folks like Lizard and Pedantic, and I think a lot of the people who favored that style pre-3E moved out of the D&D family altogether and on to things like Runequest, Harn and Rolemaster. But it's definitely got a precedent in D&D--things like the Ecology articles in Dragon, for example, and other attempts at 'hard fantasy'.

  Note that these flavors were meant to be general trends and styles, and they often mix and bleed into each other a lot, with campaigns blending two or three flavors or evolving from one to another (especially in the case of Galactic Dragons & Godwars and another one proposed later, Castles & Cronies, that focused on the stronghold-building and domain management portions of the game). The names, FWIW, are meant to be affectionately tongue in cheek and avoid both the problems of defining things strictly by edition or system--AD&D moved through several different flavors in its own lifespan, for example--or the somewhat judgemental implications of 'old school/new school'.

Quote from: Gold Roger;789180The 3e and 4e playstyles are indeed ill defined. I suspect that might be because the creator of the categories doesn't have a lot of first hand experience with the playstyles, but I could be wrong. This is of course all a constructed model, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be made more accurate.

I think there's a playstyle that is particularly well suited for these two editions, but doable in all. I'll try to define it, having played in the style for years:

Actionheros and Aberrations: This one is all about kicking butt and taking names. A low level rogue is James Bond, at high level an adventuring company pretty much turns into The Avengers.

Combat is not seen as something to be avoided, but a central part of the game, a place to showcase the PCs. DMs strive to make the game as cinematic as possible. Character deaths are either rare or resurrections are common.

Aberrations points to this being more prevalent in the newer editions (as far as I know, 3e was the first to present the aberration creature type). It further points to a striving for ever more exotic design in monsters and villains ("half-dragon dampyr centaur sorcerer/bloodmage instead of a “boring” old evil wizard"). If you are not a fan, you can also consider "Aberrations" to indicate special snowflake syndrome in PC creation which ends up with parties that make the cantina scene blush with embarrassment over a lack of diversion.

The style is strongly informed by comic books and animation (both western and eastern), action movies and videogames. Charop becomes a natural outgrowth of gaming in this style, as PCs, much like superheros, are as much defined by their unique abilities as by their personality and background.

This was the dominant style in my old group. It is quite fun, but it doesn't mesh well with my DMing style and it can feel shallow (not to everyone though).

I dunno. I think there's as much conceptual difference between them as between K&K and Dc&Dm.

Edit: Oh, hey, fancy seeing you here, Armchair! I thought I remembered W&W eventually being replaced, but I didn't feel like going through that lengthy thread to check. I do seem to recall there was eventually a sequel thread that provided updated definitions out of the discussion though, wasn't there? Let's see if I can find it.

Double edit: Found it!
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?695583-Theory-Flavors-of-D-amp-D-II-Finding-the-Right-Tools-for-the-Jobs

Quote from: Armchair GamerLate last year, I posted some ramblings on the various flavors that D&D has evolved into over the past forty years. It seemed to be received fairly well, and I've been thinking about a next step--and now seems to be the right time.

  We are currently suffering from an embarrassment of riches when it comes to D&D. By the end of 2013, almost every official version of the rules will be available in print or PDF format. WotC has reversed their stand on PDFs and is steadily putting out a wide array of older material. And when you add in Pathfinder, the OGL, the GSL and the OSR . . . it's a good time to be a D&D fan.

  But it can also be a frustrating time. Pace Mike Mearls and the WotC marketing team, the game has not always remained the same. And the game hasn't always understood what it's about--indeed, a case could be made that no edition of D&D since AD&D 1st Edition has really presented itself in a fashion that matches the playstyle that emerges naturally from the rules. It can be a challenge to identify what baseline and supplemental materials would be best suited to the kind of play a given player or group wants from the game.

  There's a lot to be said for just taking a certain game and going with it--this appears to be a large portion of the OSR's success. But for those who've identified what kind of D&D they want, I thought it might be a good idea to identify what systems, settings, adventures, and options best support each flavor of D&D.

  Thus, this topic arises from the grave like a hungry ghoul or desperate Hollywood sequel. I'm starting it off with a list of the various styles we generally identified last winter and the tropes that each involves which can be best served by mechanics. I make use of WotC's "combat/exploration/interaction" triangle structure to help define them, as well as other notes. I've also included my own initial thoughts on what core systems generally support each style the best. I'm hoping other gamers will help me expand that with corrections and references to other variants on D&D, as well as settings, adventures, and rules options that best reinforce each flavor and can help get a campaign in each style up and running.

  Please note that this is a theoretical work, and a work in progress. We had a bunch of positive discussion and refinement on the original thread, and I'd like to keep that same spirit going forward. (Like trying to capture lightning in a bottle a second time. Here's to hoping I don't get struck.) Correction, refinement and disagreement are welcomed, although accusations that I'm trying to insidiously undermine the OSR/Pathfinder/WotC/the True Way of D&D have been found to be hurtful.

  If you're not familiar with the original thread, you can find a link in my signature. Most of the styles haven't changed that much, but a new one's been added (a link to the post defining it is included below), one (G&G) has been slightly renamed, and one has been radically renamed ("Warlords & Warlocks" is now "Misfits and Mayhem") and refined.

  Here we go again.

Knaves & Kobolds
Tropes: Treasure is the primary focus and reward. Life is cheap, and fighting’s usually for suckers; a fair fight, doubly so. Exploration is central, with a focus on logistics and resources. Interaction is also important and focused primarily on allies (PC and NPCs) and encounters within the dungeon. Party unity is less of a thing than in other styles, and the endgame of acquiring a stronghold and political power is more emphasized. Worldbuilding can be done, but is less important than the in-play experience—there’s a strong streak of parody and satire, at least in the original forms of this style.
System Thoughts: OD&D appears to have been built around/built up this style, and Holmes Basic, B/X and BECMI are close enough to apparently do it well. AD&D contains enough roots of it to be a reasonably good fit for it. 3E and 4E lose the endgame and strongly de-emphasize the ‘avoid combat’ and ‘collect treasure’ elements of this style, and have numerous other issues with it.

Gamma Rays & Godslayers (aka Galactic Dragons & Godwars)
Tropes: This style revolves heavily around ‘muchness’—use all that cool stuff put out by TSR/WotC, other companies, and even other media sources. (“Gamma Rays” in the new title highlights the overlap with sci-fi, comic books, and the beloved GAMMA WORLD game.  ) Thus, PCs will tend to have vast resources and confront major threats. The combat and magic systems will therefore need to account for broad varieties of power and effects; exploration will likewise be broader in scope. Realism generally takes a backseat to ‘rule of cool’ or flights of pure imagination. This strikes me as one of the two flavors that’s most likely to emerge as the evolution of a campaign instead of being present at the start—but it also seems to be one of the two that’s most likely to take us outside the realms of D&D system-wise.
System Thoughts: OD&D is loose enough to handle it; B/X probably caps too early, but BECMI can really engage it once things get high-enough level, especially if one adds in all 36 Immortal levels. AD&D has the vast arrays of magic, monsters and gods to help this style, as does 3E, although the latter requires some work to keep the non-casters competitive. 4E fits elements of this style into Epic, but in a more contained way, and Epic support is one of the things that edition lost out on.

Dungeoncrawling & Demons
Tropes: This is the ‘stereotypical’ D&D style (although the original apparently hews more closely to K&K). Combat becomes more central, but can be anything from quick and dirty to elaborate tactical setpieces. (Given the tendency to fit a lot of encounters into a ‘crawl’, though, faster and simpler combat systems appear to be preferred.) Exploration remains a key element, but shifts away from logistical challenges to engaging with traps, hazards and the like. Interaction tends to take place outside the dungeon more than inside it. This is a style I really don’t have much of a feel for, so I welcome revision and expansion.
System Thoughts: AD&D and its adventures (especially the tourneys) and style really define this flavor, it seems. WotC is bound and determined that this flavor is D&D, but the systems designed under their aegis fit better with other styles.

Castles & Cronies (thanks to Daztur for pointing out this one)
Tropes: I’m going to go with a selection from Daztur’s original post here:

QuoteIt grows out from the fact that a lot of TSR-D&D modules were crazy generous with loot and if adopt that as standard for your own adventures and play in a way in which player death is very rare then the players will eventually accumulate big gobs of cash and magic items. Just like the accumulate lots of magic items the players get more and more allies (often more like a cross between DM PCs and spare PCs than Old Geezer's henchmen and hirelings, the henchmen rules usually aren't used here) almost always including intelligent flying mounts. This play style is often reinforce with how saves work in TSR-D&D (it's very hard to kill high level characters with instant death attacks).

When you have that much treasure and that many allies a lot of play becomes the Sims: Fantasy Billionaire Edition. The players build or take over a base and make out complicated floor with descriptions of what's where and suites for different PCs and important allies with notations about where things like who gets to hang the tapestry made out of goddess hair in their bedroom and where the solid gold throne of the dwarven kings gets put in relation to the dinner table. Also with no real magic item economy the players track which ally gets their cast off magic items and whatnot. A lot of play involve wrangling the PCs' allies and helping them in various ways.

Despite having a big damn castle there's no real domain management or political intrigue, even if some of the PCs are rulers, aside from "the kingdom is in danger, let's go save it!" These games tend to be long running with low player turnover so they can end up creating a lot of interesting settling detail over the years.

System Thoughts: As Daztur points out, this seems to fit into the later era of TSR D&D, when PCs are more resilient. It’s sort of the grounded cousin to G&G, and like that style, is usually an evolution of an earlier campaign (although Birthright for 2E starts out in this style or a close cousin to it). Domain management rules and the like are helpful, but apparently not essential. 3E and 4E handicap it by making the party more self-reliant and the economy more magic-item centric.

Paladins & Princesses
Tropes: PCs are generally virtuous and altruistic heroes; even those with a mercenary streak tend to be more like Han Solo than Boba Fett or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. Combat tends to be dramatic but low on PC lethality. Exploration is about heroic quests, the thrill of discovery and interaction than logistics and resources. Interaction is a central element of this style, and tends to the melodramatic. Worldbuilding is also key, but focused on story and dramatics rather than ‘realism’ or the elaboration of premises.
System Thoughts: 2E wanted to be this flavor, but was running on a DC&D engine. I’d like to say BECMI can do it if you tweak a few things, but that might be a mix of presentation and wishful thinking. 4E fits it very nicely, with quest rewards and the like, so long as you can deal with some of the darker-edged PC options in the core.

Simulation & Spellcasting
Tropes: This is the style that follows the perceived AD&D tradition of codifying everything. Rules don’t necessarily have to be minutely detailed, but they do need to be comprehensive and capable of handling the interactions and implications of setting elements. There’s a strong push towards “real-world physics + magic” in this style, and magic itself tends to be very rational, reliable, and almost scientific. Worldbuilding is heavy here, but in a ‘hard fantasy’ mode as opposed to a dramatic one.
System Thoughts: You can find the roots of this style in AD&D, with monster ecologies, planar physics and elaborate details on how spells work in various situations. 3E took this element and ran with it once it got out to the players.

Misfits & Mayhem (fka Warlocks & Warlords. Thanks to neonchameleon for the title, and to a bunch of posters for helping refine this one)
Tropes: The scruffier and somewhat more cynical cousin of P&P, with PCs who are generally well-meaning but often don’t fit into ‘typical’ fantasy molds, either as social outcasts, non-traditional races or classes, or other molds. They don’t have to be outcasts within their own societies—4E really ran with the ‘fantastic world’ at points—but they certainly don’t feel like they belong in the humanocentric milieu of earlier D&D. Adventures tend to be somewhere between P&P and DC&D, with the emphasis on action and multiple elements, often shifting mid-encounter to create a feeling of complication and ‘how do we get out of this?’
System Thoughts: All versions of D&D that run long enough have evolved towards elements of this style, if you have the right supplements. 1E could do it with enough issues of DRAGON; BECMI with the Creature Crucible books; 2E with the right setting supplements (Planescape and Dark Sun especially) and Complete Handbooks, and 3E with Savage Species. 4E baked it more into the core than any other edition.

[/QUOTE]

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;789216... and other attempts at 'hard fantasy'.

On a whim I just googled that and discovered it's an actual thing, with a wikipedia entry and all. Neat. I'm going to explore it for inspiration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_fantasy

Quote from: LibraryLass;789249I dunno. I think there's as much conceptual difference between them as between K&K and Dc&Dm.

Most certainly.

What I tried to do, was define a playstyle trend I observed and played and consider strong in both 3e and 4e (and by extension, pathfinder as well).

I did not know what the hell those categories even mean till some one had to explain it to me.

I wish to drop the vote for Warlords and Warlocks for Knaves and Kobolds.  The galactic dragons and demons are staying.

All of the above, in differing doses.  As someone pointed out, these aren't really exclusive, and if you play a full multi-year-long campaign odds are the gaming group will move gradually from one style to another.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;789257On a whim I just googled that and discovered it's an actual thing, with a wikipedia entry and all. Neat. I'm going to explore it for inspiration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_fantasy

Master of the Five Magics  by Lyndon Hardy comes to mind, and Randall Garrett's Lord Darcy stories, and Larry Niven's The Magic Goes Away.

Quote from: CRKrueger;789014Before I vote on a category, it's worth looking at the categories....

I agree with your quibbles. As taxonomies go, I'd also prefer something less obscure and if the category is mostly edition driven e.g. Simulations and Sorcerers or Wizards and Warlords or whatever...than just include the friggen edition.

To me Wizards and Warlords sounds like a game that is more like the original Chainmail rules or the campaign style of the original brown booklet OD&D not some part of the elaborate board game cum 'how many PCs can I balance on the head of a pin' that I associate with 4E.