Flavors of D&D...

[kesher]

This is a fairly old post on RPG.net that I just stumbled across:

Flavors of D&D

I dig it. I need to read farther into it, but I dig it...

[delverinthedark]

I, too, really like this post you've dug up! It seems like it could be useful for evaluating one's own attachments to different flavors as the original poster seems to do.

What I'm most interested in regarding this post is the question of how much the mechanics of different editions reinforce the flavor they seem most attached to and how much of the flavors spring up from different attitudes and approaches to the games. I particularly wonder if earlier rule sets could support later flavors well, and vice versa. Could there be a "Paladins and Princesses" OD&D game, for instance? Or a Knaves and Kobolds 3e game? Or (God forbid, from my perspective!) a "Simulation and Spellcasters" Basic game?

[Falconer]

Very entertainingly laid out, even if I could nitpick (IMO ‘Dungeoncrawling & Demons’ involves more puzzles that suggested), it’s a nice framework.

[tetramorph]

This was an interesting read. Unfortunately, I cannot place myself in any of his categories.

Maybe I haven't been playing long enough as an adult to know all these different styles.

Here is what I've encountered so far:

A. Character-builds for alternate-ego amateur dramatics
B. Character-record sheet as ticket to enter fantasy-land

There are rules-lite and rules-heavy versions of both of these. I prefer B. Although some wacky enacted role-play is pretty fun sometimes -- I just don't like it when that is the goal.

If I am "B," where do I fit on this guy's schematic?

[delverinthedark]

This was an interesting read. Unfortunately, I cannot place myself in any of his categories.

Maybe I haven't been playing long enough as an adult to know all these different styles.

Here is what I've encountered so far:

A. Character-builds for alternate-ego amateur dramatics
B. Character-record sheet as ticket to enter fantasy-land

There are rules-lite and rules-heavy versions of both of these. I prefer B. Although some wacky enacted role-play is pretty fun sometimes -- I just don't like it when that is the goal.

If I am "B," where do I fit on this guy's schematic?

It's really quite a coincidence you should bring that up, Tetramorph, because I was just beginning to contemplate today how I think those two categories you describe are basically different definitions of "role-playing", A defining role-playing primarily as playacting and B defining role-playing primarily as making choices in response to an external world, a split in definition which eventually allowed for the Dragonlance modules and their inheritors to remove aspects of player choice from their designs while still defining themselves as role-playing games because of the playacting aspect.

Through this (admittedly inchoate) lens, I'd say that you've hit upon one of the aspects of his division of the game that doesn't feel entirely fleshed out and that I was trying to articulate earlier, namely the lack of division between aesthetics, mechanics, and the complementary or antagonistic relationship between the two.

[talysman]

Jun 23, 2016 13:28:33 GMT -6 delverinthedark said:

This was an interesting read. Unfortunately, I cannot place myself in any of his categories.

Maybe I haven't been playing long enough as an adult to know all these different styles.

Here is what I've encountered so far:

A. Character-builds for alternate-ego amateur dramatics
B. Character-record sheet as ticket to enter fantasy-land

There are rules-lite and rules-heavy versions of both of these. I prefer B. Although some wacky enacted role-play is pretty fun sometimes -- I just don't like it when that is the goal.

If I am "B," where do I fit on this guy's schematic?

It's really quite a coincidence you should bring that up, Tetramorph, because I was just beginning to contemplate today how I think those two categories you describe are basically different definitions of "role-playing", A defining role-playing primarily as playacting and B defining role-playing primarily as making choices in response to an external world, a split in definition which eventually allowed for the Dragonlance modules and their inheritors to remove aspects of player choice from their designs while still defining themselves as role-playing games because of the playacting aspect.

Through this (admittedly inchoate) lens, I'd say that you've hit upon one of the aspects of his division of the game that doesn't feel entirely fleshed out and that I was trying to articulate earlier, namely the lack of division between aesthetics, mechanics, and the complementary or antagonistic relationship between the two.

It sort of fits together with a classification scheme I've been playing around with lately.

It started with something I half-joked about a year or so ago. D&D, or at least OD&D, and games like it are "Class and Level Exploration Fantasy" games (abbreviated as CLEF.) This has been evolving in my mind into a three-part classification scheme:

Structure/Resolution: How PCs are defined. "Class and Level" (D&D), "Skill and Trait" (BRP), maybe one or two others.
Focus: What PCs do, and usually how they advance. "Action" (as in "action movie"), "Exploration", "Investigation", "Other", and "Undefined"
Broad Setting: Where they do it. "Fantasy", "Speculative", "Historic".

I'm being kind of rigid in places, because I'm trying to maintain that Consonant Cluster + Vowel + Consonant Cluster pattern for the abbreviations. Perhaps that's a poor way to go about it, but it does force me to really think about what counts as a distinct pattern... and I've concluded that most of what we think of as "important" distinctions are actually flavors of these broader categories. For example, the actual mechanics used for resolution don't really matter for broad comparisons, because people can and have completely replaced D&D's "d20 roll over target number" with 2d6 roll over, 3d6 roll under, and even playing cards or other diceless methods. Similarly, almost all SF settings get lumped together with fantasy and supernatural horror, because "robots, rayguns, aliens and spaceships" are bits of flavor that could be mixed and matched with other genre elements. The three broad settings I named are basically how closely the system matches the real world: "fantasy" = deliberately unrealistic in at least one way, "speculative" = real-world physics, but contrary to fact in other ways (history, culture, technical application,) "historic" = realistic recreation of a real time and place, as far as we know.

Anyways, aside from having soft or hard preferences for different kinds of flavor, what I'm seeing when I look at people's preferences for D&D editions or variants is that it's mostly about changing the "vowel" (Focus) or hybridizing the structure. OD&D is clearly CLEF as written, but in 1e, we're getting a CLEF/STEF hybrid when proficiencies are added, which drifts into CLEAF or CLAF once the focus shifted more towards epic quests (Dragonlance.) 3e, having dropped all hint of XP for treasure and cranked up the focus on set-piece battles, is almost completely CLAF/STAF. When some people added XP for good roleplaying, they wound up playing a CLOEF or CLOAF variant of D&D.

I originally intended the "Undefined" focus for games that leave the focus open, something you mostly see in "universal" games. But in a way, the "vowels" are arranged along a fiction vs. system axis:

A,E,I = Rewards for things your character does
O = Rewards for things the player does in character (dramatic acting, or "being funny" in Toon)
U = Rewards for things the player does in system)

In other words, A/E/I are the "ticket to fantasy-land" players, O is for the "alternate-ego amateur dramatics" players, and U is for the "system mastery" players.

Long-winded, I know, and not all the ideas here are fully-formed...

[austinjimm]

Jun 23, 2016 12:50:34 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

This was an interesting read. Unfortunately, I cannot place myself in any of his categories.

Maybe I haven't been playing long enough as an adult to know all these different styles.

Here is what I've encountered so far:

A. Character-builds for alternate-ego amateur dramatics
B. Character-record sheet as ticket to enter fantasy-land

There are rules-lite and rules-heavy versions of both of these. I prefer B. Although some wacky enacted role-play is pretty fun sometimes -- I just don't like it when that is the goal.

If I am "B," where do I fit on this guy's schematic?

Nathan, you are Knaves & Kobolds with a lean toward Paladins & Princesses (in a good way).

: )

[scottenkainen]

<---- "Dungeoncrawling & Demons" all the way.

[tetramorph]

Jun 23, 2016 18:25:54 GMT -6 austinjimm said:

Nathan, you are Knaves & Kobolds with a lean toward Paladins & Princesses (in a good way).

: )

Well, now that you put it that way, I guess you've got me pegged, Jimm! Fight on! (But save the princess too!)

I think, for me, the "lean towards Paladins & Princesses" is about the kind of fantasy world I want a ticket to. I like the grittiness and "low-fantasy" of K&K, but S&S and "Heroic Fantasy" have a lot of overlap in the tradition and it is where they overlap that I am "P&P." I don't mind running around grabbing treasure (wait, isn't that "recovering antiquities"?) and killing monsters (wait a minute, isn't that "exterminating vermin"?). But I would like to do it in such a way that I feel good about it when it is all over! ("Yes sir, we sure did clean up this town. And the villagers sure are thankful.") That's just my kind of fantasy world, I guess.

[tetramorph]

talysman, wow, as always, cool thinking.

So here is my revised set based upon your insights:

A. Character-acting for alternate-ego amateur dramatics
B. Character-record sheet as ticket to enter fantasy-land
C. Character-build for maximum system mastery

But, this has me thinking. Are we just reinventing the wheel here? I mean, isn't that just:

A. Immersionist
B. Simulationist
C. Gamist
?

[talysman]

Jun 24, 2016 8:33:02 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

talysman, wow, as always, cool thinking.

So here is my revised set based upon your insights:

A. Character-acting for alternate-ego amateur dramatics
B. Character-record sheet as ticket to enter fantasy-land
C. Character-build for maximum system mastery

But, this has me thinking. Are we just reinventing the wheel here? I mean, isn't that just:

A. Immersionist
B. Simulationist
C. Gamist
?

In a way, perhaps... although that particular triad is closer to the old Usenet analysis instead of the Ron Edwards GNS triad (Narrativist isn't Immersionist, and Edwards would classify Immersionist as Simulationist.) But part of my own thinking is shaped by discussions I was involved in several years ago on the Forge. Specifically, people there started to notice a polarity between Simulationist and Gamist/Narrativist, and my own insight was that it's a polarity of Fiction vs. System.

As it stands, though, your "character-acting" category isn't quite "immersionist". Some people are going to want to immerse in their alternate-ego, others are going to want to show off their dramatic skills. I guess we could call the first group AB, since they merge A and B (they immerse in their character and immerse in the world.) We could also speculate about whether all system mastery/character-building players are the same. I could see how some might be into system mastery as a way to "win" or at least show off their "skillz", while others might be more into it to see what the system could do, sort of a "immersion into system" approach.

And we're kind of leaving out the people who play for non-immersion, non-system mastery reasons, like the Toon players I hinted at earlier but didn't go into detail about. You get points in Toon for being funny, so a lot of people are going to play Toon for that. It's sort of related to amateur dramatics. Call it "amateur comedy improv". And then there are people who play because they like RPGs for social reasons and only marginally care about either fiction or system. And people who play historic or history-inspired RPGs to learn about or show off their knowledge of history.

[tetramorph]

Right you are, talysman. I had remembered the "GNS" "theory" wrongly. I had even forgotten its name.

What was / is the "old Usenet" analysis? Link?

Yes, system vs. fiction. Do you mean by that mechanics vs. legendaria? If so, I follow and agree wholeheartedly. Like I said above, I hang out with you guys because we all tend to be the "ticket to fantasy land" types to one degree or another. The main thing that differs among us is what type/style of fantasy world we want to engage.

Your experience exceeds mine. I didn't even know there were TOON players. Interesting. I am pretty happily stuck in a "D&D ghetto." I like to hang with my peeps!

So, I think my fast-and-loose categories work well enough for my D&D sub-focus.

[talysman]

Jun 24, 2016 14:44:02 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

Right you are, talysman. I had remembered the "GNS" "theory" wrongly. I had even forgotten its name.

What was / is the "old Usenet" analysis? Link?

It's officially called The Threefold Model and came originally from rec.games.frp.advocacy.

Yes, system vs. fiction. Do you mean by that mechanics vs. legendaria? If so, I follow and agree wholeheartedly. Like I said above, I hang out with you guys because we all tend to be the "ticket to fantasy land" types to one degree or another. The main thing that differs among us is what type/style of fantasy world we want to engage.

"Legendaria" is an odd word. I think of it as being similar to "mythos" or "canon", in terms of literary works or fandom. But I meant "fiction" in a much broader sense of "things, events and actions in a fantasy world". So, not just setting details, but also "I shoot the guard with my crossbow."

Similarly, I think of "mechanics" as being a very specific part of "system". The dice rolling, number comparisons, math, crossing things off a character sheet, or adding something. Anything players and GMs actually do. Other parts of the system aren't mechanical, like "You can't wear armor if you are a magic-user". I suppose though that what matters most in the fiction vs. system polarity is whether you are focused on what's happening to the characters in the fantasy world, or on what's happening at the table. The focus on mechanics is probably the most annoying thing to me if I'm trapped in a system-first game.

Your experience exceeds mine. I didn't even know there were TOON players. Interesting. I am pretty happily stuck in a "D&D ghetto." I like to hang with my peeps!

So, I think my fast-and-loose categories work well enough for my D&D sub-focus.

I only ran Toon once. But There are some people who try Toon-like modifications to D&D. For example, I know there's a mechanic used in The Dying Earth RPG that I swear I've heard people say they've used in D&D: the GM hands out cool quotes that fit the genre feel, and any time a player is able to work one of the quotes into play satisfactorily, the GM awards bonus XP. If that were used very sparingly, it might not be so bad, but if it became a major focus of play, the game doesn't feel like you're a bunch of warriors, thieves and spellcasters wandering around a fantasy world. It feels like performance art. Which, for me, would make it less like D&D.

[tetramorph]

talysman , okay, I think I get it better now and I like it very much. Here it is for me:

Fiction : system :: the world we are trying to get a ticket to : the game that gives us the ticket

I wonder why fiction at all for folks that prefer system? I wonder, could you make a game that was just all system for them? Like the way that Chess is a pure abstraction. I wonder, could one, theoretically speaking, make a purely abstract version of what would once have actually been a role-playing game?

That last thing you mentioned sounds awful. I like charades and Pictionary and Apples to Apples and all that kind of stuff. But I would not want to mix it with my D&D. It would kill the fiction.

So could the distinction perhaps be a kind of branching table?

Fiction or system (character-builders). If fiction: narrative prior to (Character-actors), or following after (ticket to fantasy-land) play.

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2016 12:50:34 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

This was an interesting read. Unfortunately, I cannot place myself in any of his categories.

Maybe I haven't been playing long enough as an adult to know all these different styles.

Hmm don't feel bad, I have been playing for 41 years and I at no point in time have fit into any of his categories. But on the other hand I do not find his Knaves & Kobolds writeup to accurately portray the way that Gygax and Arneson have played nor to be a close fit to what I have read from gronanofsimmerya, gsvenson or robkuntz.

[tkdco2]

I just watched a video that talks about the different editions, from OD&D to 5E. Pathfinder and several retro-clones are also mentioned.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKuI-O2WMDQ

It's nice to see this topic discussed in an impartial manner. No mudslinging or blatant favoritism here.

[tetramorph]

tkdco2, Thanks for the link!

They got so much of the history right.

It always makes me sad when they make subtle mistakes about the origins of the original publication.

For example, it didn't "come from Chainmail."

It always seems to go back to a simple misunderstanding of what wargames campaigning was and is.

But it was a good, evenhanded video that I would be willing to share with folks.

So, cool cool.

Thanks for sharing this.

[Deleted]

I definitely feel each major edition represents a slightly different genre and implied world, whether by design or not, and that's just the core settings from the core books - not counting setting books like Spelljammer, Dark Sun or Ravenloft. For me, the 3lbb world is definitely "gonzo/sword and sorcery" style. As time goes by, however, I see the trope about the vaunted lethality and cheapness of life in older editions has been greatly exaggerated. It's more of a "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" deal where people approach the game in a way it wasn't intended to support and less "these rules will kill you no matter what" like some people categorize them.