[Theory] Flavors of D&D II: Finding the Right Tools for the Jobs

Xaltotun

Registered User
Validated User
#21
Paladins & Princesses is the only style I'm interested in, and I completely agree with the OP about the systems: BECMI or 4E. 2E so much had the flavor, but the system didn't support it.
 

Catharsis Cat

Live Action Anime Girl
Validated User
#22
C&C...I guess I have no comment? It sounds kind of dull, but I've never experienced a game quite of that kind before, so who knows?
C&C was the primary playstyle I did back when I was a kid, along with a few Knaves and Kobolds elements thrown in for good measure. The appealing part is that your pretty much using multiple characters and get to use all sorts of cool gear. This lets you experience a lot of what the game has to offer, because you're not totally stuck to one choice. Plus you not only get to be a cool hero, but you get a swanky crib and some nice bling.

To be quite honest I have been itching for a proper game designed around the style for a while now. (Honestly I think it fits the whole Disgaea/FFT in tabletop form better than 4e's 4 person party assumptions do)

I imagine if you like to create a compelling narrative or care about story emulation, it's not going to be your thing. But if you like to play for a more light-hearted escapism, it can be pretty cool.
 
Last edited:

ImpactVector

Registered User
Validated User
#24
I disagree about P&P and 4th edition. It doesn't stick out to me as especially better than any other edition for that type of game.
It makes sense to me. Your characters are less likely to die due to randomness and the encounters are generally balanced such the PCs will likely win, so justice will prevail!
 

Ratman_tf

W.A.R.P.
Validated User
#25
It makes sense to me. Your characters are less likely to die due to randomness and the encounters are generally balanced such the PCs will likely win, so justice will prevail!
But there's lots of strikes against it as well. I'd argue that combat encounters are not the primary way to resolve conflict in a P&P game. Mostly it's about accomplishing something. Returning the rightful king/queen to the throne, restoring the magical crystal, figuring out how to heal or restore the land, justice tempered with mercy. 4th is pretty focused on combat as a thing to be won, and combat as setpiece encounters. Whereas in P&P, combat is generally seen as an unfortunate failure to resolve situations peacefully.

In P&P, encounters that are meant to be won are usually the smaller stuff, and the climax encounters are usually character or problem solving situations, which tends to not be 4ths mechanical strength. (Depending on whether you like skill challenges or not, I suppose)

*Braces for the refutations...*
 

Warlord476

Member
RPGnet Member
Validated User
#26
Just wanted to say this is a welcome return of the theory of game tropes. I really enjoyed the thought-provoking first thread and wished I had bookmarked it. Now I can. Thanks armchair gamer!
 
Last edited:

Ratman_tf

W.A.R.P.
Validated User
#27
Just wanted to say this is a welcome return of ratman's theory of game tropes. I really enjoyed the thought-provoking first thread and wished I had bookmarked it. Now I can. Thanks ratman!
...

I am so tempted to throw Armchair Gamer under the bus and claim his work for my own right now. :D

Armchair gamer came up with the original idea and worked to refine it.

Damn my concience!
 

JoshR

Registered User
Validated User
#28
But there's lots of strikes against it as well. I'd argue that combat encounters are not the primary way to resolve conflict in a P&P game.
That's something of a non-sequitur, though. There is nothing in any other edition of D&D that makes it better for resolving P&P conflict than 4e. Whereas 4e has Skill Challenges, which are perfect for non-combative conflict resolution. All 4e's combat design provides is a much more granular combat experience.
 
Last edited:

Ratman_tf

W.A.R.P.
Validated User
#29
That's something of a non-sequitur, though. There is nothing in any other edition of D&D that makes it better for resolving P&P conflict than 4e. Whereas 4e has Skill Challenges, which are perfect for non-combative conflict resolution. All 4e's combat design provides is a much more granular combat experience.
I don't like skill challenges. I aknowledge that's a personal preference, but there are not a few people who have said likewise. I dislike boiling an interesting situation into a set number of skill checks, and I dislike using such a rigid system to resolve situation that will probably call for a more flexible approach.

It's possible that someone might use the skill challenge system to good effect in such an encounter, but I don't have the knack, and really don't desire to put in the effort to get the experience and technique to make it work for me.
 
Last edited:
#30
I don't like skill challenges. I aknowledge that's a personal preference, but there are not a few people who have said likewise. I dislike boiling an interesting situation into a set number of skill checks, and I dislike using such a rigid system to resolve situation that will probably call for a more flexible approach.

It's possible that someone might use the skill challenge system to good effect in such an encounter, but I don't have the knack, and really don't desire to put in the effort to get the experience and technique to make it work for me.
So then you don't use them, which means your primary interaction resolution mechanics are single d20 rolls and freeform RP, same as the other D&Ds.
 
Top Bottom