I like to classify styles of gameplay for swords and sorcery fantasy RPGs into 2 types: Warhammer-style, or Warcraft-style. Both styles are similar but have crucial differences.
The Warhammer-style requires deeper storytelling, with darker, more dangerous evils to contend with. The evil usually tempts the characters and more often than not, one of the characters will succumb to the temptation. The battles are usually more deadly, with little or no chance of resurrection upon death (except for some sort of divine intervention) and even good deeds are usually not answered kindly. The NPCs usually distrust the PCs and may even be completely hostile.
The Warhammer-style challenges the players' virtues as heroes and I feel is useful at times but if used constantly, will dishearten the players.
The Warcraft-style does not need as deep of a story, but instead contains light humor, often times poking fun at facets of medieval or fantastical life (i.e. why is my shoulderplate so gigantic?). Evil is not so dark, but is usually some misguided fool who stumbled upon a mysterious artifact. The heroes are paragons of virtue, unbeatable legends who can always be counted on. The NPCs admire the PCs, maybe even worship them.
The Warcraft-style is a a good gameplay style for those who like light-hearted games and are playing for the fun of it. But sometimes the roleplaying and storytelling suffers from Warcraft-style play because too much humor is injected into the game and is not taken seriously anymore. Sometimes the players will gain oversized egos and bloated heads, and will require a dip into the Warhammer-style play to humble them, to make them understand that they cannot always save everybody.
In truth, it is up to the DM (GM, or whatever you're calling it) to make the calls on what he (she) thinks is good gameplay. I dislike metagame thinking and want the players to develop their characters as they play, often using the metaphor of a TV series to compare with the game. But others may feel differently.
I just wanted to see what everyone's thoughts about this were.
xDungeonMasterx
Graph Zeppelin
I'm inclined to believe that an single axis of comparison is insufficient to really examine role-playing.
Of course the proverbial gorilla in the room is GNS theory. Some are for the mental challenge, some for the story, and others for the world building. (And then there is the commentary about a fourth group thats just there for the Cheetos and friends.)
Another useful lens would be a two directional graph - like the one in this XKCD comic. (Admittedly, the one examining political affiliation is a better example of the type, but I couldn't find a link.)
One axis (lets say Y) would be "freedom from consequence" - or level of heroism if you will. Does the game emphasize the survivability of the characters, encouraging stunts, and jumping into the fray - or is there a good chance of injury physical/mental/emotional for reckless action.
Our other axis would be one of scope or world size. Are events mainly driven by personal problems and intra-personal relations, or is it a large universe with the player's actions affecting hundreds or thousands.
This chart may end up a scatter plot or with multiple lines as we look at finer divisions. For example there could be two points plotted on the Y scale - consequences for the world versus personal ones, degree of detail devoted to character and number of attributes would be a scope plot...
Anyone want to help refine the theory?
There is a fine line between hobby and obsession. I seem to have lost sight of it some time ago.