Occasionally, I run across some interesting posts, worth sharing, which pique my curiosity immediately and inspire me to write something. One of those is a theory on flavours of D&D, from RPG.net. Given it's dated 2013, there is no mention of 5e, which can spark an interesting discussion over which style does the current edition encompass and support.
The link presents seven styles (or flavours), which I briefly list them here for reference.
1. Knaves & Kobolds. Exactly what early editions of D&D strove for, exploration, treasure with minimal combat, and building of strongholds.
2. Gamma Rays & Godslayers. The characters are superhuman in power and possess vast amounts of wealth and/or magic, fighting off entities on a cosmic scale.
3. Dungeoncrawling & Demons. Your typical dungeon crawl, with emphasis on tactical combat, puzzles, and traps, in a twisting and never-ending underground environment.
4. Castles & Cronies. A more grounded version of #2, the characters are heroes with castles and domains, fighting off great evil in the form of barbarian hordes, evil kingdoms or sinister creatures.
5. Paladins & Princesses. Close to the modern notions of strong narratives in gaming, the characters are good-natured heroes in search of glory and epic quests.
6. Simulation & Spellcasting. Take the question "what if magic was real?" and assume it is true. Emphasis is put on both physical interaction and manipulation of a magical world and its social implications.
7. Misfits & Mayhem. When your group consists of all those weird race and class combos, or are just too cynical to adhere to principles of heroism and the common good.
Certainly, much more styles can be defined than the afore-mentioned (from the top of my head, one being Wild & Weird, emphasising the surreal, survival aspects of an alien, inhospitable world - see Dark Sun; other being Roleplay & Romance, where character development and interaction is central to the game), and there's always some hybrids, mixing features from various styles.
What's more in the post is each D&D edition had a range of styles, apart from the main "flavour" it chose to promote, and the poster discusses it a bit. Let's dive deeper into this.
OD&D fits #1 accurately; actually, it defined this style of play. Being a side project of war games, the players were pitted against countless horrors in order to survive, collect treasure to build their own forts and amass their armies. I would see this as the prequel (since such a term is all the rage for the past decade) to the wargames of the '70s. Any other style would seem a bit out of place with the rather narrow-minded system.
D&D Basic can be split into two sections; B/X keeps #1 formula to the letter, only slightly expanding as years go by. BECMI, on the other hand, lays the ground for more styles, like #2 and #4, with a little bit of #5 sprinkled on. Note that BECMI coincides with the departure of typical game styles of the '70s, and when story-heavy or other experimental modules begin appearing. By '91, RC had the same grand and heroic scope as 2e. Being a quite streamlined system, it would be unpractical to try #3 or #6, due to their crunchier nature. On a similar note, #7 doesn't really fit in, as the system's races and classes are generally of the standard stock - dwarfs, elves, fighters, magic-users etc.
AD&D 1e is the quintessential edition for #3. It also supports #1 as it was the popular style of the late '70s (or maybe, the only one). As the years went by, 1e embraced #6 games, with GG codifying every possible rule for his advanced system. Interestingly, this edition also saw the emergence of #4 and #5. Technically, all sorts of game styles can be played with 1e though, due to its crunchy mechanics, the edition is not exactly friendly for games with strong narratives. As the '80s are coming to an end, we notice a sharp decline in #1. Combat becomes essential in a game, and treasure isn't always the ultimate goal for the players.
AD&D 2e takes the newly risen #4 and #5 and cranks them up to 11. Whereas its older brother emphasised tactical combat, a plethora of rules, and a preference over dungeon crawling, 2e tries to go the other way, fully embracing the abstract and the narrative. As it is built on 1e's engine, however, it can only make so much of a difference. This is the era where we see blends of #3 and #5. Towards the end of TSR we see #6 and #7 appearing, for those who desire a more complex system, or the plain absurd. Boxed sets toyed with a lot of narratives, supported by various mechanics (psionics, spelljamming, planewalking, horror and madness, etc.). As the '90s counterculture became prominent in the gaming industry, so did the system turn towards the weird and the social outcast.
D&D 3e drops #1 altogether in favour of all the others, though it does it in a progressive fashion; it starts as a continuation of 2e, with emphasis on the crunchy, and evolves into a proponent of #2, #5, and #6. Some say it mirrors 1e's attempt to codify everything, without incorporating the death-trap-dungeon design. The introduction of adventure paths, series of adventures linked by a grand, overarching story and taking the characters across all levels of play, solidifies #2 as the edition's most important style, while #4 starts taking a backseat. In the mean time, #7 can be traced throughout the years, with the multitude of character options that give the player both a fluffy and a crunchy edge.
D&D 4e brings #3 back, with a strange twist in that, while tactical combat is the main component of the game, it's not now restricted underground. 4e keeps 3e's #2 and blends it with #3 and #5 to create an amalgam reminiscent of the ages of 1e, albeit with a unified and rigid system. It is also the edition that embraces #7 as some of its core features, with a bunch of non-standard races and classes making it in the main books. While diminished significantly in 3e's era, it is now clear that #1, #4, and #6 are nonexistent; Domains and strongholds are only used as a backdrop, so there is no need to build one across one's adventuring career (except for narrative purposes). Likewise, treasure isn't an option, as the characters gain items and upgrades with each level, following a certain pattern, as in action RPGs of the time. Possibly because of 3e's rules-bloating, 4e attempted to eschew any notions of simulationism.
D&D 5e is an odd beast. Boasting a return to the game's old times, it surely resembles one, with its much simplified system than its predecessors. It still carries, however, the spirit of 3e and 4e that can be seen by its preference over #2, #3, #5, and #7. Some say it borrows #3 from 1e and #5 from 2e and blends them with modern gaming design. The crunchiness of GG's offspring and the abstract feel of its later implementation are well indicated here. It'd be hard to see #1, unless one brings house rules on the table, which thankfully are easy to implement, and sticks to low levels. Except for narrative purposes, there's no reason to run a game with #4 in mind unless, again, one comes up with rules for kingdom management and mass combat. In keeping with its rules-light design, #6 poses a few issues, as certain aspects are left intentionally vague.
* Out of all editions, OD&D and D&D4e are the ones I've never played with. My experience with those two editions stems simply from studying their books, rules, and discussions on forums and blogs. The two systems may differ drastically in actual play, but I've yet to meet someone in person to show me.
