Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;816309This might be a digression, but how would you achieve a kind of dramatic play style in D&D?

For instance, in combat, an enemy trying to disarm someone would be a tactical thing done during their turn, rolling a specific kind of roll against a specific kind of defensive roll, etc.

That specific example pretty much requires you to step outside the rules.  In most D&D variations, the rules say disarming, tripping, etc. is more difficult than hurting someone and it does no damage and if you fail to disarm/trip/etc., then you have no effect on your opponent at all.  It really discourages doing anything more than spamming standard attacks until someone runs out of HP.

In the broader sense, for the sort of things talked about in the OP, it's already been hinted at above:  The PCs lose a battle - they run or are captured or beaten down and turned loose with a stern warning or whatever - and then they deliberately prepare for a rematch.  "We wait until we gain 3 levels, then go back" is one way to do that, but probably the most boring option.  They could recruit new allies, preferably from among the enemies of their enemy.  They can research the guy who beat them and use that information to make a plan specifically to negate his strengths and exploit his weaknesses.  Make sure they're fully-healed with a freshly-memorized set of spells.  Try to arrange distractions to make the target of their vengeance expend some of his resources before the rematch.

The key point being that the way you exercise this trope in a game without metacurrency (Fate Points, etc.) is to take concrete in-game actions to improve your odds in the rematch instead of relying on "he beat me last time, so I automatically get to beat him next time."

One idea I've toyed with, in D&D, is handling a lot of condition effects as a voluntary buy-off by the player.

So, for example, 'instead of taking 20 damage, I'm disarmed.'
(Or 'a leg hit, reduce damage by 10, but I'm at 3/4 speed until I rest' or... whatever).

This has the benefit of not requiring a host of tables and extra steps, and also is something you can just skip when people don't feel like it.

Wow. So much good stuff! Thanks!

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;816309This might be a digression, but how would you achieve a kind of dramatic play style in D&D?

For instance, in combat, an enemy trying to disarm someone would be a tactical thing done during their turn, rolling a specific kind of roll against a specific kind of defensive roll, etc. In games like Dungeon World though, the DM can just make stuff happen with a flourish to escalate the tension in a scene without having to justify every single little part of it with a roll or ability.

I feel like if you did that in D&D though that it would be seen like ignoring the players' abilities, and so you would have to grind out the entire thing roll by roll which would probably make it less dramatic and freeform-y.

Depends on the edition, I think.  In TSR-era D&D (and maybe 5e), I think you'd do it pretty much the same way.

In 3.x and 4e, I guess you'd want to make it some kind of move or maneuver that was available?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;816309This might be a digression, but how would you achieve a kind of dramatic play style in D&D?

Have a dramatic situation.

http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-playtesting-of-5e-is-over-phandalin.html
http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-session-begins-morning-after-i.html

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;816309For instance, in combat, an enemy trying to disarm someone would be a tactical thing done during their turn, rolling a specific kind of roll against a specific kind of defensive roll, etc. In games like Dungeon World though, the DM can just make stuff happen with a flourish to escalate the tension in a scene without having to justify every single little part of it with a roll or ability.

First off, classic D&D, D&D 5e, and even D20 /3.x to an extent are not game of detailed maneuvers.  Yes starting with 3.X D&D has developed the idea of specific combat actions but compared to games like GURPS, and Runequest with detailed combat mechanics they are still quite abstract.

The "drama" in D&D comes from the circumstances of the campaign. It is context of the combat that supplies the tension. D&D combat itself is pretty vanilla. Although not as vanilla as Fate or Dungeon World as there are distinct options particularly in later editions.

With all that being said what if a D&D character (classic, 5e or otherwise) wants to do a specific maneuver like a disarm?  You have a couple of tools at your disposal. The to hit roll, the damage rolls, saving throws, and the use abilities like strength. When you use abilities you have several options. You use 3d6 roll under the score, 1d20 roll under the score, roll 1d20 and add the ability modifiers.

For classic D&D I tend to resolve special maneuvers by require the character to make a to hit roll on the target, and the target to make a saving throw. Saving throws were added to allow for character avoid "bad" things happening to them. They also scale as the character levels. So to me it makes sense that that a high level fighter has a far better chance of avoiding a disarm than a lower level fighter.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;816309I feel like if you did that in D&D though that it would be seen like ignoring the players' abilities, and so you would have to grind out the entire thing roll by roll which would probably make it less dramatic and freeform-y.

Read my actual play report on my campaign. I think that they show how D&D can be used for campaigns involving more roleplaying than combat.

The trick is not to worry about the rules. Have the players act as if they are really there as their character in the situation. Have them describe their actions naturally and then decide what rules come into play second.

Also it helps to understand the history of how D&D evolved as it helps in figure out what armor class, hit points, saving throws, etc mean.