Old School : Tucker's Kobolds and Trained Jellies

[Scribble]

I think the argument is somewhat misguided, or maybe a chicken and egg scenario?

Even in early editions there were a preponderance of people who felt that if there wasn't a rule for it, you couldn't do it. There were also people who wanted everything by the books at all times. (We used to make fun of Rules Lawyers. )

If you look at Dragon it is/was filled with new rules for doing things where no rule existed before. Clearly a lot of players just wanted rules to do stuff. AD&D got cluttered and kind of chaotic, so 3e/4e were the result. They didn't push people into the idea that there should be rules for things you want to do, they're the result of people wanting the rules to begin with.

That said, I guess the case could be made that they reinforce the idea (despite giving tools like page 42 for those of us who don't ascribe to it) since they start with the idea of here are as many rules as we can think of but you can ignore them if you want. They kind of assumed we ALL wanted everything that went into Dragon/Rules expansions and started from there.

I think 5e from what I hear is a good idea, since, from what they've said so far, you start with a limited amount of rules for things, and build from there as you see fit. It's an "additive" style more like AD&D (but hopefully less cluttered/chaotic.)

I think this will match MY style more, since I always find it easier to add stuff then subtract stuff.

 

[JonWake]

I've been trying to figure out what the psychological difference there is in new school versus old school play. I have a theory, and I'd like people to honestly assess it.

In old school play, the rules existed only as a rough approximation of the fiction. That is, the players treated the fictional world as the primary source of information about their characters, and the stats and abilities were simply about conflict resolution. The rules were what you consulted when you couldn't figure out what happened.

In new school play (and by that I mean 3e and 4e DnD), the playstyle has moved to an explicit interaction with the rules, far more akin to how games like GURPS have been played for years. Now, I think the majority of this sea change came from 3e: much like with GURPS, when you propose a system that does EveryThing, you have to publish reams of rules for every corner case that comes up. Different from GURPS, 3e never had to reference reality. (And say what you will about Steve Jackson Games, they research their settings and rules systems like Ph.D students on methamphetamine).

But 4e, with the player's handbook at least presented the notion that the rules did not reflect the world, they defined it. In combat, at least, the interaction was with the mechanics and the fiction happened as result.

It's a subtle difference, and I've only noticed it because of getting the chance to watch dozens of different players play over the past 15 years, but it's there.

For example, a fighter want to shove a giant off a cliff. An old school player might look at his (you so cheated) 18/100 strength, ask the GM how far away the cliff edge was, and tell the GM that he's throwing his shoulder into the giant's knee and knocking him off balance with the haft of his great ax. The DM then makes a ruling, or has the player make a strength check, or any of a dozen different ways to deal with it.
Upside: The player is thinking in terms of the world.
Downside: The potential for five week long arguments about center of gravity and mass.

A new school player will ask the DM (or look at the battle mat) how far away the cliff is, then look for the ability that lets them push a creature 10'. The player makes an attack roll, hits, the monster gets pushed over the ledge and that's all she wrote. The DM then describes it as the fighter using the haft of the ax to shove him back, etc.
Upside: Clarity: the rules are explicit, without regard to particulars. The power works.
Downside: The player thinks in terms of how the rules interact with the story.

This is a gross generalization, true, and play groups all treat the game differently. There are groups who played AD&D as a literal wargame, and people who ignore 80% of 4e's Powers. But if you want to understand the gap between the play styles, you have to look at the different tendencies as equally valid.

I'm of the opinion that 5e cannot please both groups. General, vague rules will anger one group, explicit, defined interactions with the fiction will anger the other. Any attempt to square that circle will lead to a schizophrenic rules set, and I suspect that the designers aren't fully aware of the actual reasons behind the differing play styles.

 

[Scribble]

I've been trying to figure out what the psychological difference there is in new school versus old school play. I have a theory, and I'd like people to honestly assess it.

See the thing is I don't think it's fair to say that's an oldschool vrs newschool thing, unless you want to say newschool started the moment after the first books were published ever.

It's quite possible that based on a houserule, or a rule from dragon or whatever that the "oldschool" player you describe might be looking at his sheet for that new rule to do just that.

It might be a difference in playstyles sure (one looks for a specific rule, the other just wants the DM to wing it) but I don't think it's old vrs new.

 

[Scribble]

Above is why I'm hoping 5e can give us a game where some people can say:

"This small subset of rules are the only 'Official' rules in our campaign, everything else we'll just wing."

 

[howandwhy99]

I love Tomb of Horrors and I haven't read Zeitgeist. But a lot of Tomb of Horrors is IMO awful design. There are instant death traps with no clues and no way to figure them out other than experimentation that insta-kills.

That doesn't stop me from adoring it and what it did to inspire me. But dang, it sure doesn't play fair. I'd certainly define it as an adversarial module (particularly because that's exactly what it was written for, to kill cocky players.)

Gary had a way of doing that. S1 was published in 1975? *I think* and D&D had just been published. There was little to no chance anyone in the community had high level PCs by then. And while there is some genius in the module in terms of hints, there's also stuff that will outright kill you without warning (Green-faced Demon head anyone?). Then he goes and follows D&D up with Necropolis for Dangerous Journeys. Awesome very high level tomb module, better than S1 IMO, but extraordinarily hard while wonderfully inventive. Not for first timers.

No clue challenges do need to be fixed, but these adventure modules are his archetypes for high level games. I see it like wandering around the lower levels of Castle Greyhawk. This isn't down willy nilly.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Gary had a way of doing that. S1 was published in 1975? *I think* and D&D had just been published.

1st printing, 1978 monochrome cover.

OK, it was run at Origins 1975 in Baltimore MD but not yet published!

 

[Harlekin]

I've been trying to figure out what the psychological difference there is in new school versus old school play. I have a theory, and I'd like people to honestly assess it.

In old school play, the rules existed only as a rough approximation of the fiction. That is, the players treated the fictional world as the primary source of information about their characters, and the stats and abilities were simply about conflict resolution. The rules were what you consulted when you couldn't figure out what happened.

In new school play (and by that I mean 3e and 4e DnD), the playstyle has moved to an explicit interaction with the rules, far more akin to how games like GURPS have been played for years. Now, I think the majority of this sea change came from 3e: much like with GURPS, when you propose a system that does EveryThing, you have to publish reams of rules for every corner case that comes up. Different from GURPS, 3e never had to reference reality. (And say what you will about Steve Jackson Games, they research their settings and rules systems like Ph.D students on methamphetamine).

But 4e, with the player's handbook at least presented the notion that the rules did not reflect the world, they defined it. In combat, at least, the interaction was with the mechanics and the fiction happened as result.

It's a subtle difference, and I've only noticed it because of getting the chance to watch dozens of different players play over the past 15 years, but it's there.

For example, a fighter want to shove a giant off a cliff. An old school player might look at his (you so cheated) 18/100 strength, ask the GM how far away the cliff edge was, and tell the GM that he's throwing his shoulder into the giant's knee and knocking him off balance with the haft of his great ax. The DM then makes a ruling, or has the player make a strength check, or any of a dozen different ways to deal with it.
Upside: The player is thinking in terms of the world.
Downside: The potential for five week long arguments about center of gravity and mass.

A new school player will ask the DM (or look at the battle mat) how far away the cliff is, then look for the ability that lets them push a creature 10'. The player makes an attack roll, hits, the monster gets pushed over the ledge and that's all she wrote. The DM then describes it as the fighter using the haft of the ax to shove him back, etc.
Upside: Clarity: the rules are explicit, without regard to particulars. The power works.
Downside: The player thinks in terms of how the rules interact with the story.

I think you for got the most important part about old school play: The DM writes down his new house rule about Bull Rush into his ever growing folder of house rules and tries to reference it if a similar situation comes up again.

More seriously, I think you are describing an important split in the game community, whether the rules define the game world or whether the rules try to approximate the interaction of the PCs with the game world. For example, if you belong to the first group, you would know that no experienced fighter can die just from falling of a horse. If you belong to the second group, you know that people of all fighting skill levels can die falling of horses, but the rules protect your PC from it, because protagonists typically don't die in a random accident.

However, I don't think this is an old school/new school split.

Plenty of arguments against 4ed revolve around the idea, that a game world defined by the 4h edition rules feel unreal. In fact, Martial Dailys (and Hit Points) are easiest to understand as the lucky breaks that story protagonists get, not something that can be relied on.

 

[Hassassin]

Plenty of arguments against 4ed revolve around the idea, that a game world defined by the 4h edition rules feel unreal. In fact, Martial Dailys (and Hit Points) are easiest to understand as the lucky breaks that story protagonists get, not something that can be relied on.

But if it represents something that can't be relied on, why can I rely on it?

This is IMHO the essence of the disconnect. I want how the rules work to represent what happens in the game world.

 

[Harlekin]

But if it represents something that can't be relied on, why can I rely on it?

This is IMHO the essence of the disconnect. I want how the rules work to represent what happens in the game world.

You (the player) can rely on being able to try the maneuver once a day with decent chance of success.

You (the PC) can't rely on anything. Even the first time you try the daily, it may fail (The PC doesn't see the dice roll). Maybe you are attempting the maneuver a second time but fail miserably (a miss is a miss, no matter which attack the player announced). Maybe you try a second time and sort of succeed (A critical on an encounter ability). Assuming that it would be easy for the PC to see a pattern in that he is able to succeed 0 or one time every day assumes that he can actually clearly define success and failure. It also assumes that the powers work exactly as described when the PC is off screen. I would argue that in practice matches or in fights that are not threatening to the PCs, dailys can probably be used multiple times.

But that takes you back to the distinction if rules describe the physics of the world or if they describe key elements of the adventure/story.

 

[Hassassin]

But that takes you back to the distinction if rules describe the physics of the world or if they describe key elements of the adventure/story.

That's another way to put it, but I want both.

I don't think e.g. a daily martial power really adds enough to the adventure/story to make it worth the compromise in representing physics poorly. Playability is a valid reason to compromise: you want the rules to remain simple. Getting this or that particular cool power into the game isn't.

Put yet another way: I want the decisions I make as a player to parallel those the character would make, where feasible. I don't want a mechanical incentive to do one thing, when to the character another choice should be superior (I know the Double-Spin-Kick, so of course I use it now there's a chance), or a strategic concern that the character doesn't have (no, better save the Double-Spin-Kick for the BBEG). Resource management should happen in-game.