Old school/new school definitions -- meaningless?

[Quasqueton]

Is the current expression “old school style” directed at some currently published adventure modules a disservice to those same adventure modules, and to all contemporary adventure modules?

There are some companies claiming their current line of adventure modules are designed/written in an “old school style” (though they may use different marketing terminology). And there are some individual adventures published in Dungeon magazine lauded as being “old school design”. And some folks are claiming that some of the great classic modules are great because of their “old school design”.

There are some great older adventure modules. But there are also some terrible older adventure modules. Being “old school” is not a guarantee of quality.

And what, exactly, is “old school style”? Do all old/classic adventure modules have the “old school style”? Both Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh and White Plume Mountain are old/classic adventure modules, but they are vastly different in design style and play style. Is one “old school style” and the other not? How about Dragons of Despair and The Keep on the Borderlands? Both are old/classic adventure modules, but they are vastly different in design style and play style.

What if a long-time Player’s “old school” experience included the Saltmarsh series, the Sentinel/Gauntlet series, All That Glitters, Beyond the Crystal Cave.

Compare this to another Player’s “old school” experience included In Search of the Unknown, Palace of the Silver Princess, Hidden Shrine of Tomoachan, Ghost Tower of Inverness, Mordenkainen’s Fantastic Adventure, and Tomb of Horrors.

And another Player’s “old school” experienced the full run of the Dragonlance series.

The above three Players played the “old school” / classic adventures, but they have vastly different experiences with the “old school” days of D&D. If they liked their personal experiences in the old days, would they enjoy a contemporary adventure module with the marketing label of “old school style”?

There are some great adventure modules written and published in this day. If Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh was published today, would/could it get the label “old school style”? How about Dragons of Despair? In Search of the Unknown?

Does labeling an adventure module with an “old school style” label help it sell more? Has it become the “New and Improved” tag of contemporary adventure modules? [And is this really ironic?]

Does labeling a good adventure module with “old school style” do a disservice to contemporary adventure modules and writers?

If an author, today, writes a really good adventure, something [unintentionally] comparable to The Keep on the Borderlands, should it get, does it need the label of “old school style”?

If an author, today, writes a really good adventure, something [unintentionally] comparable to The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, should it get, does it need the label of “old school style”?

Would the label for either be accurate/appropriate?

Every time I’ve read someone’s description of “old school style”, the description only describes maybe a third of the actual old/classic adventures, including some real stinkers. The definition seems to disinclude some real good old/classic adventures. So why is “old school style” some kind of positive buzzword? Does it suggest that the style wouldn’t exist today if it were not emulated?

Is there a “new school style”? What would the definition be? Are there old/classic adventure modules that would be considered “new school style”? Does this mean that there really isn’t a “school style” at all? That adventure modules are just either good or bad regardless of the year they were published and the general style they were written in?

Quasqueton

 

[Vigilance]

And what, exactly, is “old school style”? Do all old/classic adventure modules have the “old school style”? Both Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh and White Plume Mountain are old/classic adventure modules, but they are vastly different in design style and play style. Is one “old school style” and the other not? How about Dragons of Despair and The Keep on the Borderlands? Both are old/classic adventure modules, but they are vastly different in design style and play style.

To me, old school adventure design is largely something I know when I see it. The Dungeon Crawl Classic series is definitely old school design.

Give me a nasty dungeon crawl with some twisted things lurking inside that Man Was not Meant to Know and not many deep brooding philosophical "behind the screen" type touches like "realistic dungeon ecology" anyday.

I think, by and large, older adventures didn't take themselves as seriously and this benefitted them.

Against the Giants, Temple of Elemental Evil, Isle of the Ape, these were adventures that broke a lot of the current "rules" but people still buy them, still play them and still enjoy them.

Maybe breaking the rules made them less formulaic. I dunno.

Chuck

 

[Shemeska]

Take my words with a grain of salt here since I never played before 3e, and my preferred style (mid/late 2e, high detail, high metaplot, maybe even some philosophical brooding) isn't very 'old school'.

That said, I've generally seen 'old school style' modules as being beer & pretzels dungeon crawls that didn't have metaplot, didn't typically care about presenting realistic dungeon/monster ecology, and usually didn't have great amounts of detail presented in the module (ostensibly because it was intended for the DM to take those elements and elaborate on them themselves, or just because that was the standard at the time, I can't say).

Not my thing at all, but I can see where people get their kicks from it.

 

[Quasqueton]

See, my point is, that what you both have described as "old school design" is only actually present in *some*, not all, old/classic adventure modules. There are many old/classic adventure modules that do not have this defined "old school design". And what you describe as *not*/antithesis of "old school design" is actually in some of the adventure modules you call "old school".

For instance, the Giant series had an identified and defined metaplot. And that metaplot extended through six adventure modules! Having a metaplot is usually said to be the antithesis of "old school design", yet this series is usually held up as a paragon of "old school design".

Quasqueton

 

[Vigilance]

See, my point is, that what you both have described as "old school design" is only actually present in *some*, not all, old/classic adventure modules. There are many old/classic adventure modules that do not have this defined "old school design". And what you describe as *not*/antithesis of "old school design" is actually in some of the adventure modules you call "old school".

Quasqueton

Agreed. But I think what you might be missing is that old school modules weren't designed with any sort of "rules". For instance, both Isle of the Ape and Against the Slavelords were heavily railroady and involved the PCs losing almost ALL THEIR STUFF.

This is the sort of thing that would be verbotten in a "new school" adventure but old school modules put no such limitations on themselves. As long as you ended the adventure with more stuff than you started out with, it was all good.

Tomb of Horrors is another example. Many of the encounters are real Kobayashi Maru "no win scenarios".

In other words, there were no rules. They broke new school design rules, heck they broke their OWN rules. You encountered stuff in modules all the time, from magical traps to weird mini-planes to all sorts of other oddness...

There was also very little in the way of standard formatting of information, no standardization of what was boxed text or not boxed, etc.

Each module was really it's own unique butterfly.

Chuck

 

[francisca]

I see what you are saying quasi, and agree to a large extent. Individual experience and expectations cause what "old school" means to be entirely too subjective, and requires a ton of disclaimers and qualification to truly clarify what it means from a particular point of view.

Hence, to a large degree, Old School is a meaningless term. For example, I've seen it applied to all of these trains of thought/styles in the past:

A) It's trolls in a cave with a jug of alchemy.
B) as a derogatory term, seeking to put down players of previous editions as luddites
C) blind adherence to the RAW of 1e or 1974 D&D because "that's how Gary intended it"
D) adding tons of houserules to 1e or OD&D, because that's what old-school embodies
E) dismissing the vaunted 3e balance out of hand because: the CR system is broken and/or an unattainable goal (that would be yours truly, BTW)

So yeah. Um, what was the question again?

 

[Quasqueton]

This is the sort of thing that would be verbotten in a "new school" adventure

Please define this "new school design", and identify who created this style and who is enforcing this style. I suggest there is no "new school design" just as there was no "old school design". There is good and bad design, but old/new is irrelevant.

Quasqueton

 

[Vigilance]

Please define this "new school design", and identify who created this style and who is enforcing this style. I suggest there is no "new school design" just as there was no "old school design". There is good and bad design, but old/new is irrelevant.

Quasqueton

You might be right, it might be that the tastes of the designers themselves has changed. Which still makes "new school" a real thing doesn't it? It might be one of those unwritten rules.

I have definitely seen class design evolve since the 3.0 PHB for example. Many MANY more designers (myself included) trend toward an ability every level now which was not nearly as common.

Now no one really MAKES us do this, but players seem to like those classes better, which provides it's own sort of reinforcement.

So maybe not a "rule" but a "trend"?

 

[Faraer]

Undoubtedly the 'old school' idea bears a very partial relationship to what it purports to be about. It's a jocular stereotype -- I'm thinking of the Dungeon Crawl Classics 'NPCs there to be killed' line, which is Hackmaster-style satire. You can make some generalizations -- Gary thought/thinks about D&D a certainly way, which the people around him in Lake Geneva and TSR shared to varying degrees; some of this thinking has gone out of fashion, some of it is constant and therefore not usually drawn attention to. But certainly 'old school' and 'new school' are too broad and vague (or narrow and precise) to be of much use for discussion that goes into any detail.

 

[Quasqueton]

I have definitely seen class design evolve

I started this thread to discuss adventure design, not class design. Let's not confuse the issue.

Quasqueton