D&D General Defining "New School" Play (+)

[cbwjm]

My very basic view of the difference between new and old is that old school you'll get a puzzle to solve and players talk about how to solve whereas in new school you just roll a check to figure it out.

 

[Mark Hope]

The problem with that is that something that allegedly started in 1985 cannot, per force, be called "new school" with any degree of seriousness. Perhaps, if we're going to qualify something "new", it should be a style that's less than 20 years old not a nearly 40-year-old style.

This is more or less my feeling on the proposed definitions. The style described as New School here is mostly how our games ran since about 1986 (4 years into playing D&D for me). Absolutely we played games that had high-lethality, a sense of very real danger, and other hallmarks that are often called "old school" but we ran those with intentionality, not as a default. Our default since those early days has always been to have narrative-oriented play that emulate the fiction we love with characters linked to and enmeshed in the setting and the overall job for the DM being to make sure everyone is having a good time. It's bemusing to see these elements described as "new".

I do think, however, that there's a common view of "how games were played back in the day" vs "how games are played now" and those common views can be described as "old school" or "new school" or "trad" or whatever. I just don't think that those views are necessarily representative of reality on the whole. They may reflect explicit advice in D&D books - the 5e Gencon video made a good point with this, in that the 5e books put advice on playing this way front and centre - but I think that reflects the books catching up with how many groups have actually been playing for quite a while now, rather than reflecting a new school of play.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My very basic view of the difference between new and old is that old school you'll get a puzzle to solve and players talk about how to solve whereas in new school you just roll a check to figure it out.

Would you say that this view is, perhaps, a little jaundiced?

Because I've had some experiences with "old school" stuff that also ended up being player proposed an idea, DM rolled something, and a result happened (either dead end nothing, or something good/bad depending on the specific idea.)

Trivializing any style of play seems rather against the [+] spirit of this thread.

 

[pemerton]

If I were to be defining “New School” it would look directly at the games that emerged between 2005-10 and thereafter.

<snip>

Among the systems that I would put in this category are FATE and the Powered by the Apocalypse games, as well as Burning Wheel, Reign, the Cubicle 7 and Margaret Weis games, as well as brain-breaking genius surprise hits like Fiasco.

This is obviously a different take than the OP

Yes, very different!

There are some significant differences across the games you mention - Fate and BW, for instance, are pretty different play experiences - but they all contrast with the OP's picture, which could go back to some approaches to RPGing that were around in the late 70s/early 80s.

 

[Mark Hope]

Yes, very different!

There are some significant differences across the games you mention - Fate and BW, for instance, are pretty different play experiences - but they all contrast with the OP's picture, which could go back to some approaches to RPGing that were around in the late 70s/early 80s.

I think this is a really interesting point. Games where the mechanics are specifically meant to create narrative-specific or genre-specific outcomes feel much more "new school" to me. But I agree - I don't think that's what the OP means by new school, which isn't necessarily all that new.

@Remathilis Do you see games like Fate, BW, PBTA and the like as playing a part in defining new school? Or is it purely an approach to play as opposed to actual changes in how mechanics affect play that you're looking at?

 

[ezo]

My view of NSP has little to do with the points in the OP. Every point in the OP existed in Gygaxian-era play, some to a greater degree than others, certainly, but they have always been around IME.

My very basic view of the difference between new and old is that old school you'll get a puzzle to solve and players talk about how to solve whereas in new school you just roll a check to figure it out.

Things like this, however, didn't happen in OSP (just rolling a check, that is).

The game I've been running for a couple months now is more OSP. The last three sessions at the "bandit camp" has involved a LOT of time spent planning, scouting, getting allies on the inside to help, etc. The threat is obvious and going to be overwhelming if they screw up.

But (IME) with many modern players, taking time for such game activities--where the story "grinds to a halt" in many ways for several sessions--would be annoying and "not fun".

I've experienced similar "push-back" from NS players when things like puzzles were involved. Patience in many aspect of play doesn't seem to exist much in NS players--who just want things to move along.

 

[cbwjm]

Would you say that this view is, perhaps, a little jaundiced?

Because I've had some experiences with "old school" stuff that also ended up being player proposed an idea, DM rolled something, and a result happened (either dead end nothing, or something good/bad depending on the specific idea.)

Trivializing any style of play seems rather against the [+] spirit of this thread.

First of all, I don't know what you mean by jaundiced. Second of all, I'm not trivialising anything, that's what I've seen online and in play. Old school you have puzzles to figure out as a player, new school people want to roll.

 

[Minigiant]

I think the biggest aspect of NSP is Character Play over Player Play.

Grogrick the PC beats the challenge not John the Player. The Player comes to the table informed of their PCs common actions and which ones they are better at.

PCs and Monsters have abilities on their sheet that determine their successes.

Anyone can shove. The action is described or laid out in the rules. Grogrick and the Ogre monster can Deal Damage and Shove in one action.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think this is a really interesting point. Games where the mechanics are specifically meant to create narrative-specific or genre-specific outcomes feel much more "new school" to me. But I agree - I don't think that's what the OP means by new school, which isn't necessarily all that new.

@Remathilis Do you see games like Fate, BW, PBTA and the like as playing a part in defining new school? Or is it purely an approach to play as opposed to actual changes in how mechanics affect play that you're looking at?

While I am not Remathilis myself, I would absolutely consider PbtA to belong to the new school, whether or not it helps define new school. That is, it's a deeply player-driven game with an emphasis on lots of testing and tight game design. Many old-school fans chafe at the idea that they really do HAVE to follow the rules...but then when you start giving examples of the rules they have to follow, they get double confused because they're like "but...but that's just running the game???" (I have personally seen this specific confusion numerous times, both on ENWorld and elsewhere.)

First of all, I don't know what you mean by jaundiced. Second of all, I'm not trivialising anything, that's what I've seen online and in play. Old school you have puzzles to figure out as a player, new school people want to roll.

And I'm saying this has nothing at all to do with new school play--it's simply a degenerate form of play that can appear in any school. Including old school.

 

[Aldarc]

If we are talking about New School D&D (i.e., WotC era as per OSR), then I would say that there are some other important elements that are being left out, particularly things like "Character Builds" and "Combat as Sport."