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

[GobHag]

Primacy of Character over World

This is what I think makes something 'New School'. In essence, it's the idea that yes the world does revolved around the player/character--not to serve them, but revolves around them. In extreme this can lead to how storygame sbasicaly allow players to just make stuff up about how the world works or have specific powers that trumps any need for it to 'make sense'--yes, In-world I'm using the Goddess of Fate's power but it does literally allow me to control an NPC as if I am the actual factual GM.

In lesser forms it's usually using rules to override 'common sense' during play, or performative play where the idea of challenge is not to actually challenge but to make the character cool or do cool things.

 

[mamba]

First, could you actually play AD&D or earlier versions without filling in a whole lot of gaps

probably, I needed to ignore a lot more than I needed to fill in

 

[Remathilis]

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?

I will profess limited knowledge of the systems discussed, but if they follow a narrative first style of play, I think they qualify.

An RPG I do find extremely new school is Doctor Who: AiS&T. Befitting the genre and source material, collaboration, nonviolent conflict resolution, and story first style of play are intrinsic to the very core of the game. Even if you lose, the Doctor regenerates and companions have the option to quit adventuring and go home rather than face permanent death. But the goal of the RPG was to emulate the story style of the show and thus keep to those parameters. I don't think you need to go as far as AiS&T did in terms of style to be new school.

 

[Oofta]

Focusing on the specific examples of new school ideas is kind of missing the point. Feel free to substitute any other new school concept you wish that you believe actually gets used.

It wasn't a criticism of the fact that you brought up BIFTs, it's more just an observation.

It also kind of goes to the whole question on whether 5E has much of a narrative game push. All the definitions are really squishy to me but it seems that narrative games have rules that actively encourage people to make the best story possible. So narrative doesn't seem to really apply. I would say that it was a small attempt to push people into a more immersive style of play versus a tactical style of play. In an immersive style of play, you do what your character would do, in tactical you do what makes the most sense.

For example, let's say your PC is standing next to the rope that's tied off and keeping the chandelier (so that the chandelier can be lowered easily). They can cut the rope, sending the chandelier crashing down. Do they do it because

1. Narrative: it makes for a more interesting story.
2. Immersive: in the moment it's what the character would do even if it just because they want to cause chaos for the sake of chaos.
3. Tactical: the chandelier will crash down on enemies, hopefully damaging them and slowing them down.

I don't see #1 ever being really pushed in any edition. For #2 character motivation has long been a part of the game, it's just that in the past we only had alignment to base it on from a rules perspective. Some people will default to #3 all of the time, even if it means that they simply write down a trait as "always looking for tactical advantage".

But to me this, again, has always been a personal decision since D&D doesn't really push one over the other that much. Alignment, and with 5E BIFTs added in, push the immersive side of things. On the other hand some people really lean into the "what would my character do" while others view their character as a grouping of stats and abilities that allow them to implement preferred tactics. Many are something in between which is where I would put myself. Oh, and just to be clear, there's nothing wrong with different approaches, we all play for different reasons.

 

[Mark Hope]

I will profess limited knowledge of the systems discussed, but if they follow a narrative first style of play, I think they qualify.

An RPG I do find extremely new school is Doctor Who: AiS&T. Befitting the genre and source material, collaboration, nonviolent conflict resolution, and story first style of play are intrinsic to the very core of the game. Even if you lose, the Doctor regenerates and companions have the option to quit adventuring and go home rather than face permanent death. But the goal of the RPG was to emulate the story style of the show and thus keep to those parameters. I don't think you need to go as far as AiS&T did in terms of style to be new school.

I haven't played it but if that's the one where initiative is determined by what you do, and talking comes first and fighting last, then yeah, I think that's a great candidate for a game where mechanics drive the nature of play

 

[Corinnguard]

Another new school element would have to be playing as a member of a species that originally was considered an enemy race to the races in the core PHB in earlier editions. Species like goblins and orcs were originally painted with a very broad brush, every member of those species was depicted as being evil. By 3e, these two species were depicted as mostly evil, but now there were exceptions who for one reason or another broke away from the rest of their species. The exceptions being goblin and orc player characters. Nowadays, goblins and orcs are like the other player character species in 5e, a societal mix of individuals on the alignment spectrum. There is a more inclusive approach to who you want to play as in 5e.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Maybe we should just fully reformat all the labels we use to go after one another.

After all, Old School Play is still being played today, so it can't actually be old right?

 

[Corinnguard]

Maybe we should just fully reformat all the labels we use to go after one another.

After all, Old School Play is still being played today, so it can't actually be old right?

What about Ancient School Play? The really old stuff.

 

[Lord Shark]

Yeah. A good analogy.

I don't have time anymore to make it as hard for the players as possible. I like to see them succeed, so I don't have to invent new plot again and again. That does not mean I make ot easy for them. But I really took the "yes, and", "yes, but", "no, but" approach to heart.

So rolled bad? Not the end of the story. Not immediate death. But a chance to do it differently or roleplay.

Players forgot something important? Allow their characters to remember.

We play for only 2 hours each week at best. Should we waste or time to search in our notes? Who can expect players to remember things exactly what was yesterday in the game, but weeks ago in real time...

The reward for such a game is that the story progresses and sometimes players creative shortcuts so the story progresses faster. I as a DM am a big fan of that. I cheer them for finding that solution.

In an old school game that was outwitting the DM who then put all theor effort into outwitting the players so that the story progresses at the pace the DM planned.

Since it comes up a lot (A LOT), I will also note that the dictum to "be a fan of the characters" does not mean simply handing the players wins with no effort.

My favorite example is Spider-Man. If you're a fan of Spidey, you're going to want to see him in stories where he's stressing out over Aunt May's health and whether he can beg enough money out of J. Jonah Jameson to make his rent. And sure you want fights where he can clown around and wisecrack and make the villain look silly, but you also want to see him in situations where he's beaten down by overwhelming odds and has to dig deep to rise to the occasion; the image of him bloody with his costume torn to shreds is classic for a reason.

Being a fan of the characters means understanding the characters and the situations that make them shine, and providing them with opportunities for those situations.

 

[Umbran]

Primacy of Character over World

This is what I think makes something 'New School'. In essence, it's the idea that yes the world does revolved around the player/character--not to serve them, but revolves around them.

I think I see a valid point there, but the wording isn't a good representation of what happens in play. Specifically, the fictional game world overall does not necessarily revolve around characters in new school play. Play revolves around the characters.

And I mean that in the sense that, in old school play, characters are semi-expendable, they come and go, and that doesn't really impact the focus of play much. In more new school forms, if we replace characters, we expect the focus of play to suit their narrative needs. It is not that the actual world changes, but the things we concern ourselves with in play changes.