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

[payn]

I think "new" in "new school" should at least mean something approaching the title—not simply a dividing line between one's Grognardia and the Other's Non-Grognardia. For instance, just because there are bands that cop a late 70s/early 80s vibe—but we don't call these new bands "new wave"—instead they are known as "synthwave" (there's also "darkwave", but that's more goth-adjacent). And we don't pretend that there only the "new wave" and "synthwave" genres, when there is a whole host of differing playstyles and games.

Its a D&D "general" thread, not RPGs entirely. I know the waters get muddy because D&D has had outsized influence on the hobby, but to me this narrows it down and makes complete sense of the issue. Im not making this up either, there are entire blogs and schools of thought and even the OSR moniker thats widely accepted. I dont really see it as up for debate as its generally accepted nomenclature at this point.

Its "old" becasue it was the first design philosophy, and the general playstyle moved design into a "new" direction. If you want to argue that old and new doesnt work for RPGs in total, I wont push back, but for D&D this is what we have.

 

[Minigiant]

You are mistaking the forest for the trees here. The primary focus of the design is the old school play style, which had variant and houserules for a new school style of play. That paradigm has flipped over the decades making it the new school of design thought as the primary, with variants to provide old school play.

Exactly

Old School Core. New School House rules

Vs.

New School Core, Old School House rules

 

[Azzy]

Its a D&D "general" thread, not RPGs entirely. I know the waters get muddy because D&D has had outsized influence on the hobby, but to me this narrows it down and makes complete sense of the issue. Im not making this up either, there are entire blogs and schools of thought and even the OSR moniker thats widely accepted. I dont really see it as up for debate as its generally accepted nomenclature at this point.

Look, I have no issue with oD&D/1e/B/X being called "old school" nor the OSR moniker for emulators of those old editions. The problem I have is just painting anything newer than 1981 "new school". Doing so, the term becomes meaningless and has no nuance, at worse it's self-congratulatory.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

New school is this apparently this kind of art (top) vs bottom:View attachment 367836

View attachment 367838

I have this beholder's facial expression upon looking at this beholder.

But I'm really not here for twee either. That first thing is pretty twee. In small doses, cute and cuddly is fine. It quickly becomes cloying if it's the only aesthetic.

This image captures what I would consider the "new school aesthetic." Mr. Engle is among my favorite 4e artists.

It's not the "dungeon punk" of 3e, but also not the (intentionally) hoary sketches of grim terrors, either. It has bright color, and also dim; it has light and shadow both.

 

[payn]

Look, I have no issue with oD&D/1e/B/X being called "old school" nor the OSR moniker for emulators of those old editions. The problem I have is just painting anything newer than 1981 "new school". Doing so, the term becomes meaningless and has no nuance, at worse it's self-congratulatory.

Well, thats because you are choosing to wholesale ignore the nuance thats been discussed. No one is going to wait around for you.

 

[Xenolith234]

I have this beholder's facial expression upon looking at this beholder.

But I'm really not here for twee either. That first thing is pretty twee. In small doses, cute and cuddly is fine. It quickly becomes cloying if it's the only aesthetic.

This image captures what I would consider the "new school aesthetic." Mr. Engle is among my favorite 4e artists.

It's not the "dungeon punk" of 3e, but also not the (intentionally) hoary sketches of grim terrors, either. It has bright color, and also dim; it has light and shadow both.

I think it has to be the right kind of cute, and that just strikes me as advertising to 6 year olds who want to buy Hasbro toys. Upon seeing the kawaii art on the tracker sheets (which by themselves aren't a bad idea to include) I retched. I came into the game around the late-stage of 2e, so I don't necessarily have strong tethers to its art, but extremely appreciate Lockwood's art in, say, the Draconomicon. I don't think we'll see anything like it again in Hasbro's D&D.

 

[Oofta]

The "domestication" of the Evil Human is the "bad boy", "bad kid". Consider the "evil is sexy" trope.

It is a thing.

Which is why we have vampires that glow in the sun instead of bursting into flames. Oh, and being a werewolf is a power-up instead of a curse.

 

[Yaarel]

Which is why we have vampires that glow in the sun instead of bursting into flames. Oh, and being a werewolf is a power-up instead of a curse.

Also Fairies from originally terrifying (able to wield fates of life and death) to frivolous.

Djinn from terrifying to fun.

(The "werewolf" was originally shamanic mages taking the shape of a wolf on purpose. Albeit, others could shapeshift accidentally because of contact with the magic of a mage. Even then, adopting the wolf form is a kind of domestication of the wolf.)

 

[bmfrosty]

I think I want to see this as two columns:

Old-School Column
Resistance to player directed builds
A tendency towards emergent game-play
A tendency towards emergent storytelling
Fall back on the dice as resolution as a last resort (combat excepted)
Characters describe what they're doing and the Judge decides if/how it's achievable

New-School Column
Per level player directed build options as the norm
Game-play is built around the rules and what's on the character sheet
More in the way of pre-planned encounters, storytelling, and scenarios
The dice decide the resolution based on what's on the character sheet
Characters can do what's listed on their character sheet

Someone early in the thread brought up the Hickman Revolution, and I'd say that that's a good starting point, and things were in full swing by time Players Options came out for 2e.

3rd edition forward fixed a number of mechanical issues with earlier editions, but cemented the new school of play, along with damage scaling to support what tends to happen with player directed builds. As a player who started with 5th edition, but prefers OSR playstyles, this has led me to an obsession around rebuilding B/X around newer mechanics to the point where some day I may publish a PDF or some other silliness.

 

[Azzy]

Well, thats because you are choosing to wholesale ignore the nuance thats been discussed. No one is going to wait around for you.

Lol, Grognardia smash!