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

[Chaosmancer]

Just saying that my preference has not ever changed ... even going back to the old school days. There have always been different ways to play.

Yes, there have always been different ways to play. And some people have titled one of those ways "old school". I don't care if they are correct, or if they are wrong about when this playstyle was "common". I'm responding to the style itself, as described by the people who advocate for it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

A lot of this come from NS DMs hat require rolls for anything 'action' related or important. It's part of the that NS does not want the DM making the call on anything: they want the rules to do so. The dice and the rules say if a character does something...not the DM.

This is not my experience. DMs make calls all the time. However, if the rules say "Magic Missile always hits" then they aren't expecting the DM to suddenly ask for an attack roll when they cast the spell. And if they are sneaking, they don't expect the DM to declare "and the guards sound the alarm" without allowing you the chance to succeed.

Also, more then a few NS DMs don't have anything happen in the background that directly effects the players, and if it does the DM will immediately tell the player to make a check. And more then a few NS DMs do tell players "I will tell you when to make a check".

Well... yeah? This gets into the idea of informed decisions. To give an IRL example, I was once playing a Storm Sorcerer who was in a fight with a Dracolich. I had spent multiple rounds of combat blasting this thing to kingdom come, and at one point mentioned to a party member (because I was tracking) "We've done over 500 points of damage to this thing, it has to be close to dead." and the DM was confused on why I thought that. I mentioned that, my character alone had rolled almost 300 damage from his attacks... which is when the DM told me this was a Blue Dracolich and immune to lightning. He had never described that the dracolich had blue scales (he'd forgotten) or that it wasn't reacting to my attacks. Which turned an epic fight into a sour memory of wasting my time and energy for nothing.

Players cannot react to or notice information that is not provided by the DM. And it feels very much like a betrayal when a DM has something directly affect the Character without any knowledge, or have them automatically fail or be affected by something without a save.

At the same time, your last line refers to players who constantly interrupt to ask to make a check, and a DM who, hopefully kindly, tells them that they will let them know when that is necessary. After all, I often will give players information just for them asking a question, no check needed, because it is obvious or common knowledge. Anyone who has existed in the world will tend to recognize the holy symbol of the king of the gods, no point in making you roll religion to know that.

A lot of NS gamers feel a character can only do what is on the character sheet, or in the rules. Anything else is "wrong". Like the above, this comes back to not wanting the DM to make any calls.

Not in my experience. In my experience it is far more about reliability. My character can skin a wolf and cook its meat, don't need an ability on the character sheet. But if I have an option between using the shield bash shove from my feat, or attempting to throw a looped rope around an enemy's feet to trip them and knock them prone... I'm going to use the shield bash, because I know how it works and what it entails.

And a player who scans the skills is often not looking for a "Button" they are remembering that the game works by rolling a d20 and adding mods. They are trying to figure out what the mod is to their roll. After all, if I have a -1 charisma... my plan is likely not going to be sweet talking the guard into letting me in. That plan isn't reliable, because I can't leverage that into a success. Which stops mattering if you believe that just saying the correct things to the DM can cancel the roll. Then it doesn't matter what your modifier is, because it is irrelevant.

 

[Chaltab]

I haven't had time to read the whole thread, but I think 'Old School' and 'New School' is part false distinction and part oversimplification.

When Arneson and Gygax were first inventing D&D, they were coming at it from the perspective of a war gamer. Gygax referred to the DM as a 'Referee' in OD&D and even later mentioned not caring for the fact that in 3E, the DM was meant to be an 'entertainer'. In early versions of D&D, there was even essentially score keeping in the form of treasure. Players were competing, not directly against each other, but against the randomly-rolled elements of the dungeons in order to have the most wealth and power.

The fact of the matter is that D&D and later TTRPGs invented a new genre of game that has been gradually evolving. There are more 'Schools' than just old and new 50 years later, and I would argue that many things you might consider 'New School' play are just the result of this sort of game ending up in the hands of people that weren't immersed in war gaming and thus didn't approach the game as a competition.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I haven't had time to read the whole thread, but I think 'Old School' and 'New School' is part false distinction and part oversimplification.

When Arneson and Gygax were first inventing D&D, they were coming at it from the perspective of a war gamer. Gygax referred to the DM as a 'Referee' in OD&D and even later mentioned not caring for the fact that in 3E, the DM was meant to be an 'entertainer'. In early versions of D&D, there was even essentially score keeping in the form of treasure. Players were competing, not directly against each other, but against the randomly-rolled elements of the dungeons in order to have the most wealth and power.

The fact of the matter is that D&D and later TTRPGs invented a new genre of game that has been gradually evolving. There are more 'Schools' than just old and new 50 years later, and I would argue that many things you might consider 'New School' play are just the result of this sort of game ending up in the hands of people that weren't immersed in war gaming and thus didn't approach the game as a competition.

Which, frankly, included Arneson. From what I've read, he developed a lot of the more narrative aspects of DnD with his part of the work.

But this is the problem with labels. They are always inaccurate and fuzzy.

 

[Aldarc]

I haven't had time to read the whole thread, but I think 'Old School' and 'New School' is part false distinction and part oversimplification.

When Arneson and Gygax were first inventing D&D, they were coming at it from the perspective of a war gamer. Gygax referred to the DM as a 'Referee' in OD&D and even later mentioned not caring for the fact that in 3E, the DM was meant to be an 'entertainer'. In early versions of D&D, there was even essentially score keeping in the form of treasure. Players were competing, not directly against each other, but against the randomly-rolled elements of the dungeons in order to have the most wealth and power.

The fact of the matter is that D&D and later TTRPGs invented a new genre of game that has been gradually evolving. There are more 'Schools' than just old and new 50 years later, and I would argue that many things you might consider 'New School' play are just the result of this sort of game ending up in the hands of people that weren't immersed in war gaming and thus didn't approach the game as a competition.

The fact that there has been a gradual evolution also means that multiple distinct strands had developed, with some strands becoming more prevalent than others. I think that Old School vs. New School is partially about that shift in the prevalent culture between these strands that evolved out of the game. For some people, they became more aware of that shift at the point where WotC acquired D&D and published 3e D&D and 4e D&D. For these people, those older strands that they felt were more prevalent in TSR era of D&D had been passed over in favor of newer strands that were more present in WotC D&D. As you say, the game had evolved. The game had changed. So that game was no longer quite what it was for these players who saw what they viewed as "Old School" becoming sidelined for "New School."

As @Chaosmancer says, labels tend to be inaccurate and fuzzy, though I don't think that they are entirely without merit in terms of the reality that they are trying to describe. I do think that OSR involves revisionism about what old school D&D was actually like and then formed a more distinct play culture.

 

[Mark Hope]

Which, frankly, included Arneson. From what I've read, he developed a lot of the more narrative aspects of DnD with his part of the work.

But this is the problem with labels. They are always inaccurate and fuzzy.

Totally agree. I mean, if you wanted to, you could point to the fact that Arneson's Black Moor game grew out of Wesley's Braunstein, and was popular because it specifically prioritised character-oriented narratives over the wargame framework. Given that this is what led to D&D, I think there's an argument to be made that:

1) The old school/new school divide predates Dungeons & Dragons in its entirety, and

2) We wouldn't even have D&D without it.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Totally agree. I mean, if you wanted to, you could point to the fact that Arneson's Black Moor game grew out of Wesley's Braunstein, and was popular because it specifically prioritised character-oriented narratives over the wargame framework. Given that this is what led to D&D, I think there's an argument to be made that:

1) The old school/new school divide predates Dungeons & Dragons in its entirety, and

2) We wouldn't even have D&D without it.

Also, if this version of events is accurate, New School play predates Old School play.

 

[Ath'kethin]

I think you left out the most important thing:
This was actually a topic on GenConTV about 5e.

The game is way less adversary. The DM's job is not to give players a hard time, but a good time. It is more about cooperation between players and DM.

This factor, IMO, is the single best development of "New School" playing.

 

[Umbran]

But this is the problem with labels. They are always inaccurate and fuzzy.

The word "apple" is a label. It is fuzzy, yes. The real world is fuzzy. What, exactly, constitutes a "penguin"?

Whether it is inaccurate depends on how you are using labels. If you don't insist on extreme precision, accuracy can be maintained.

 

[mamba]

if you wanted to, you could point to the fact that Arneson's Black Moor game grew out of Wesley's Braunstein, and was popular because it specifically prioritised character-oriented narratives over the wargame framework.

if you really wanted to, you could say that a token going from representing a combat unit made up of x individuals with identical stats to representing a single individual allowed for character-oriented narratives that wargaming previously was unable to.

There has always been a move towards RP from that point onward, even in Braunstein already. OS vs NS marks a point on a line