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

[EzekielRaiden]

I might not have detailed it well enough. It's part of the bigger issue of Fairness.

A New School game is Fair. The most common example is that a character will almost always get a save or check to avoid any effect. Another is where the DM will give helpful descriptions with highlights to hint at things...and specifically traps as the player and character nearly always must be given a chance to see or figure out something before it happens. And it is rare to the extreme for NS to have any trick or "gothca" where a player falls for something that effects their character.

Old School is Unfair. A character might get a save or check, if the DM feels like it. A lot of things that effect a character are unavoidable. The DM will often describe a area in detail, but treats everything equally. Old School is full of tricks and "gothca" bit for players to fall for.

I am surprised. I actually agree with most of this, other than the last bit.

"New school" wants to present a worthwhile challenge--meaning, a challenge that genuinely has both success and failure as valid options, which avoids bumbling into absolute no-win scenarios or dull, monotonous grind (that is, where one or more sessions is against enemies in an absolute no-win scenario). If players actively choose to be little poops, there's no obligation to save them from their poopy behavior. But part of the idea is that the players agree not to behave like that--just as most groups, for example, expect everyone to be courteous, to notify if they're going to be late/absent/have to leave early/etc. Some behavior is acceptable, other behavior isn't. We agree to be courteous to one another; part of courtesy in a "new school" game is getting folks on the same page regarding the tone and style of play before the game begins.

The only problem I have is the last bit: "but treats everything equally." That is not a requirement in my experience of "old school." The only requirement is that the DM believes they've made the correct decision--and guess who decides whether the decision is correct or not! Equality might be a factor in that. I have found it often is not. Every approach has its fail-states (e.g., "new school" necessarily runs into issues if the players are actively malicious or disingenuous), and old school's fail-state is that it is intensely, profoundly dependent on DMs being really, really good at things that humans are generally not very good at: consistency, impartiality, statistics (the old "roll for stealth every single time something happens" problem, aka iterative probability issues), game design. All of that on top of the stuff the DM would be embarked on regardless of which "school" you're using.

"New school," by choosing to be more player-dependent, has more issues if players are disruptive. "Old school," by being almost exclusively DM-dependent, is pretty tolerant against players being little poops. It is, to put it very mildly, not particularly tolerant of unskillful DMs. Personally, I think it isn't even tolerant of merely mediocre DMs--but most DMs are mediocre, and that's kind of a problem. "New school," having offloaded some of the DM's burden to printed rules, social contract, and player-behavior expectations, is more tolerant of a wider range of DM skill...and with DMs being incredibly hard to find, that's a major benefit.

NSP the STORY is King.
OS PLAYING is king.

How does this square with 4e, which I would call a definitive "new school" game, being so gamist?

For me, OS = player play. Pawn stance, beer-and-pretzels, devil-may-care attitude regarding the characters. Becoming attached to a character is something that only happens if that character has lasted years and years, and even then, it just means their death will be memorable when it finally happens. The only "role" you take on is as someone who is trying to keep their game piece alive as long as possible--unless getting your game piece killed off would be more interesting right now.

NS = participant play. Actor/Author stance, immersion, deep connection to the characters. Becoming attached to a character is something that happens at creation--like watching a TV show and becoming attached to its main characters by the time the pilot episode is finished. The role you take on is, as mentioned upthread, like being a method actor "stepping into" the character. Gameplay, when it is relevant, should be a worthwhile effort for its own sake, not simply because it creates an obstacle between the players and their ends.

Both of these things involve "skillful play," which is one of the reasons why a lot of "new school" fans get bristly when they hear "old school" play described as "skillful play" or "player skill"--as though no other form of play could involve skill. The skills are just different, and trying to play game A by the standards of game B will usually lead to a lot of frustration and annoyance or, worse, thinking that game A is trash because it "doesn't work" or the like.

And, note that the above distinction embraces both heavily "gamist" play and heavily "narrativist" play. 4e D&D is a very gamist game, and a defining example of "new school" gaming. Apocalypse World and other PbtA games are a defining example of Story Now, narrativist gaming--but I would classify them as just as much "new school" as 4e D&D. Participation in the thing-we're-immersed-in does not care whether that participation is skirmish combats or teen monster romance drama or skulduggery and heistery; it's all participation.

 

[Oofta]

NSP the STORY is King.

I differentiate more STORY and/or CHARACTER is King.

OS PLAYING is king.

I'd call that PLAYER SKILL.

Of course I'd probably do broad categories of story, character and player skill focuses, with a mix-and-match crossover. But then we'd have, I don't know old school, new school and middle school? Because after all we can't just call them Story, Character and Player Skill focuses to describe the styles of play. That might actually tell people what you're talking about without explanation.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I differentiate more STORY and/or CHARACTER is King.


I'd call that PLAYER SKILL.

Of course I'd probably do broad categories of story, character and player skill focuses, with a mix-and-match crossover. But then we'd have, I don't know old school, new school and middle school? Because after all we can't just call them Story, Character and Player Skill focuses to describe the styles of play. That might actually tell people what you're talking about without explanation.

I don’t think player skill is exclusive to old school. Challenging players is a feature of all roleplaying eras.

 

[Oofta]

I don’t think player skill is exclusive to old school. Challenging players is a feature of all roleplaying eras.

I don't think there is a clear definition which is why I discuss it. I didn't think "playing" fit because of course we're all just playing the game. Maybe just "player focus"? After all the PCs are just pawns and the dungeon isn't really a story.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I don't think there is a clear definition which is why I discuss it. I didn't think "playing" fit because of course we're all just playing the game. Maybe just "player focus"? After all the PCs are just pawns and the dungeon isn't really a story.

Yeah I’d agree “player/character focus” as a more new school feature. When I think of “player skill,” I think of tournament dungeons that challenge the players at-the-table skills. But at the same time all adventures have some level of challenge, so player skill I think applies to all eras.

 

[payn]

Yeah I’d agree “player focus” as a more new school feature. When I think of “player skill,” I think of tournament dungeons that challenge the players at-the-table skills. But at the same time all adventures have some level of challenge, so player skill I think applies to all eras.

Absolutely, old and new are not polar opposites and will share some aspects. This confusion largely springs up from folks who dislike new school so disparage it by saying it’s no challenge and skill. That’s not the case.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, it is a basic fundamental part of nearly all Old School play. The scribbles in the books are just suggestions for the DM to follow if they want too. The players must follow all the rules...unless the DM says so.

And the Rule of Cool is in New School play as well. But there is a phrasing difference on the DMs power that is vital to actually pointing out the differences that tend to appear.

It depends. Old School style does not give the players much information for free....the players must find most of it through game play.

You have also consistently advocated on hiding, obscuring, and flat out not telling people the information. It is like you want to say that the less the player's know and understand, the better the game is. Which just loops right back around to one of my first posts, where the "goal" of the style seems to largely be refining player skill for metagame growth, which is not the goal in "New School" approaches.

It depends again. Like take traps. In Old School your given the description of a whole area, so things can get "lost" in that block of text or speech. New School is more focused, like "the room is uninteresting...But you noticed some long scrapes along the stone floor by the far wall." So by skiping the room details and just saying the one detail, it does signal that that one said detail is important.

Yes, that is exactly what I've been saying. And I find it telling that you think of this example, while also saying that the point of the more focused approach is to avoid character death. It leads to thinking you WANT character death, which people usually deny, claiming that they just don't want to treat the PCs as though they are special. That they want to challenge the players, to see if they are really paying attention... It almost feels like someone popping up as you leave a movie theater, and demanding you answer their obscure pop quiz question or they will charge you an extra $20 for the ticket. Because they want to make sure you were paying attention to the movie.

I don't care how you want to play, but the superiority that comes along with the style, the insinuations that New School only exists because people couldn't cut it playing the real way, or they were scared of the challenge, that is what grates on me. We have different goals of play, that doesn't make my way less of a challenge to the players than yours.

New School characters are special in the game world, so they not only have plot armor, they always get a save. In Old School characters are "everypersosns" and get nothing.

Sometimes not even the dignity of a name. I'm already a faceless, unimportant cog in a machine that will grind my bones to pulp in real-life. No thanks to being Fighter #5 in my entertainment as well.

 

[Chaosmancer]

"New school" wants to present a worthwhile challenge--meaning, a challenge that genuinely has both success and failure as valid options, which avoids bumbling into absolute no-win scenarios or dull, monotonous grind (that is, where one or more sessions is against enemies in an absolute no-win scenario).

Wanted to tease out this line of thinking and talk a little bit about scripted events and Souls-Games. I'm just using your post as a springboard.

Many video games have long had scripted events where the players are forced to lose a fight. It has been a long-standing point of contention in the various games, because it is annoying. Being put into a scenario where you have absolutely no chance of winning is just not fun. Very, very rarely you will get a no-win fight that a skilled enough player can last long enough in to realize that it is actually impossible to win, instead of just losing over the course of the fight. But, notably, there are two points in a game where is it less frustrating for this to happen.

1) The very beginning of the Hero's journey
2) The very end of the Hero's Journey.

The beginning is rather more common. Big Bad shows up, knocks out heroes, now we are on a quest to get stronger and eventually defeat that same Big Bad. Common stuff, mildly annoying still when it happens, because "we could have just skipped this part".

The Ending is interesting, because it is usually a heroic sacrifice. The example I remember best is Halo: Reach, where at the end of the game, your character is faced with fighting an entire invading army by himself, and no matter how good you are, eventually the endless waves of enemies overwhelms you. But... anyone who knew the Halo franchise KNEW that the mission ended in failure before they even bought the disk. The Fall of Reach was a major turning point in the war that the first three games were about, this was a prequel story about an unknown Spartan who was the silent hero of this battle. You spend most of the game watching your squad slowly die around you. It feels GOOD to have that ending, if bittersweet, because the entire game made the point that THIS was the point of the story, a stand against literally impossible odds, honor and duty before all else.

But DnD, especially when we usually talk about Old School play... doesn't do either of these. The impossible to win scenarios are not at the start of the journey to kick off your ascent to heroism. They aren't a heroic sacrifice at the climax of the campaign. They are in the middle, and only end the story for your character. You are the squad mate who gets sniped from afar during the fourth mission, never reaching the end of the story. And that SUCKS. It utterly, completely, without any regard for nuance, sucks to be the person who just drops dead midway through the story, then gets replaced by another character.

But, I also brought up another type of game, because it ties into this. The Souls Games are infamous for being incredibly difficult. And they do have a few scripted events, especially in the earlier games, where your character is meant to flee a foe they cannot defeat. But, there are two twists here and they are vital.

The first twist is that no Souls creature I am aware of, is actually undefeatable. There is a famous challenge of defeating the first big boss in the first game with the broken sword you start with. You aren't supposed to do that. You are supposed to run past, survive, get better gear, and come back. It is technically supposed to be an unwinnable fight. But you can win it. You just have to be highly skilled at the game.

The second twist is, there is no RNG in a Souls game. If you are fighting the big devil, and you attempt to dodge roll away from its hammer, the only consideration is "did I time it correctly". If you pressed the buttons at the correct time, in the correct sequence, you will dodge, every single time. If you swing your weapon, and you are close enough to hit, you will hit the enemy, every single time. It actually is pure skill. A skill developed by being able to die over and over and over and over and over again, but resurrecting in the same time, same place, with the same character following the same story. Every death is a chance to learn, but also the story never changes with your death. You are not suddenly playing the second game if you die in the first.

DnD does not work this way. If I make an attack on an enemy... I need to roll to see if I hit. Randomly, with no regard to my personal skill, I may miss. Then I roll for damage, and randomly, with no regard to my personal skill, I may roll low damage. If an enemy attack me, they roll to hit, and they may hit, randomly, with no regard to my personal skill. They might roll high damage, randomly with no regard to my personal skill. That fight with the jailer demon and the player with the broken sword cannot work in DnD, because even if it is technically possible for a character to hit 50 times in a row with the enemy missing 50 times in a row, statistically it isn't going to happen.

And there is one last point. No one who runs one of the ridiculously difficult challenges in a souls game (like the Elden Ring challenge of winning with nothing but a basket hat and a sword) looks down on or disparages someone who beats the game using optimized methods. No one states that you aren't "really" playing the game if you choose a standard route over some bonkers challenge meant for players who are on the bleeding edge of the game's curve. Because while a gamer who does the basket-head challenge for the game, or the invincible challenge where if they die they need to start all over, is showcasing a high level of skill... they are showing off. They are doing it for fun, because the beat the game six other ways already, but they love the game too much to move on.

No one likes playing no-win scenarios, unless it is deeply and perfectly thematic to their character's arc and journey. No win scenarios that can be overcome with an extreme amount of skill are fun for showing off, but DnD is largely not about skill, because it is about rolling dice. A perfect plan with perfect execution can fail because of a bad die roll. And yet, there is this habit, of looking down on people who are not trying to flex, of calling out people for playing on "easy mode" just because they are not letting everything ride or die on a single die roll. And I think it is in part because those people are playing with the goal of never rolling dice, trying to make DnD into a game of pure skill of description, where as long as you have a perfect plan, you are not allowed to fail.

 

[bloodtide]

And the Rule of Cool is in New School play as well. But there is a phrasing difference on the DMs power that is vital to actually pointing out the differences that tend to appear.

True.

You have also consistently advocated on hiding, obscuring, and flat out not telling people the information. It is like you want to say that the less the player's know and understand, the better the game is. Which just loops right back around to one of my first posts, where the "goal" of the style seems to largely be refining player skill for metagame growth, which is not the goal in "New School" approaches.

Well, no to your point. Old School DMs are not great humanitarians taht want to make their players better people.

In an Old School game characters have to find out things "for real". That is they must to fairly specific focused things to get exact information. New School is much more like movies/tv shows.....ever notice how the heroes just "automatically find stuff to advance the plot". That is New School.

Yes, that is exactly what I've been saying. And I find it telling that you think of this example, while also saying that the point of the more focused approach is to avoid character death. It leads to thinking you WANT character death, which people usually deny, claiming that they just don't want to treat the PCs as though they are special. That they want to challenge the players, to see if they are really paying attention... It almost feels like someone popping up as you leave a movie theater, and demanding you answer their obscure pop quiz question or they will charge you an extra $20 for the ticket. Because they want to make sure you were paying attention to the movie.

Few Old School DMs want character death as a single goal. It is more about having an unfair, tough, Hard Fun world.

I don't care how you want to play, but the superiority that comes along with the style, the insinuations that New School only exists because people couldn't cut it playing the real way, or they were scared of the challenge, that is what grates on me. We have different goals of play, that doesn't make my way less of a challenge to the players than yours.

It's more accurate to say people simply did not like the Old School way. After all, plenty of players would say they could play an Old School game, they simply don't want too.

An Old School game is harder, there is no two ways about it. But it is not "better" just as it is harder. Old School games are a very hard challenge, that is really a big point about Old School.

Just compare: The character finds a stone tablet written in a strange script.

New School: The player just makes a roll and the character reads the tablet....The DM just tells the player what it says.

Old School: The player is given a tablet handout. The player must use their own personal skills and intelligence to decipher the script using anything they have seen or heard during game play.

There is no doubt that translating a script for real is a lot harder then just rolling a single dice. But that does not make it "better".

Sometimes not even the dignity of a name. I'm already a faceless, unimportant cog in a machine that will grind my bones to pulp in real-life. No thanks to being Fighter #5 in my entertainment as well.

All we are is just another brick in the wall.....

Short version: there were no rules on how to find or detect traps unless you had a class ability or magic. It was pretty much left up to the DM with virtually no guidance. So there is no "Older books told us to do it this way."

True enough.

The only problem I have is the last bit: "but treats everything equally."

By equal, I'm saying no one or thing is important or most of all has plot armor. Any character can die at any time, and any item might be destroyed at any time. In Old School there is always a chance. New School is where you say a PC,, NPC, character or item is "too important" to loose.

For me, OS = player play. Pawn stance, beer-and-pretzels, devil-may-care attitude regarding the characters. Becoming attached to a character is something that only happens if that character has lasted years and years, and even then, it just means their death will be memorable when it finally happens. The only "role" you take on is as someone who is trying to keep their game piece alive as long as possible--unless getting your game piece killed off would be more interesting right now.

A bit too harsh. An Old School player often cares about their character. And because of this they play smart and careful. Not caring for a character at all goes back to Classic Play "Oh no my character Fred XXI died....well, everyone welcome Fred XXII".

 

[payn]

Yeah…ok….Nintendo harder.