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

[KYRON45]

Honestly, I try not to harshly judge people who say they like Old School DnD. I really don't. If someone told me their game is going to feature tracking water and arrows, then I'd say "hey, not my cup of tea." If they wanted to know why I'm not a fan of doing that, I would point out I don't see the point in doing so, and explain my reasoning. If they wanted instant death traps, I'd point out why I don't think that fosters the kind of play environment I want at my table, because it causes too much paranoia for my players.

But instead, every time we try and discuss this topic, I get told I don't appreciate role-playing. That we are playing on easy mode, that we don't want a challenge, that we are less intelligent, less dedicated.... and yeah, it gets under my skin. I don't often talk about my DMing style or the challenges I give to my players on this site (until I start getting a little heated) because I am endlessly told that I am not challenging them, that my way of doing things is too easy. I'm not a real DnD player.

And if it was once or twice, it wouldn't be a big deal. But every time this comes up. It is the same song and dance.

*Arguing with strangers about subjective things is what the internet is for....isn't it?

*This statement is 100% sarcasm.

 

[Oofta]

I always start with the assumption that people are being honest about their experiences and what they are saying. But at a certain point, I just have to question whether or not someone is just trolling.

I start questioning sincerity and veracity when someone starts saying things like the following. They require someone to read 3 books on wood elf lore when I seriously doubt that even if such a collection of books existed that they would be consistent and coherent. If you don't have detailed knowledge of different types of trees and their wood's properties you aren't qualified. You need to know how to properly dress and clean animals hunted for food. Fail any of these things and you get kicked from the game.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I simply can't imagine being able to retain many players in a game where you need to accurately describe your character's capabilities to that level of detail. To say that it's representative of any school of play that has a significant following is either hubris or fantastical.

 

[payn]

Perhaps, but I strongly associate "lots of weird saving throws with little rhyme or reason" with old school rules, because of the whole "Wands" vs "Death" vs etc. and how it was...really really hard to actually tell what anything would be at any given time. E.g., why is Banishment a Cha save? Who knows! It just is.

To be fair, I think a modern old school design wouldnt be executed this way anymore. I think a lot of yesteryear oddities was just lack of design experience. The Cha banishment thing is just another example of "something needs Cha save!" instead of just reworking the spells. In this instance, less old school, more legacy shackle.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To be fair, I think a modern old school design wouldnt be executed this way anymore. I think a lot of yesteryear oddities was just lack of design experience. The Cha banishment thing is just another example of "something needs Cha save!" instead of just reworking the spells. In this instance, less old school, more legacy shackle.

Frankly, I don't see much daylight between "old school" and "legacy shackle," but that's probably because old school emphatically doesn't appeal to me.

 

[payn]

Frankly, I don't see much daylight between "old school" and "legacy shackle," but that's probably because old school emphatically doesn't appeal to me.

I think its important to understand both, while not conflating the two. Thats just me though, and I try and make an effort to not wholesale write things off. Im not saying you are being disrespectful, but I find a little effort leads to constructive discussions. YMMV.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Oh yeah, I've played a few post-apocalypse games using DnD. And we started tracking resources for the early levels. We also quickly secured enough food and water (game usually takes place in a destroyed city) that by around level 5 the DM asked us to stop tracking, because we usually use those style of games as a "rebuild society" game, where we start having towns with dozens of individuals dealing with food and water, while we deal with hostile neighbors.

Oh, yeah, its not even true with all post-apocalypse games. When I was running a Morrow Project game, they did some tracking of supplies (mostly stuff they didn't have a huge amount of so when they used it at all it was going to burn through a high proportion of their immediate access to them), but they came out well supplied, had one specialists who was going to be good at resupplying them with food and water in most environments (because it was set on the West Coast some of the more arid areas could be tricky), and had a selection of supply caches they could get to without too much of a struggle.

The group of quasi-primitive Gamma World characters traversing across the ruined landscape was a different story.

But I could see a game focused on long term travel across a desert or something. It would be a game that doesn't quite "fit" standard DnD, but I could see someone billing that for a campaign.

Honestly, D&D would be nearly the last system I'd use if I wanted to play out a survival-focused game; it hasn't been really well suited to it as far back as OD&D.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Oh, yeah, its not even true with all post-apocalypse games. When I was running a Morrow Project game, they did some tracking of supplies (mostly stuff they didn't have a huge amount of so when they used it at all it was going to burn through a high proportion of their immediate access to them), but they came out well supplied, had one specialists who was going to be good at resupplying them with food and water in most environments (because it was set on the West Coast some of the more arid areas could be tricky), and had a selection of supply caches they could get to without too much of a struggle.

The group of quasi-primitive Gamma World characters traversing across the ruined landscape was a different story.



Honestly, D&D would be nearly the last system I'd use if I wanted to play out a survival-focused game; it hasn't been really well suited to it as far back as OD&D.

"D&D does D&D well."

Having lived through 3rd ed era and every company trying to cram things into the D20 system (oh wait thats still happening), yeah stuff like Cthulhu D20 and World of Darkness D20, yeah does NOT work.

 

[payn]

"D&D does D&D well."

Having lived through 3rd ed era and every company trying to cram things into the D20 system (oh wait thats still happening), yeah stuff like Cthulhu D20 and World of Darkness D20, yeah does NOT work.

Yeap, its not the best fit. Though many folks will slam that square peg through a round hole to avoid learning a new system.

 

[bloodtide]

So, an old school game starts combat at level 1 and never stops combats, ever, for any reason, until level 20?

No...

Look, you are just attempting to mock a style you don't even understand, and it is getting frustrating. Combat taking only a couple rounds? That isn't because of some new school style easy mode play... that's just an average from actual aggregated data. It is meant to be an easy shorthand to make discussing the actual game easier.

Ok...that is a big part of Old School Style. People that play that way want quick, easy, simple combat. And more then that for all gameplay. It is a feature.

Also, encounter abilities? Short Rests? You mean... the rules of the game? Yeah, sure, if you want to declare that anyone who is playing 5e is playing 5e then go ahead, but now you might as well just be saying "2e plays differently than 5e" which will surprise literally no one.

Well, I'm talking about the styles in general. A New School DM will add such things to any game they play to make it NS. Though too, many NS DM will just pick a game with NS style rules too.
Yes, but even in average play "somewhere".....would you say the archer can "just somehow" get back 50% of their arrows?

No one References the rulebook for skill checks, because there are no rules for skill checks.

Guess it depends what game your talking about?

The fact that you seem to think we sit around with the book open, constantly just reading rules at each other just further demonstrates you have no clue what you are talking about. You have some meme-level understanding of newer editions, and have never actually played or even watched a group play the newest versions of 5e.

Opening rulebooks and reading rules is common enough. Maybe your group never does it?

Your first sentence makes no sense. Your second sentence is self-evident. Yes, in a game, you cannot make an informed decision, unless you know how the game works. That is how the informed part of informed decisions works.

This is only true for the mechanical game play. In the deep role play simulation you can just try anything possible. This is a big difference.

So now you are judging people on not only being less knowledgeable than you want, but also that they don't pursue their interests the way you want.

What?

Funny thing, I like playing Druid characters. I like the aesthetic, I like the themes... but I don't know diddly about wilderness survival and most of my animal knowledge it random trivia. So, I can't play a druid unless I like nature the way you think I should to be able to play a druid?

Well, in my game your free to play whatever you want from the rules. I have a ton of Old School houserules that you won't like though...

And if a player chooses not to role play, that is fine. They can just sit back while everyone else role plays.

Again. Elitism. Either I must be so into nature I go on nature hikes and read survival guides for fun... or I only want them for their mechanics and don't like the idea of role-playing in a role-playing game. I can't just think something is cool and want to play that character.

You can think a character is cool and play it mechanically by the rules. You can even do the easy lite role playing by the mechanical rules.

But to "really" deep role play...acting..as if you are the character...that takes willpower, drive, effort, skill and many other things beyond the mechanical rules.

Sure... if any of that matched the setting, lore or real life things. But it doesn't at my table. So, should I just give you a pass because it was something that made sense to you, even if it doesn't reflect elves at all at my table?

This sounds....oh, what is the word you keep using....

We just started heading into orc lands and I asked "what does my character know about orcs". Why? Because this is literally the first time in the entire game to date that we have headed in that direction, and no one has encountered orcs in the entire game yet. SO, instead of acting like my 200 year old character has only heard of the things he has encountered in the last three human villages and nothing else in his entire like... I asked.

Ok, so the above is the New School way for you to play a character: you ask the DM for knowledge during game play. It is what you typed.

Ok....so a lot of Old School games don't do the "just ask the DM to know anything you think your character would/should know". So assuming the player was open to it, the DM would have given the player a book/handout/web page about orcs before the game. Then it would be up to the player to read, remember and use it in the game.

Yeah, you've made your disdain for helping players have a good time abundantly clear.

To put this another way: An Old School DM is not a fan of the characters/players.

And seriously, you keep saying everything you do is hard. Reading a 300 page book on dark age weapons... has nothing to do with playing DnD. It isn't playing DnD on hard mode, it is reading a book on medieval weaponry, and entirely different thing. Which is what you keep trying to claim is "hard" DnD. Reading entirely unrelated materials, memorizing them, then using DnD to flex your knowledge on wood types or the proper way to descale a trout.

Reading a book and using that knowledge in a D&D game is much harder then just asking a DM "tell me stuff".

Considering this is a New School style DM with New School style players in a New School style game... no, actually, the way I did it is the New school way of doing it. You think all of us just sit around saying "Okay, you walk through, like, a door, and there is a puzzle, roll to solve? Okay, cool, you solve the puzzle and then you go through some other passages..." NO. We don't play like that. That's what I keep trying to tell you. You have no idea what the style you are critiquing is actually like. You just have some disdain and some memes.

Your still too fixated on puzzles . And your not really saying that any random thing you do is 100% pure New School? You don't acknowledge any crossovers at all?

Any which way you can what? Just design challenges any way you please, even if it is a poor design that leads to bad results? And you still haven't addressed the actual point I made.

Yes, any way the DM pleases. Most often brilliant design that leads to excellent results.

And I would rather game with them than with someone who distributes intelligence tests as a pre-req to join their game.

Differences.

And you still are missing the point. Call it "Harsh" and "Hard" all you like, it doesn't change the fact. Track water properly, and keep water supplies up... and nothing happens. At that point the only thing you can do to make those water stores matter in the narrative, is to target and destroy them. Making tracking them initially rather pointless, because you are just going to destroy them to make it matter.

I guess this is hard to grasp as you have never done it in a game. You don't really grasp the survival aspect of game play. In many places water is not everywhere, and characters can only carry so much. Characters can't just 'find water".

We don't avoid all of this because "its too hard", we avoid it because it is a bunch of pointless busywork that leads down rabbitholes of focusing on the most boring parts of the game. I can do basic arithemtic and track a number, but there is no reason to do so if the only thing I'm doing it for is to wait for the day you target that number, or I mess up, and then we start dying.

So it's pointless, busywork and boring.....but not hard. Ok, I will say it is so for you and your players. I will also say it is hard for many other people.

Right, they are different. Your way is just fun, hard, exciting, requires focus, requires skill, requires caring about the game, requires intelligence, requires dedication... and then there is the other side that other people play. You know, the soft, delicate style where nothing really matters and no one cares... but you aren't saying one is better than the other... except for all the ways you describe old school as better and superior at every single possible turn.

Again, you are adding the superior parts.

For yet another example:

Group 1 are intelligent people that like math and play heavy math related games
Group 2 are intelligent people that think math is pointless, busywork and boring. So they by choice play games with simple easy math, or no math.

Neither group is unintelligent, just different.

Yes, there are other things I can do to player characters that are worse than killing them and having the player bring in a replacement. Why don't I just kill PCs constantly then? Because it disrupts the narrative, it feels bad for everyone, it makes my job as the DM harder, I can't plan the set-pieces I want, I can't seed the storylines I want, people get confused on who knows what and which NPCs know which characters. IF the new character is too similar, I might forget the old character is dead. Entire sections of the story I was excited to see play out die on the vine.

Sorry as soon as you say you don't do it...that proves it is the big deal. You can't say it's not a big deal and say you don't do it as it is a big deal. That disruption part is the big deal.

And note, as per NS, you don't want to effect the story/plot/narrative in ways you see as "too" negative.

And what do I get in return for constantly murdering PCs? Nothing. In fact I LOSE the ability to make it impactful.

Well doing PC death in a game is easy, though it can be hard for many people to do on a personal social level.

IT would suck out every single bit of joy we get from this game, and replace it with endless pixeling of every room, SOPs to handle every scenario, and everyone distrusting every third word I say. All just so some people on the internet will give me fake brownie points for playing the "real" way.

The joy from your NS type game, yes.

So, you see reading three books of wood elf lore as the equivalent of a house rule banning a specific action. And the not having time to read those three books and memorize their contents (with notes) as equivalent to intentionally stabbing another PC after being told no PVP...

No, I see the reading of three books are harder. But the bigger point is following a DMs houserule whatever it is.

But it isn't required that you read the books and memorize them. It is a choice. A choice that is a rule whose enforcement can lead to being kicked from the game.

Well, again, you can take notes.

I guess as part of the bigger picture is most Old School games have no problem kicking a player out. It falls under harsh.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Since this is supposed to be a more positive thread, I think I should take a step back and do my part on attempting to define the two broad strokes styles in as neutral a manner as I can.

Precise Detail vs Broad Strokes
This is, I think, one of the key differences between Old School styles and New School styles. Beyond just tracking ammo, food, encumbrance, ect, OS style games are the ones where I would expect the DM to open a description with "The room is 30 ft wide by 60 ft long..." where as a NS style DM will often just say "You enter a long room...". The Old School seems to like the precise, technical details, while the New School eschews them for a bit more purple prose.

Now, this isn't to say that information is unavailable. If the player asks "how far to the back of the room" the DM usually has an answer for them. But it isn't the information presented front and center to the players. We want to give the feel of the situation, not the tactical loadout, if that makes sense. It might even be more fair to simply say that we reverse the process, because I imagine after the precise details of the room, the OS DM often gives that description like we do. But it feels like there is a difference in focus there.

Lethality and Permanence vs Consent
I don't think anyone disagrees that Old School games are more lethal. Whether that is from instant-death abilities, simply more traps and monsters, from restarting characters from level 1... I think the reasons differ depending on the flavor of the Old School DM. I also think Old School games are far more likely to permanently alter or damage PCs. It would be a rare situation where a NS PC loses an arm, and there isn't a way to replace it offered within a session or two.

This often is the point of bitter contention between the two camps. But I do not feel like the difference is one of difficulty. Thinking on it, OS games are also more likely to have monsters like Rust Monsters which destroy equipment. And I think that is where it is a mix of two interests of the New School DM. One interest is story the other is simplicity of play. Let us say a PC loses an arm. This now needs to be accounted for with EVERYTHING. Every task needs to be reconsidered with the new information. It becomes something to track, which can lead to goofs and mistakes where one-side or the other forgets the limitation and does something, then we need to go back and explain how it happened. And this carries through with permanent ability score loss, or losing levels and losing access to abilities or spells as well. It is a complexity of remember both the "real" values and the "new" values. And for NS DMs, I feel like we are usually running a cost-benefit analysis of "is removing the fighter's arm and forcing them to use their back-up weapon worth it?"

Yes, it would be a "challenge" because they are using a different weapon, and having one-arm is more challenging than having two, but is the amount of fun they might have figuring that challenge out, worth the effort and frustration they may inevitably feel? There is a big culture of consenting to the challenge/drama that I feel is an important component. I remember one time I was discussing with a DM who was trying to force my character into a situation where they were going to be forcibly turned into a vampire and forced to betray the party. I did not want that for my character, that was not the story I wanted for them. And this always seems to confuse old school players to a degree, because they feel that since I agreed to play the game, I consented to any and all things they decide to do in the game.

To maybe give a clearer example, I was recently in discussion with a DM who wanted to prevent a disaster that was threatening to derail the campaign. We both agreed that my character was a perfect conduit to accomplish this. The DM asked what my character would give up to save those people, and my character's honest reaction would have been "anything". But, as a player, I told him that I did not want to give up my new magical item or permanently lose my powers. Because I had JUST gotten this item, a gift from his new god that we spent three sessions obtaining, and I haven't had an opportunity to use it once. So even though it would make sense, and the DM could have easily said that was what was being lost, I felt it would ruin the narrative we were building and it would simply be less fun to have gotten a cool divine artifact that he asked me to name, and then loss it permanently without having activated it a single time. It isn't that I didn't want my character to sacrifice anything, no no, I was happy to sacrifice some things. But I needed to make sure that the sacrifice didn't end my character's story or take it in a direction that was going to be less exciting for me.

We want challenges, we want drama, many NS players and DMs refer to personal plothooks as "knives" because we want the DM to use them and twist them, because the drama is fun and delicious. I want my prideful barbarian to be confronted with the idea that his culture isn't the best thing ever created, I don't want him to lose both legs and have his mind put into the body of a dog. One is a challenge and emotional drama I will relish, the other is going to have me trashing the character sheet and likely looking for a new game, because it sucks all the fun out of what I was trying to build together with the group.

Not that I think old school games automatically invalidate player consent like that, but simply when we talk about this, people seem to get the wrong idea and assume that it means there are zero challenges, because the players can veto specific challenges as going in the wrong direction.