Precise Detail vs Broad Strokes
Agreed.
I would also add it is typical of Old School DMs to greatly detail areas. This can vary a lot by DMs, but most go into lots of detail. An Old School character interacts with their enthronement a lot through detailed role playing, so the player needs to know all the details. Also many Old School games make full use of the environment and everything in it. As everything can be used by the characters. Old School greatly favors the characters picking up and using whatever they might find. "MacGuyvering" things is common in Old School. In Old School games it is common for times and equipment to be lost or destroyed, so characters often need to replace such things.
Also many Old School games use miniatures, so detail is needed to use them.
New School just covers the broad strokes. With a focus on anything important. Here characters interact with the environment in the abstract, by things such as skill checks. And few NS games use miniatures.
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.
All Agreed.
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?"
It is worth it in the Old School mind set. Like above, it is a more complex game if a character has to account for an ongoing effect. I would also add that effects are not always a pure negative. A character might be covered in magic ever burning fire and get some good effects...but also be unable to wear/hold things as they will burn or melt.
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.
As noted, this type of fun is fun for Old School players. It is rare for Old School to even have the idea of consent. During game play the DM is free to have whatever they want to have happen. Even to PCs. An Old School player accepts this, even if they don't like it. Playing through hardships and adversity is fun to an Old School Gamer.
To maybe give a clearer example,
I'm not sure this is clearer or even part of one school. I think many players will say they don't want to loose their characters cool or favorite items.
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.
This just highlights the differences, as plenty of Old School players would be fine playing Bark Bark the Dog Barbarian.
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.
The games are very different. Many Old School gamers would never ask a player for consent or take there wish into account at all.....but it's not completely unknown to happen.
And add
Every-person Heroes vs Chosen One Super Heroes
A New School character example is Luke (or Rae) Skywalker, Neo or Harry Potter.
An Old School character example is Conan, Dirty Harry or John McClaine
Long Duration vs Short Duration
A New School game often has a set time limit, often a story goal, that once met ends the game. NS is often more focused and limited, so a campaign will be a set type of game...like an underwater setting, so all the players will make underwater characters.
Old School is often more Forever Campaigns. Players make whatever characters they wish, and then adventure endlessly. Very often for real world years, or more.
