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

[Desdichado]

I think it gets muddy because the OSR is sometimes treated to include retroclones (which clearly land in the duplication category) and other more divergent rules sets. Probably your point would be more clearcut if that wasn't the case.

I know that there's not a lot of agreement on what exactly is and isn't OSR but I think that most people would agree that fidelity to the older rulesets, i.e. retroclones is kind of a minimum baseline. See this (admittedly long) four part blog post for instance: A Historical Look at the OSR — Part I

It's just that rulesets and playstyle are not necessarily tightly bound. My preferred rules aren't terribly different from OSR with some houserules from other games or editions, a kind of OSR adjacent ruleset if you will, but I don't really embrace all that much of the OSR playstyle. It's more like playing a fantasy X-files or Call of Cthulhu with a ruleset that's kind of like Shadowdark or Knave 2e that ignores anything related to dungeons, gp=xp, etc.

That's why I say I'm sympathetic to the OSR in a lot of ways, but I don't consider myself part of that movement at all. But just from a raw rules perspective, I'm closer to them than anything else. From a playstyle perspective, I rejected that playstyle way back in the 80s and have never second guessed that decision. It's hard to say you're OSR I believe unless you accept, even if not perfectly, both the retroclone rules and the OSR playstyle.

But yeah, you're right. The OSR as a term is tossed around pretty casually, and is sometimes little more than a marketing gimmick for any indie games that looks vaguely "oldish." Makes it difficult to discuss and be on the same page.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I know that there's not a lot of agreement on what exactly is and isn't OSR but I think that most people would agree that fidelity to the older rulesets, i.e. retroclones is kind of a minimum baseline. See this (admittedly long) four part blog post for instance: A Historical Look at the OSR — Part I

I don't know about "fidelity" in that sentence. I've seen games claimed to be in the OSR that have clearly swung pretty far afield from any of the older D&D versions; in fact using those as a baseline but cleaning them up (which doesn't seem to describe "fidelity" to me) in way the author thinks is helpful seem to be the point in many cases.

But yeah, you're right. The OSR as a term is tossed around pretty casually, and is sometimes little more than a marketing gimmick for any indie games that looks vaguely "oldish." Makes it difficult to discuss and be on the same page.

See my comment above. It goes beyond just marketing, though, given I've seen the sort of game I mention above discussed as though its a given its an OSR game. I suspect the problem is, what translates as "OSR" is not a particularly coherent and commonly accepted position.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I've been playing since the mid 80s, and until his recent death the group I GM included someone who played with Gygax.

My condolences for the loss of your friend.

 

[bloodtide]

There isnt any distinction here. It's not like Conan, Harry, or John are not chosen ones as main characters. They are not going to randomly take a bullet or get eaten by a monster.

They are all main characters, but not all main characters are Chosen Ones. Most, but not all, main characters get plot armor. And many main characters are Cool, with the Rule of Cool powers.

I think the problem when that occurs is people have some variation of the "Back in my day, we walked uphill both ways to school in the rain" sort of thing, where doing things the hard way is considered a virtue even in an entertainment enterprise. This is fundamentally ridiculous, but you see it in other places (parts of video gaming come to mind).

I see it differently.

In 1990 it was harder to play D&D as there was no internet. You and your friends had some books. And your personal knowledge. If during game play a question came up...there was almost no way to find an answer. Though maybe you could phone a friend gamer and see if they knew...

2024....well We have constant internet access. Most people have a portable super computer. And we have AI too. So you can find the answer to a question fast.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't know about "fidelity" in that sentence. I've seen games claimed to be in the OSR that have clearly swung pretty far afield from any of the older D&D versions; in fact using those as a baseline but cleaning them up (which doesn't seem to describe "fidelity" to me) in way the author thinks is helpful seem to be the point in many cases.

To get perfect fidelity, you need to just buy the old books on auction or as pdfs (or print on demand for pdfs.) The retroclones predate their availability and are generally considered to provide "close enough" fidelity in most cases. But how far they have to wander before they become "not OSR anymore" is certainly debatable. I tend to prefer the classification given in the link I put above... although I can certainly see how some would disagree with it, or not even want to bother reading the whole thing, for that matter.

But that gets to a problem with the OP posed question. If we can't even define what old school is with enough agreement to do the trick, we certainly can't define new school, because it's much more nebulous than old school.

EDIT: Wow, autocorrect did a real number on this post...

 

[bloodtide]

And how does that prevent the archer from recovering arrows?

Details. For just one example: If your under cover and shooting at targets 100 feet away....how do you recover arrows?

There is a difference between someone wanting to do something, because they enjoy it, and demanding someone do something because you are setting it up as a group expectation.

True

Yes, we do use miniatures.

But in New School they are at best optional and lots of game choose not to use them.

Which, as has been pointed out, is an entirely unreasonable expectation to force on to a group. Again, there is nothing wrong with providing information for fun, but you are talking about taking it to a level where you are providing reams of information, then if a player has a question, simply dismissing their question because they didn't read or take proper notes on your information.

Yes.

So if we have figured out bad trap designs that lead to undesirable results.... we should avoid them.

Agreed. But good trap designs that lead to desirable results should be used often.

Actually, no. You specifically are pointing out "chosen ones" but that isn't how New School players make their characters. We do not make characters chosen by destiny.

You can say Destiny, Fate, Wyrd, Cosmic Chance or anything else.

It can, I would say that New School does tend to lean more into having plots, as part of the character's being protagonists. The DM has a villain for them to fight, has an end goal of some sort to reach. But even Old School has this to a degree. You can't actually adventure endlessly, because you eventually max level the character.

Depending on the D&D edition, the old max levels were high. And it could take a long time to level in Old School games.

An Old School game is a lot more like Episodic TV. The same characters will endless go on adventures week after week. Often for years. Often until the game breaks up from a real world event.

 

[payn]

One aspect of Traveller that always felt new school to me is the contact system. Im not sure system is the right term, but there are levels to knowing NPCs through chargen.

For example, you start with a contact. This is a person you met and know from your career. No special relations just a person you can think of in a certain situation. Then, you have an ally. An ally is somebody you are friends with. This person is likely to do you a favor and help to a certain point. On the flip side, you could have a rival. This is a person that considers you a respectful competitor. They are not hell bent on beating you, but will certainly get in your way or try and show you up. Finally, you have an enemy. This person will go out of their way to mess up your plans and/or hurt you.

I use a similar system for factions. For example a friendly spacing guild might be willing to hide you from imperial forces to a certain extent and/or give you discounts in space ports. An alien adversary faction, might actually try and collect a bounty on you. etc...

 

[Thomas Shey]

I see it differently.

In 1990 it was harder to play D&D as there was no internet. You and your friends had some books. And your personal knowledge. If during game play a question came up...there was almost no way to find an answer. Though maybe you could phone a friend gamer and see if they knew...

2024....well We have constant internet access. Most people have a portable super computer. And we have AI too. So you can find the answer to a question fast.

All that meant, in practice, was there was even more opportunities to argue about things. Hardly a virtue.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To get perfect fidelity, you need to just buy the old books on auction or as pdfs (or print on demand for pdfs.) The retroclones predate their availability and are generally considered to provide "close enough" fidelity in most cases. But how far they have to wander before they become "not OSR anymore" is certainly debatable. I tend to prefer the classification given in the link I put above... although I can certainly see how some would disagree with it, or not even want to bother reading the whole thing, for that matter.

It just doesn't seem to match up with the description I've seen of a number of at least so-called OSR products, and some of these go back a ways.

But that gets to a problem with the OP posed question. If we can't even define what old school is with enough agreement to do the trick, we certainly can't define new school, because it's much more nebulous than old school.

Absolutely true.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One aspect of Traveller that always felt new school to me is the contact system. Im not sure system is the right term, but there are levels to knowing NPCs through chargen.

Well, honestly, for all my sometimes complaints about some elements, just having a skill system and a coherent task resolution system that isn't entirely ad-hoc seems to make it New School by some people's standards.