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

[Chaosmancer]

Second, New School characters are more defined mechanically than Old School characters, while taking longer to create. OS classes are just three or four things you can do, and the main mechanical difference between two characters of the same class will be the selection of equipment and/or spells they've picked up while adventuring. This one is very D&D specific; I played some Champions in the eighties as well, and that is not a simple character creation system

I love your post, and I think it is largely correct. However, I do have a question here.

Is it really a difference of Style when you are talking about different games? Many of the changes between Old School and New School seem to be in presentation, aesthetics, and inter-table dynamics, all of which can be done with any edition of DnD. But, yes, I'm sure a 1e character is less complex than a 3.5 character... which is also more complex than a 4e character.

I've noticed this a few times in the discussion, but I am not sure it is accurate to assign an entire mechanical edition of the game to a particular style and philosophy of play. It feels inaccurate to the real differences.

 

[tsadkiel]

I love your post, and I think it is largely correct. However, I do have a question here.

Is it really a difference of Style when you are talking about different games? Many of the changes between Old School and New School seem to be in presentation, aesthetics, and inter-table dynamics, all of which can be done with any edition of DnD. But, yes, I'm sure a 1e character is less complex than a 3.5 character... which is also more complex than a 4e character.

I've noticed this a few times in the discussion, but I am not sure it is accurate to assign an entire mechanical edition of the game to a particular style and philosophy of play. It feels inaccurate to the real differences.

Mostly stipulated, though you can see some differences within specific editions as well - 5e has room for folks like me who avoid feats whenever possible, and other people who don't do that.

 

[bloodtide]

Good for you. Again, sometimes people don't have the money to get supplies. I'm not sure why you are so dead-set on proving me wrong about this.

I guess it does not matter. You don't seem to grasp the 'no money' concept I'm talking about.

So you aren't only listing things unique to Old School, like you just claimed.

I know I did not use the "u" word often.

Yes, I have seen TV shows. Shocking I know in this day and age where everyone has had a television for the last thirty years.

Well, then you have seen even in the Episodic that characters do grow and change. The 'reset button' is for the worst of the worst.

Not really. Because as many people on this thread have pointed out, most of the things you claim are Old school... aren't.

Well, one unique thing about Old School is not caring what other people think.

 

[jayoungr]

There is a classic skit I remember about a rogue going down a trapped hallway, and giving increasingly specific instructions to the DM for how the rogue moves and acts to overcome the trap.

Haven't caught up on the whole thread yet, but are you thinking of this, by chance? (Video cued to appropriate scene. Skip to 33:51 if that doesn't work.)

 

[pemerton]

New School tends to be fiction first, while Old School leans toward "play to find out."

I don't think this makes a lot of sense, given that both those phrases were coined by designers (like Vincent Baker and John Harper) to describe the same suite of games (Apocalypse World, BitD, etc).

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Well, one unique thing about Old School is not caring what other people think.

There is a subreddit dedicated to playing soccer or football, whatever term suits you.

I could go on that subreddit, and claim that soccer is about throwing the ball really fast. I could continue to make claims about soccer requiring players to know how to make chicken alfredo, and even how soccer is about being sad. And I could argue these ideas for many posts using declaritive, generalized statements. Such as, "Soccer is about throwing the ball really fast."

Moving forward a bit, someone says "everyone on here keeps pointing out that what you are talking about isn't soccer." And maybe, I reply, "well really soccer is about not caring what others think."

Does that seem strange to you? It seems strange to me. Something about that last comment comes off weird. I can't put my finger on it.

"Soccer is about not caring what others think."

 

[bloodtide]

New School tends to be fiction first, while Old School leans toward "play to find out."

New School is about all the players sharing the emerging story plot equally. In whatever way each game feels best to make that happen. Old School is very often, but not always, nearly 100% the DMs plot and story. Many OS players don't want any part of anything outside the game: they just want to play in the game as a character and "play to find out".

OS games don't tend to have clearly defined story arcs, they have environments and situations that the PCs react to.

True. Many OS games have no story arcs, they are just the episodic tales of a group of hardy adventures and they travel the land.

Second, New School characters are more defined mechanically than Old School characters, while taking longer to create. OS classes are just three or four things you can do, and the main mechanical difference between two characters of the same class will be the selection of equipment and/or spells they've picked up while adventuring. This one is very D&D specific; I played some Champions in the eighties as well, and that is not a simple character creation system.

And because of this, D&D specifically had lots of mini games: lots of adventures, spells, and most of all monster stat blocks had mini games of how/when/in what way to do something. They could be simple or extensive, but were not really connected to much of anything. On one page you had a 1 in 6 chance of slipping, six pages later you had a 30% chance of slipping, two pages later it was a roll a save vs breath weapons or slip and four pages after that it was roll a dexterity check or slip.

New School D&D specificity is more streamlined and homogenized: The whole D20 mechanic is the star here. Nearly everything was brought under the D20, roll and add bonuses to beat a DC mechanic.

 

[Desdichado]

Is it really a difference of Style when you are talking about different games? Many of the changes between Old School and New School seem to be in presentation, aesthetics, and inter-table dynamics, all of which can be done with any edition of DnD. But, yes, I'm sure a 1e character is less complex than a 3.5 character... which is also more complex than a 4e character.

In my experience, playstyle always trumps mechanics and people will tend to try and play every game using their preferred playstyle (unless they're deliberately trying to do something different to mix it up) regardless of what game or edition it is. If the mechanics fight against their preferred playstyle too much, they just won't like that game and eventually won't play it, but in general you can fit most playstyles into most mechanical frameworks with a little work.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Haven't caught up on the whole thread yet, but are you thinking of this, by chance? (Video cued to appropriate scene.)

It didn't jump correctly, but that is the movie and the scene. I was 80% sure it was Gamers. But I remember the second one better.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I guess it does not matter. You don't seem to grasp the 'no money' concept I'm talking about.

I know I did not use the "u" word often.

Well, then you have seen even in the Episodic that characters do grow and change. The 'reset button' is for the worst of the worst.

Well, one unique thing about Old School is not caring what other people think.

You accuse me of not getting the concept of no money, yet seem to not realize that paper to write things on... costs money.

You used "it's unique" then "well I didn't say unique" when suddenly it turns out minis aren't actually the hard way.

You didn't really pay attention to my original comment about episodic shows to realize that your comment is rather silly in that context. Also love how they are now "the worst of the worst".

But, in the end, you don't care about what other people think, so there is no reason to imagine you actually care enough to have a thoughtful discussion. Especially as you seem to consistently just want to put down a style you don't understand and consistently get wrong.