An epiphany

[fusangite]

Old school feel is where the GM has more control over the game.

I think that this is essentially true. In my view, the reason for this is that older rule systems were less consistent and coherent so that a certain amount of GM hand-waving was required to make the game hang together at all.

3rd edition tends to place more control in the player's hands.

Agreed -- it did so my establishing a sufficiently consistent and comprehensive set of rules that regular GM intervention to keep the universe coherent was not required. As a result, players could more accurately predict the outcome of their actions and the GM was bound by a consistent, known, predictable system.

It feels like the players have more control, but in reality they just have a greater understanding of the rules and more options. The amount of control players have always depends on the DM and not the system.

Not entirely. One of the things about 3E being a coherent system is that there are features of the system that are true from one situation to the next; targeted or opposed D20 rolls, be they saves, combat, skills or ability checks, are always how things are decided. If a GM creates a new resolution mechanism, it is going to fit into this structure. In 1E, there was no expectation that the rules in one area of the game would use the same general principles as those in another. As a result, every new situation was, mechanically, a blank slate. In 3E, there are a bunch of implicit mathematical assumptions. These principles work in other ways too -- for instance, when I design a new magic item, in order to make it fit, I often have to first design the new spell or feat from which the item is derived. Because of the universality of the 3E system, if a GM does something inconsistent with it, it is immediately apparent, often glaringly so. And the fact that it can be detected, itself, limits such behaviour.

Countertheory...

"Old school" feel is the assumption, "if it isn't explicitly mentioned as something your character can try, you can't try it."

"New school" feel is the assumption "if it isn't explicitly mentioned as something your character CAN'T try, you can try it."

You should try these short pithy posts more often! This is my favourite post of yours. The thing is: I don't see this as a counter-theory; it's just a different way of stating the one on the table. The absence of a resolution system for any category of action places control over the action's success or failure exclusively in the hands of the DM, after all.

 

[MaxKaladin]

A couple of things I see as having given players more power, or at least the expectation of more power, are magic item creation and wizard spells.

In previous editions, magic item creation was a rare thing that the DM had to make up rules for and he could make them as tough as he wanted requiring all sorts of rare materials to accomplish -- and if the DM didn't want the players getting whatever item they were trying to make, he could make it a huge pain. Currently, item creation is all spelled out and requires none of that. The player expects it to work just by spending the money and XP and that's that. Furthermore, if you try to change it and make it harder to do, the players cry foul. It takes a fair bit of the DM's control over magic items in the game away, especially since making items so easily allows players to more easily assemble "killer combos" than it was when the DM was pretty much the sole source of items. Yes, the DM can just Rule 0 it, but now he has to argue against a mindset that's been established that these things should be easy and look like the bad guy for doing it rather than simply be the DM making a call in the absence of any other rules. That's an example of the shift in power.

A similar situation exists with wizard spells now that they get to pick free spells every level. It used to be that wizards had to rely on captured spell books and scrolls found in treasure hordes to get new spells and the DM could strictly control what the PCs had but now there is the expectation that the player will be able to pick spells each level and that the DM can't keep him from getting spells he doesn't want the PCs to have for whatever reason without, again, using Rule 0 and looking like the bad guy doing it.

In a nutshell, the DM in earlier editions had a lot more room to subtly guide the game by influencing things like this, but now players have been given control over them and it makes it harder for the DM to do. Certainly the ability to change the rules still exists, but now the DM is often in the position of putting limits on existing rules instead of making a judgement call and it just looks worse and causes more arguments and resentment when that's the case.

I suppose some will say that I'm supposed to let the players do all these things that are in the rules and adapt. I say this is a prime example of the shift in mindset. In previous editions, it was the DMs world that he controlled to make a good game -- not to "screw" people, though that happened -- and the players adapted. That was part of the challenge of role-playing.

 

[StupidSmurf]

OK, I'll take a crack at this...

Old School: More of a rules framework, fleshed out by DM discretion/judgement. The DM was the final arbiter in the absence of a hard and fast rule. But if your DM didn't make consistent judgements, you were in trouble. A DM could very well forget what his ruling was on a particular matter, and when it came up again, he ruled differently, thereby sparking arguments. On the other hand, less rules meant less need to memorize books, or to learn volumes and volumes of rules designed to cover every contingency. I daresay the Old School is Chaotic Neutral.

New School: More of a rules constitution, with checks and balances that benefit/hinder both player and DM alike. The new rules help the DM become less of a referee and more of a story-teller/creator/role-player. His judgements can now more often than not be backed up by some rule somewhere. On the flip side, players' challenges to a DM's ruling can also be back up in the same way, but at least there's a good chance of finding a Final Ruling somewhere in the volumes of rules out there. This brings more impartiality. New School is Lawful Neutral.

 

[francisca]

Something like that. 1st edition feel is very much like a more pathological Knights of the Dinner Table episode. Never give the players an even break. They figure out a 'sure thing'? Screw it up. Take their gold. Teleport away all their magic items. NPC's can always do things they can't. They can never learn how to make simple Boots of Elvenkind even if they are mighty Elven wizards. You the GM have ultimate power over their stupid useless lives. Use it and make them suffer. It's the underlying subtext in almost every early Dragon article and essay, every early module and adventure. Tighten up. No house rules. If it's not in the rules, it must not be something you should be doing. All that third party stuff is inferior crap ruining the game. This is why the phrase '1st Editon Feel' pretty much guarenteed a 'no sale' from me until I read some of their stuff.

If that was your experience, then I can understand the no sale bit.

However, my experience with 1e is entirely different. Sounds like you had a sucky DM.

 

[diaglo]

If that was your experience, then I can understand the no sale bit.

However, my experience with 1e is entirely different. Sounds like you had a sucky DM.

ditto.

and not just a sucky DM but a very poorly supported group. this is a group game.

it isn't about US vs him/her. if that is how you are playing then you are playing the wrong game.

 

[francisca]

I think I've figured it out.

Old school feel is where the GM has more control over the game.

3rd edition tends to place more control in the player's hands.

This is my theory.

Discuss.

mmmmm. Dunno. I think I had control over the game without being mail-fisted when I ran my 3.x game. Maybe it's because I am old school, and that's the way I came up. I personally don't have any feelings of lack of control when running 3.x.

Nor have I experienced any of the "killer DM" fertilizer that people keep attributing to old school gaming. Have I played under tough but fair DMs? Yes, in both 3e and 1e. Have I played under a killer DM? Well, there was that one jerk in 8th grade, but he straightened up after we explained that it wasn't much fun, and we were going to start a new group without him if he didn't pull his head back out into the sunlight. Have I been a killer DM? Don't think so, neither today running either 3e or 1e, nor 20 years ago running 1e.

Really guys, I'm sorry to hear that your experience with the old editions was all about DM vs. Player. That probably would have put me off of RPGs in general. But it's more of a style of gamemastering than a reflection of the rules, at least in my experience.

Back to the point, if there has been a shift in control towards the players, it's been minor. And remember, the DM gets all the player goodies as well.

 

[ARandomGod]

I think I've figured it out.

Old school feel is where the GM has more control over the game.

3rd edition tends to place more control in the player's hands.

This is my theory.

Discuss.

In general when I see people talking about it, this seems to be what they're actually discusing, at heart. And 3.X does place more "control" in the players hand. There's more to it than that, but that is indeed a mojor point. Mainly in that 3.X is a very Lawful/Law oriented game.

It feels like the players have more control, but in reality they just have a greater understanding of the rules and more options. The amount of control players have always depends on the DM and not the system.

Of course, in the end THIS is completely true. And it adds some to my point above... in that "players have more control" isn't completely the issue. Players don't acually have any more control per se, but GM's definitely have less (assuming they are indeed playing as close to RAW as possible), if only because there are a lot more rules in the system.

Some people, on the other hand, see this addition of new rules in different ways. Probably this is largely determined by whether or not they themselves are Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic and partly due to the alignment and beliefs of their past GM's. For instance:

"Old school" feel is the assumption, "if it isn't explicitly mentioned as something your character can try, you can't try it."

"New school" feel is the assumption "if it isn't explicitly mentioned as something your character CAN'T try, you can try it."

I personally get the exact opposite feel from this. Without rules there, you're free to try ANYthing. And the GM will adjudicate. With rules in place I've experienced times when my character will want to try something, there will be a ten minute debate and a looking up of rules, the end result being that "this doesn't seem to be covered (sometimes just covered "adequately") in the rules, and therefore it will not work, so you shouldn't try." They then get confounded when I tell them that I try it. Why did I try it when I was just told it "clearly" will not work? Because it makes sense that my character would try it, and HE didn't just spend ten minutes uncovering the rules of the universe which fail to describe HOW it will or will not work. He thinks it's something that could work, and so he's gonna try it.

A big change from previous editions is that the players are now supposed to know the rules. When the players know the rules, the DM loses much power. Back in the day, players were afraid to read the DMG because of the righteous wrath that would surely be inflicted upon them if they dared desecrate the book. Even in 2E that was the case. If the players don't know the rules, then the DM has got much more of a grip on the game. Not only through knowlege, but through the player's fears of what they don't know.

Ah, there it is. Players don't know. Playing, you have no idea what's next. That's nostalgia that we can't get back. We'll never be surprised that Darth Vader is Luke's father again. And, we'll never fear that monster/spell/ability in D&D ever again. Because, now we know. We know what it does, we know how to counter it, we know how to handle it. More power out of the DM's hands and into the players', but this time in a way I do miss.

So in with some good, out with some bad, and for some it equals out, for some its better, and for others its worse. But, at the end of the day, no matter who you are, its going to be different.

This is a big part of it too. There can be no surprises... and (some) people get upset
when I, as a GM, try to introduce surprises.

"But wait! It can't do that that way, it's a XXXX, that's not how the rules say it works".

In non 3.X the rules really are more of a guideline. In 3.X there is a culture which has elvevated them to dogma, to RAW. The RAW has spoken and must be correct. (Except when it isn't.. or when... etcetera).

I see a lot of good in both ways, and I don't run pre-3.5 game systems. But I do like to keep the feel of GM surprise and ability to ignore RAW for story sake.

I'm personally Neutral. In a Law heavy world (3.X) I generally espouse creativity and change. In a Chaos heavy world (pre-3.X) I espouse rules and consistency. You need both in a proper mixture for it to be a good game IMO.

"Old school" is by default more creative. It has to be, it's more chaotic, and creativity/change is a function of chaos. 3.X is by default more rigid. It has to be, it's a more Lawful system, and structure/rigidity is a function of law.

Of course, the players and GM's of each will have a very, very large influence on the actual gameplay. However Chaos accomodates Law much more easily than Law accomodates Chaos.

 

[ARandomGod]

However Chaos accomodates Law much more easily than Law accomodates Chaos.

Which is how it has to be. After all, Law is a function of Chaos. Law was created by Chaos, sprang from Chaos, it's part of Chaos. However any particular bit of Law's survival rely's exculisvely on it's ability to remove chaos from it's system. Or, at the very least, encapsulate and control it.

 

[Jackelope King]

It's not about power. Power has always been and will always be entirely arbitrary, and is not something a ruleset should look at. Groups will find the balance of power they like between the DM and the players and they'll stick to it, regardless of what's written in the rulebooks.

What is the difference between old school and new school then?

Interface.

Old-school assumes that the DM's interface with the game trumps the player's interface with the game. Sure, one player might think his character can jump the chasm since he had done similar feats before, but the player's point of view is not as important as the DM's point of view. If the DM decides that this particular 10-foot chasm isn't going to be as easy to jump as any other 10-foot chasm, then it won't be, since his view of how the chasm exists trumps the player's. What the player thought should be an easy jump is actually more difficult. This leads to a disconnect in the group, and suggests that the viewpoint of the players is unimportant.

Now this can be a good thing. The DM may not want the PC to jump the chasm because doing so would mean they would miss finding the ancient spellbook on the bridge. The game may become a million times better because the DM's point of view trumps the player's, but that is irrelevant if this disconnect disrupts gameplay enough (and in my experience, it can very easily, especially when players feel the DM is being unfair to them). It takes a good DM to adjudicate every action fairly and accurately.

New-school gaming assumes that shared interface is essential: the details of the chasm may change in each member of the group's mind (shrubs growing from the cliff-face, the color and layout of the cliff-face, the exact shape of the fisure, etc.), but the DC to jump a 10 foot chasm with a running start is always be 10. There might be a difficulty swing if the ground is unstable or there is a cross-wind, but that won't modify the DC so much that it would become impossible (+2/+4/-4/-2 modifiers being the most common). The players have the numbers to know what their characters can do, and the DM has to provide a reasonable explination as to why they cannot do so.

By codifying the way characters interact with the world, the world becomes consistent, and players become adept at gauging their experiences based on past adventures. "Woah, I rolled a 24 on my attack roll and this guy still dodged it! He must be a really high-level character! Maybe we should retreat!" translates in-game into, "Light above! This foul creature is faster than anything I've ever seen before! Pull back before it strikes again!" Players are given the ability to do what seasoned adventurers should be able to do: gauge a situation and determine whether or not they handle it. Old-school games do not offer this: when the rules change from challenge to challenge, it becomes more difficult to tell whether or not a character can successfully complete a challenge. It would be like trying to play a game of baseball where the pull of gravity changed every inning.

New-school gaming says, "Make sure the players and the DM think roughly the same thing when the word '10-foot chasm' comes up." Old-school gaming says, "Just make sure the DM knows how to handle this particular 10-foot chasm. It'd be nice of him to make sure the players are clear on it too, but don't sweat it if they don't." New-school gaming generalizes all 10-foot chasms and leaves it up to the DM to specify which one this is with modifiers. Old-school gaming specializes every 10-foot chasm, so players never know what to expect.

Outside of interface, everything else is relative. There will always be people who want rules light versus rules heavy, or storytelling versus dungeon crawling, or high magic versus low magic, or high powered versus grim and gritty, and they will exist regardless of whether the game design uses new-school or old-school interface. New-school interface will continue to be popular in groups where the DM wants to take some of the rules-burden off his shoulders while old-school interface will continue to be popular in groups where the DM likes to take the burden from the players (or the players like to force the burden onto the DM... depending on your point of view ). My group prefers new-school interface because it means that the game is consistent, making it easier on us to play the game and to interact with and gauge the game world. We dislike old-school interface because it means the DM has to be 100% clear about every challenge for us to gauge and interact with the game world.

 

[WayneLigon]

If that was your experience, then I can understand the no sale bit.
However, my experience with 1e is entirely different. Sounds like you had a sucky DM.

They were all like that for years, really, until we started seeing more 2nd and 3rd generation games and more advice on how to run and deal with RPG's from sources other than TSR. That's not just one sucky GM. That is the entire mindset of how things were written then, independent of GM or setting. Really read between the lines of the DMG or most of the early Dragon articles, which were the only sources for most people to know how to play. Look at the assumptions there. Pretty much every word out of Weird Pete's mouth in KotDT is a direct reflection of how GM/Player interaction in D&D was assumed to work. The thing that was so funny for me was how little exaggeration for humor was needed in early KotDT strips.