An epiphany

der_kluge said:
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.
Maybe... I think it might be better/safer to suggest that it is where it feels that the GM has more control over the game. I think the psychology and mindset of players/GM is much much underrated.

Who knows what's true, though? That "old school feel" might be different for everyone.

I wonder, though, how many times, a player has said (a variation of) "you can't do that" in 3e as opposed to previous editions...?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I don't see Sigil's post as "sour grapes", myself -- just an expalanation of how a lot of players DID see the older rules after more options were introduced mechanically.
It wasn't meant as a "sour grapes" post - I really was trying to figure out what the different "feel" was.

And I felt that I was right - remember level limits? Class restrictions? "Sorry, your elf can't be a cleric, only a fighter or magic-user or thief."

"Sorry, you don't have that proficiency, you can't do that."

"Sorry, there's no spell that does that, you can't do that."

"Sorry, you're a human, you can't multiclass. And you're a demihuman, you can't dual-class."

"Sorry, there are no rules for making magic items, you can't make them. Only find them."

"Sorry, you're not a thief; you can't disarm the trap or pick the lock."

...and on and on and on.

As a GM, it's simpler. You know pretty much every option your players can try well in advance of running the adventure... because "if it's not on their character sheet, they can't do it." As a new player, it is nice to have the "hand-holding" for a while, but once you figure out how to play, it really gets frustrating and holds you back... "but WHY can't my wizard so much as put on plate mail... I need to pass as a fighter... but I don't have the Disguise proficiency, so I'm hosed anyway..." OTOH, when the players DO try something strange, it's a little tough on the GM to make a quick judgement call and then be consistent with it later on.

In 3e, there's kind of a "can do" attitude. Basically, the players are allowed to try just about ANYTHING - and there's a lot of rules to help them do so. As a GM, it's a nightmare because you can't prepare for EVERYTHING the players might be hare-brained enough to come up with. As a beginning player, it's a bit overwhelming, but once you gain experience it's very liberating. OTOH, as a GM, it's nice not to have to spot-rule something very often (and try to keep your rulings consistent over time).

So I'm not trying to sour-grapes things. There is good and bad in each approach. I'm just pointing out that earlier editions tended to be restrictive... "you can't do this because you can only do what I say you can do." (Half-orc paladins? No.) while 3e tends to be "well, you can do this, but you have to trade off that" (Half-orc paladins? Yes, but since a half-orc takes a Cha penalty, it's not always a great idea).

--The Sigil
 

Jackelope King said:
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.

It sounds like you must have had some bad DM's in the past if they couldn't even keep a basic jump straight. If you are being told, "well this 10' pit is a DEX check to get past" and then next time you are told, "well this 10' pit is a STR check at -2", etc, you have a bad DM who should have been called on that. And it was just as easy to guage the power of somthing based on what you hit rolls were doing in pre 3.x edition. "My 18 hit the vulture demon but is missing this fire demon, it's got to be tougher, lets run!".
 

The Sigil said:
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."

Basically, old school feel is about limiting options (often with different resolution systems), which makes the game easier IMO for a GM in some respects... your players are basically choosing from a list of options, which you can pre-know.

New school thinking is about "you can do anything you want" and trying to come up with rules for every combination people can try. It's easier in that there are rules for things. Its harder in that as a GM, you have no idea what wild idea is coming out of left field.

Discuss.

--The Sigil

I'd say the opposite. But that's just me.
 

der_kluge said:
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.

i must disagree vehemently. in any edition of D&D (diaglo's beloved 1974, up til now), the players only have as much control as the DM allows them. ;)

3E tends to suggest more allowances for the players, but it is and always has been the DM's choice what to allow. i can't tell you how many times we've played 3E campaigns that were PHB race and class combos only!
 

The Sigil said:
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."

Basically, old school feel is about limiting options (often with different resolution systems), which makes the game easier IMO for a GM in some respects... your players are basically choosing from a list of options, which you can pre-know.

New school thinking is about "you can do anything you want" and trying to come up with rules for every combination people can try. It's easier in that there are rules for things. Its harder in that as a GM, you have no idea what wild idea is coming out of left field.

Discuss.

--The Sigil

I think The Sigil has managed to say what I was trying to say, except better. Yep, that's it. I believe.
 

swrushing said:
not in my experience.

Why do you think it does?

All the extra feats, skills, player's options, etc. Player's have more control over the combat experience through the use of their myriad class abilities. Many of these didn't exist to provide the range of flexibility the player's have today in the earlier editions.
 

BelenUmeria said:
You make this argument at the time, Curtis, and we always seem to be on the opposite side of the debate. I do get your dislike of the older editions though.

Now, that's not fair, BU - I don't dislike earlier editions at face value, I have reasons for disliking them. The rules were clunky; there were arbitrary limitations, there were balance issues; no way to gauge the challenge rating of an encounter... I could go on and on. To be clear, I don't think 3rd edition is all that and a bag of chips, either.
 

der_kluge said:
I don't think 3rd edition is all that and a bag of chips, either.

for some of us it ain't even the grease remains after you eat the bag of chips.

heck, it ain't even what comes out the next day.

we can go on ....
 

Henry said:
It's all in where you look. There was an article about this EXACT same thing in Dragon Magazine many years ago (back in 2nd edition, I believe) about how players should define their characters less by what their abilities and magical goodies were, and more by the personality of their character!

I may dig out my archive and go searching when I get home, because the opening has a fake conversion where a player is geeking out about his "35th level fighter / 40th level magic user who wielded a Holy Two-handed sword, rode a Great Wyrm Dragon and slew Thor..."

Yeah...I made copies of that article for my players when that mag first came out, in a desperate attempt to get some personality out of the PCs.

Happily, I don't need that kinda stuff anymore. I'd check my archive to find it, but my new PC doesn't have the issues on it yet, and my collection is currently boxed away.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top