Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Beyond Old and New School - "The Secret That Was Lost"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cyberen" data-source="post: 6229157" data-attributes="member: 69074"><p>Very nice thread !</p><p>Thank you, [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION], for opening it. Paying hommage to Boorman's Excalibur and Moorcock style was just icing on top of the cake <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>If I read well the excellent contributions of [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and, especially, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I feel there is very little difference between "old" and "new" school. I am more worried with what's in between...</p><p>Let's dive into it : I fully endorse the claim that there is a very special imaginative process at work at the heart of "Fortune in the Middle" mechanics. Particularly, you have strong constraints on where you are coming from, and where you are getting to, and a lot of freedom concerning the journey from A to B. This architecture provides many features, as it provides some room between gamining mechanics (which can focus on fun, balance, ease of use, whatever) from narrative license, and empower each player with his own vision of "what happens" while guaranteeing everybody's on the same page concerning the final state. Of course, I have seen many people, on this board and elsewhere, disliking this kind of mechanics, and putting the blame on 4E for using them so casually... I feel they are misrepresenting the issue, as the most blatant supporter of FitM was, IMHO, Gygax himself, especially in 1E DMG. When you think about it, with his random tables, the old man invented the Schrödinger dungeon ! The room behind the door doesn't have to exist before you open the door ! This is the ultimate scene framing device, not in the sense of creating meaningful scenes, but in the sense that only the present "encounter" matters. So, no, I wouldn't oppose Old and New schools on the way they use and support imagination, on both a microscopic (rolls are FitM) and macroscopic ("scene framing") level.</p><p>I am under the impression Next is pretty neutral concerning FitM mechanics : it uses them quite a lot (in fact, once again, HP are going to be a real source of headaches for those who don't embrace the FitM paradigm), but not as overtly as 1E (I would say 4E is not blatant enough on this subject, and this is one of the many reasons of its demise). Next also promotes a time framework compatible with scene framing, with short and long rests recharging PC resources. Where Next does an excellent design job is when it tries to enable this protagonistic time management device while preserving the naturalistic flow of time. This philosophy shows at many places, where the design tries to make room for "kool powarz" without the (IMO) obnoxious power formatting (I hope Next Fighters will be able to lure foes into battle, spending some metagame resource, but not in the cold and tokenized manner of "Come and Get it !" encounter power). I also feel that the design team believes (like me, and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I guess ;-), and I am sure the class has a special meaning to [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION], if I remember Iron Heroes well enough) that the game vanquishes or perishes with its implementation of the Fighter, and they are definitely aiming at giving it back its "Old school" resiliency.</p><p>For those afraid to lose 4E "story now" features with Next, I would say I think there is more to gain than to lose with the relaxing of the hygienic regimenting of time, resources, roles, and threats. (For instance, I don't feel able to DM a Song of Ice and Fire style campaign, with a naturalistic take on the world and the idea that every character can be a protagonist, using the 4E framework. Having to rebuild NPC when the PC level up, or when they acquire PC status, seem very cumbersome to me). A less tokenized system, besides being less alienating to a LOT of players, would open up nice possibilities such as the Doom Pool : my real concern, regarding DM force, has always been restraint : why shouldn't I Buff, Scry and Teleport to get rid of these nasty PCs in their sleep ?</p><p>I definitely think 4E "tight math" and p42 are overrated : math is surely better than in 3E, thanks to the enforcement of a "bounded accuracy" policy, but the ubiquitous use of a single die (a d20, for instance) as a randomizer yields to a very strange world indeed (take a closer look at the distance jumped, for instance...). Actually, "math" was tighter in 1E, because Gygax understood the use of a bell curve, and used one (or more !) new table for each and every case he encountered. I can see the appeal of a unified mechanic, but 4E is really : you have 30% / 55 % / 80 % to succeed at a Hard/Moderate/Easy task appropriate to your level. Adjust by 5% for every 2 level difference. Even Fate (which is not what I would call a crunch heavy game !) has a richer base system, as it starts from a bell curve... Also, all those minigames contained inside D&D have always fired my imagination : how many armies built with the War Machine ? Castle features carefully paid for ? Decks of many things and Wands of wonder and Spheres of annihilation and Vorpal swords ? Psi using BBEG ? A clean system is serviceable, but it sometimes comes to the detriment of accuracy (jump length), effect (fighters resilience), fun & imagination... </p><p>(by the way, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I think you are overrating/overselling 4E a bit too much with the support of inspirational healing. In Tolkien and Arthurian Romance, both (master)pieces of reactionary literature, healing IS divine : both Arthur and Aragorn are king by divine right, and I would argue their ability to *channel* heroism and bravery in their followers, or to be themselves inspired by an icon of love, is divine by nature. So, IMO, these characters ARE paladins, and divine healing is inspirational by nature. To be continued <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> )</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cyberen, post: 6229157, member: 69074"] Very nice thread ! Thank you, [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION], for opening it. Paying hommage to Boorman's Excalibur and Moorcock style was just icing on top of the cake :-) If I read well the excellent contributions of [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and, especially, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I feel there is very little difference between "old" and "new" school. I am more worried with what's in between... Let's dive into it : I fully endorse the claim that there is a very special imaginative process at work at the heart of "Fortune in the Middle" mechanics. Particularly, you have strong constraints on where you are coming from, and where you are getting to, and a lot of freedom concerning the journey from A to B. This architecture provides many features, as it provides some room between gamining mechanics (which can focus on fun, balance, ease of use, whatever) from narrative license, and empower each player with his own vision of "what happens" while guaranteeing everybody's on the same page concerning the final state. Of course, I have seen many people, on this board and elsewhere, disliking this kind of mechanics, and putting the blame on 4E for using them so casually... I feel they are misrepresenting the issue, as the most blatant supporter of FitM was, IMHO, Gygax himself, especially in 1E DMG. When you think about it, with his random tables, the old man invented the Schrödinger dungeon ! The room behind the door doesn't have to exist before you open the door ! This is the ultimate scene framing device, not in the sense of creating meaningful scenes, but in the sense that only the present "encounter" matters. So, no, I wouldn't oppose Old and New schools on the way they use and support imagination, on both a microscopic (rolls are FitM) and macroscopic ("scene framing") level. I am under the impression Next is pretty neutral concerning FitM mechanics : it uses them quite a lot (in fact, once again, HP are going to be a real source of headaches for those who don't embrace the FitM paradigm), but not as overtly as 1E (I would say 4E is not blatant enough on this subject, and this is one of the many reasons of its demise). Next also promotes a time framework compatible with scene framing, with short and long rests recharging PC resources. Where Next does an excellent design job is when it tries to enable this protagonistic time management device while preserving the naturalistic flow of time. This philosophy shows at many places, where the design tries to make room for "kool powarz" without the (IMO) obnoxious power formatting (I hope Next Fighters will be able to lure foes into battle, spending some metagame resource, but not in the cold and tokenized manner of "Come and Get it !" encounter power). I also feel that the design team believes (like me, and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I guess ;-), and I am sure the class has a special meaning to [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION], if I remember Iron Heroes well enough) that the game vanquishes or perishes with its implementation of the Fighter, and they are definitely aiming at giving it back its "Old school" resiliency. For those afraid to lose 4E "story now" features with Next, I would say I think there is more to gain than to lose with the relaxing of the hygienic regimenting of time, resources, roles, and threats. (For instance, I don't feel able to DM a Song of Ice and Fire style campaign, with a naturalistic take on the world and the idea that every character can be a protagonist, using the 4E framework. Having to rebuild NPC when the PC level up, or when they acquire PC status, seem very cumbersome to me). A less tokenized system, besides being less alienating to a LOT of players, would open up nice possibilities such as the Doom Pool : my real concern, regarding DM force, has always been restraint : why shouldn't I Buff, Scry and Teleport to get rid of these nasty PCs in their sleep ? I definitely think 4E "tight math" and p42 are overrated : math is surely better than in 3E, thanks to the enforcement of a "bounded accuracy" policy, but the ubiquitous use of a single die (a d20, for instance) as a randomizer yields to a very strange world indeed (take a closer look at the distance jumped, for instance...). Actually, "math" was tighter in 1E, because Gygax understood the use of a bell curve, and used one (or more !) new table for each and every case he encountered. I can see the appeal of a unified mechanic, but 4E is really : you have 30% / 55 % / 80 % to succeed at a Hard/Moderate/Easy task appropriate to your level. Adjust by 5% for every 2 level difference. Even Fate (which is not what I would call a crunch heavy game !) has a richer base system, as it starts from a bell curve... Also, all those minigames contained inside D&D have always fired my imagination : how many armies built with the War Machine ? Castle features carefully paid for ? Decks of many things and Wands of wonder and Spheres of annihilation and Vorpal swords ? Psi using BBEG ? A clean system is serviceable, but it sometimes comes to the detriment of accuracy (jump length), effect (fighters resilience), fun & imagination... (by the way, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I think you are overrating/overselling 4E a bit too much with the support of inspirational healing. In Tolkien and Arthurian Romance, both (master)pieces of reactionary literature, healing IS divine : both Arthur and Aragorn are king by divine right, and I would argue their ability to *channel* heroism and bravery in their followers, or to be themselves inspired by an icon of love, is divine by nature. So, IMO, these characters ARE paladins, and divine healing is inspirational by nature. To be continued :p ) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Beyond Old and New School - "The Secret That Was Lost"
Top