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

The problem with that is that something that allegedly started in 1985 cannot, per force, be called "new school" with any degree of seriousness. Perhaps, if we're going to qualify something "new", it should be a style that's less than 20 years old not a nearly 40-year-old style.

As Reynard notes, its not off to note that a rather big chunk of people who use "Old School" are really heavily leaning into the first few editions of D&D and often nothing much else at all. Its pretty clear they consider AD&D2e and almost any non-D&D game not Old School.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I've experienced similar "push-back" from NS players when things like puzzles were involved. Patience in many aspect of play doesn't seem to exist much in NS players--who just want things to move along.
"Move things along" reminds me of the ability of video gamers to switch their game to Easy Mode long enough to get past the difficult parts of the game.

In 1970, Gary Gygax ascribed to his Chainmail coauthor Jeff Perrin a distinction between the attitude of two types of players he called "warriors" and "gamers" where "warriors seek to duplicate actual conditions of battle" to emphasize realism and "gamers are willing to twist realism any which way if a fun game results".
I'm taking with a grain of salt the semantics of an author who thought "chain" really belonged before "mail."

The OP asked "old school.in relation to what?" While part of the answer is "5E" another part of the answer is "the Hickman revolution." The folks that actually started to OSR may have been inspired to do so by the OGL and 3E, but most of them had never moved on from 1E.

In its conception, at least, the OSR was a response to pretty much anything after B/X.
3e ended the Old School. And with so many games emulating whatever D&D does, it's hard to say who else can define a "school" besides D&D. So New School must be the new path of D&D, which has the following Easy Mode features:
  • Life after 0 HP.
  • Minimization of Save or Die.
  • Skill checks and skill challenges substituting for player skill.
  • Be-whatever-you-want races and classes.
  • Well-above-average ability scores.
  • (More) Player-facing rules with concrete outcomes (like "your opponent slides one square away").

I don't think that the stories have wandered far from "go there and kill that," but c'mon: the name of the game is Dungeons and Dragons.
 


Also, I'm not an expert,but the modern OSR doesn't seem to look a lot like the 2004 OSR. I can but the argument that the modern OSR is mostly a reaction to 5E using the language of the original OSR.
 

So many of you seem to forget that Remove Curse was a 3rd level Cleric Spell in 1E.
1E and 2E had lots of curse types. And unlike 5E, the remove cruse spell could not just automatically remove any curse.

But you can't keep playing that character.
Yes, only the player gets to grow and learn.
Also, note how you immediately assume "plot armor" and that the character is totally invulnerable just because they don't get killed by a random die roll every other combat. Don't be insulting.
That is what plot armor is though....The main character can't die.


New School: Lite or even no resource tracking. Many NS DMs just ignore items and equipment as characters are just assumed to have any thing they need. It is also common to have a house rule that lets a player "just say" their character remembered to bring whatever item the player wants. And for somethings characters have a vague unlimited supply, as it is assumed that a character is buying, finding or making things all the time.

To compare to Old School, most players would keep pages of found items. And many players would write things like "gold ring shaped like a snake, found in the west tower". Most DMs would require players to keep track of every torch, arrow or gallon of water.

New School: Vague equipment or item usage....at best. The general gameplay just has the characters having "tools" or "equipment". But the player need not keep track of anything. And when a character does an action, the details are unimportant or not even mentioned...the character simply does the act.

Old School: The player needed to know what they were doing or trying to do. Often in general terms, but just as often a DM would want all the real details. If the player wants a character to do an action, they can describe using items and such to at least try it. Of course, this is why players often collect everything they can....

New School: Lite descriptions of areas and places...or at least more focused ones. The DM will often do an over view of an area as "a dining hall" or such. But only mention details relevant to the game play. Anything else is just in the background, much like a video game where things you can interact with are a special color or shade. The DM only mentions important things, often leaving the rest vague.


Old School: You can expect a fairly detailed account of most areas and places by an OS DM. Often very long ones. The OS DM will often note everything...nearly every minute detail. And nearly none of it is directly important to the game. Though, as with above, a player might be able to use any detailed item or object.
 

3e ended the Old School. And with so many games emulating whatever D&D does, it's hard to say who else can define a "school" besides D&D. So New School must be the new path of D&D, which has the following Easy Mode features:
  • Life after 0 HP.
  • Minimization of Save or Die.
  • Skill checks and skill challenges substituting for player skill.
  • Be-whatever-you-want races and classes.
  • Well-above-average ability scores.
  • (More) Player-facing rules with concrete outcomes (like "your opponent slides one square away").
.

A lot of those things existed as early as 1e, certainly 2e. Yes, some of them were listed as optional (though rarely were they actually excluded), but new school style of play was creeping in long before 3e made it more official. In that way, 2e is an edition divided against itself; all the supplements and modules and such wanted a new school style of heroics and storytelling but was still married to the mechanics of an old school system.
 

A lot of those things existed as early as 1e, certainly 2e. Yes, some of them were listed as optional (though rarely were they actually excluded), but new school style of play was creeping in long before 3e made it more official. In that way, 2e is an edition divided against itself; all the supplements and modules and such wanted a new school style of heroics and storytelling but was still married to the mechanics of an old school system.
One of the really interesting things to consider is that in classic D&D, you got better at saving against magic effects as you went up in level.

From 3E onwards, you generally get worse, especially for your non-core saves.

Cheers,
Merric
 



Remove ads

Top