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

[bloodtide]

that does not sound like anything I have ever even heard of

I might not have detailed it well enough. It's part of the bigger issue of Fairness.

A New School game is Fair. The most common example is that a character will almost always get a save or check to avoid any effect. Another is where the DM will give helpful descriptions with highlights to hint at things...and specifically traps as the player and character nearly always must be given a chance to see or figure out something before it happens. And it is rare to the extreme for NS to have any trick or "gothca" where a player falls for something that effects their character.

Old School is Unfair. A character might get a save or check, if the DM feels like it. A lot of things that effect a character are unavoidable. The DM will often describe a area in detail, but treats everything equally. Old School is full of tricks and "gothca" bit for players to fall for.

These are not differentiators between old school and new school. These can exist in any game.

Yes anything can be in any individual game.

Broadly speaking though the "most" will apply. And that is more then 50%. Maybe 75%. But it does not mean every single game of that type ever.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The word "apple" is a label. It is fuzzy, yes. The real world is fuzzy. What, exactly, constitutes a "penguin"?

Whether it is inaccurate depends on how you are using labels. If you don't insist on extreme precision, accuracy can be maintained.

Is "apple" a label? Apples are a type of Pome after all. Exactly like Pears, which bear a tremendous amount of similarities with apples.

But the larger point is that I keep getting dinged by people insisting that I can't refer to "old school" as such, because of this detail or that detail. And of course many people who keep claiming that "new school" can't be used, because the first time THEY experienced that playstyle was decades ago, so it can't be new.

Sure, an apple is an apple, and that is accurate enough... unless I handed you a wild crabapple, then I think it might not actually be accurate enough for you if you wanted to eat it. Every label is eventually "eh, close enough".

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, it's common in many other NS style games. The NS games, even more the players, want everything by the rules and dice....not the DM's whims.

Right, because it isn't very fun for you if you are going to have all of your abilities fail just because your DM got dumped by his girlfriend and he wants to lash out. The game was never about "whims" , I don't know why you keep wanting to insist on this as a difference.

And the second part is another good difference:

Old School: anything anywhere anytime might happen regardless of what the character does or does not do. And very often the character...and player..will never know the how or why of anything that happens or does not happen......ever. And there is no "chance" for the player and character always.

New School: It's rare for anything to happen with out the direct input of a PC. The players expect to be informed of things, much like they are an audience. The DM quite often will just answer nearly everything OOC for the players. And more often then not, the DM will give the PC a change to do something always.

You are just repeating what I already responded to.

I guess your example is a good example of a bad DM that forget to tell the players something. Though this has nothing to do with what I mentioned.

Doesn't it? "anything anywhere anytime might happen regardless of what the character does or does not do. And very often the character...and player..will never know the how or why of anything that happens or does not happen......ever."

The only difference between your description of old school play and my example... is the DM told me the what and why instead of just keeping quiet about the mistake.

Old School is more about the detail overload. The players are given all the details, but the player has to use their own skills to find the relevant or important information. New School is more about focused details. The DM as a fan of the players highlights the details the players need to know.

And as said above: Old School anything can happen to a character at any time with no warning, no chance to do something or a save. Though the DM can give one if they want. New School the DM as a fan will nearly always give a warning, give a chance and a save.

Yeah, instead of the DM trying to overwhelm you with information to obfuscate and cause you to make a deadly mistake... the DM gives you a chance to not die.

So...like I said. A NS player sticks to the rules they know.

Gee, I wonder why that is when the other option is for the whims of the GM to lead to them causing harm or death to the player with no warning or reason. Why might people want to insist on sticking to the rules of the game, which are clearly laid out and available to everyone.

 

[TiQuinn]

Broadly speaking though the "most" will apply. And that is more then 50%. Maybe 75%. But it does not mean every single game of that type ever.

Ah, yes, statistics. Broadly applied to support your opinion but completely unverifiable other than “this is what you think a new school game is.”

 

[Umbran]

Is "apple" a label?

Yep. All nouns are labels.

Apples are a type of Pome after all.

Sure. Pome is a label, too. It isn't like there can't be multiple labels on the same thing.

But the larger point is that I keep getting dinged by people insisting that I can't refer to "old school" as such, because of this detail or that detail.

Yes, well, most of us don't think too much about genre classification, and then try to define genre by exclusion, rather than by inclusion.

Genre definitions (like "old school game") work best (imho) when you have a list of tropes that are considered common elements of the genre, and if a particular item under consideration has "enough" of the tropes, it is considered in the genre. And that's all.

Mind you, this mode of classification allows items under consideration to be members of two genres at the same time. You can have a movie that is both sci-fi action and a western (Cowboys and Aliens being an example). Having sci-fi elements doesn't stop you from being a Western. Or you could have a game that is both a board game, and a role-playing game (like, say, Gloomhaven).

Now, this can lead to a situation where a game could be considered both Old School and New School at the same time! I don't personally have a problem with that.

Sometimes folks try to classify things out of a group, to define by exclusion. This usually feels to me too much like trying to define Us and Them, the "in-group" and "out-group", the good and the bad, so I try to avoid it unless really necessary.

And of course many people who keep claiming that "new school" can't be used, because the first time THEY experienced that playstyle was decades ago, so it can't be new.

Meh. Have you tried just not worrying about what "many people" say? I find it works wonders.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

As an early rebel against Old School way back when Old School was still new, let me put in my two cents:

Cent 1: New School isn't necessarily narrativist; it can just as easily be simulationist.

Cent 2: I'll agree with (1) "Characters are special," (4) "Death is Not the Only Fail state," and (6) "NS emulates Fiction" [or at least tries to do so]. Point (2) "Characters are defined by those around them" is optional, and points (3) "Campaigns have clearly defined Stories" and (5) "Play is narrative, but not necessarily linear" are highly optional.

 

[mamba]

Meh. Have you tried just not worrying about what "many people" say? I find it works wonders.

or in this case, one person several times…

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

If only there was advice in the DMG that the Role of the Dice is malleable and that some people will role for most things and others will never use dice outside of combat. If only.

I'm on the "want to roll dice" side, but that means I want mechanics that don't pack it in when the absurdly difficult meets the ridiculously capable. Or when the absurdly easy meets the ridiculously inept. (Roll 'lockpicking' to open the lock with its intended key - when the figure attempting this is drunk and blindfolded. Or a feverish 4 year old. Or a dog familiar with no hands.)

Now there are places where I don't want to roll dice, but would rather have an explicit "GM decides" or even "Player decides" rule. But I mark those as special cases in my own house rules, and they're generally not cases where the absurd meets the ridiculous.

Also, it seems to me that it's better/easier to have adequate diced mechanics available and not use them than to want diced mechanics for a task and not have them. But I'm biased.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yep. All nouns are labels.



Sure. Pome is a label, too. It isn't like there can't be multiple labels on the same thing.



Yes, well, most of us don't think too much about genre classification, and then try to define genre by exclusion, rather than by inclusion.

Genre definitions (like "old school game") work best (imho) when you have a list of tropes that are considered common elements of the genre, and if a particular item under consideration has "enough" of the tropes, it is considered in the genre. And that's all.

Mind you, this mode of classification allows items under consideration to be members of two genres at the same time. You can have a movie that is both sci-fi action and a western (Cowboys and Aliens being an example). Having sci-fi elements doesn't stop you from being a Western. Or you could have a game that is both a board game, and a role-playing game (like, say, Gloomhaven).

Now, this can lead to a situation where a game could be considered both Old School and New School at the same time! I don't personally have a problem with that.

Sometimes folks try to classify things out of a group, to define by exclusion. This usually feels to me too much like trying to define Us and Them, the "in-group" and "out-group", the good and the bad, so I try to avoid it unless really necessary.

Which leads right back into what I was saying. Labels are fuzzy and inaccurate. I never said they were useless, but just because you can get within a thousand feet of your destination doesn't mean that you have zero inaccuracies.

Meh. Have you tried just not worrying about what "many people" say? I find it works wonders.

Personally, I have found engaging in conversation with no concern to anything the other side says ends up being a poor way to have a conversation. Leads to a lot of people just declaring they are correct and not listening to anyone else. At that point, I could better spend my time plucking strands of grass out of my lawn.

 

[Umbran]

Which leads right back into what I was saying. Labels are fuzzy and inaccurate.

So, you keep using both those terms - fuzzy and inaccurate. I'm saying really only one of them is true. There are two concepts we tend to conflate in our mind - accuracy, and precision. They aren't the same thing.

Accuracy tells us how "correct" a statement is. Precision tells us to what level of granularity the statement is valid.

Labels are often fuzzy - statements with them sometimes can't be very precise. A label is not accurate or inaccurate on its own. If I call my cat a dog, it is not the label that is inaccurate. The label is still fine. My use of the label is inaccurate.

If someone says, the label Foo means X, Y, and Z, and you don't agree, that's still not the label being correct or incorrect - that's just a disagreement over what the best definition of the label is.

Personally, I have found engaging in conversation with no concern to anything the other side says ends up being a poor way to have a conversation. Leads to a lot of people just declaring they are correct and not listening to anyone else.

But hadn't you just pointed out that "many people" were effectively doing that anyway? You didn't say that explicitly, but it sure seemed like it in context.

At that point, I could better spend my time plucking strands of grass out of my lawn.

So, maybe this conversation isn't terribly valuable for you, and yard work is a better choice. "This isn't interesting, I'm going to go do something else" should always be an option.