100% correct, but in my experience this is a very controversial observation! Doubly so if you then try and identify what it was that was actually done, at tables, to produce the "new school" heroics using the "old school" system (namely, GM fiat).
D&D General Defining "New School" Play (+)
- Thread starter Remathilis
- Start date
Gygax had rejected the first and second-last of these by 1978 (when the PHB was published). And while B/X used more average ability scores, it also used ability score tables that gave bonuses from 13 and up (compared to 15 or 16 and up needed for bonuses in AD&D).
And D&D was chock-full of player facing rules with concrete outcomes from the get-go. They're called spells.
Prince Valiant 1989. Over the Edge 1992. Maelstrom Storytelling 1997. Sorcerer 1998. HeroWars 2000.
Are we dating the "forks" from when the designs and play started, or from when they started to be "mainstream"?
Agreed.
Last edited:
Wolfpack48
Hero
I think the key here is that some things like in Call of Cthulhu require players to make connections or draw conclusions that their characters have obtained clues for. We never say at our table that the character wasn’t smart enough (have high enough INT) to solve the mystery. It’s ok to have that separation between player and character.
Desdichado
Hero
There's no such thing as new school. When the OSR started defining what old school was, they just called everything that wasn't that "new school" regardless of how disparate the source or philosophy behind the origin of any specific element. The reality, of course, is that "old school" is itself a relatively modern philosophy that is a reaction to all kinds of things that were happening in the hobby over decades, and it doesn't really accurately reflect how people played the game "back in the day" unless you're part of the BroSR specifically and ritualistically trying to recreate Gygax's specific gaming group or something. Anyone who came into the hobby by any other vector than the Wisconsin war gaming culture of the early 70s brought new school tendencies with them. Heck, I've heard people try and argue that the Thief class was the beginning of new school. So seriously, the very second publication for D&D, written by Gygax himself in 1974, was the beginning of new school?
Admittedly, I doubt most other people would agree with that, but still; it's clear that new school is a nonsensical term that means anything other than what the person saying it considers old school.
Admittedly, I doubt most other people would agree with that, but still; it's clear that new school is a nonsensical term that means anything other than what the person saying it considers old school.
Chaosmancer
Legend
I was not talking about New School play. I was talking about Old school play.
I have never heard of a DM empowering a spell because the player gave a fancy description. And actually, most of the people who advocate for old school play have told me, in no uncertain terms, that a vague action is NOT acceptable. They need to know EXACTLY what I am doing, in case I trigger a trap.
As for the type of wood... I know you keep caling it Hard Fun, but where is the challenge there? I either know that Birch wood burns longer and hotter than Hickory wood which is smokier or I don't. And if the DM demands I name the wood type while setting up camp... well, then I can just google the information and write down a few stock answers. The Hard Fun of googling random trivia and writing it down because I got punished for not knowing it? I don't see the appeal.
Of course they aren't, but a wizard with a 20 Intelligence IS a hyper-intelligent character. So, no one is allowed to play a 20 INT wizard unless they have a PhD? But they can play a fighter who is stronger, tougher and faster than them... because the lines are drawn haphazardly.
But we role-play to be someone else. Not to just copy our own abilities onto the character sheet. Hence, why I keep saying that the goals of play are different.
Which is what I keep trying to point out. Old School play wants to train the Real Life PLayers in Real Life Skills that they get better at each time they die. In the new school, a player might say "Hey, my fighter was the commander of a squad of soldiers in the war, he might know a better way to engage with these enemies." and then roll, and the DM would give information. Like, "Well, you know that similar troops often kept mounts near the walls, so you might be able to spook them to cause a distraction" Because that is the sort of thing a veteran of many battles in a long war could reasonably know, but Timmy is a high school graduate whose only exposure to war is the occasional high level documentary,
In the old school method, Timmy just can't play a veteran warrior until he had played enough DnD games to learn enough tricks, to start knowing these sort of tactics.
I don't know how to explain this to you in a manner that will get through to you. You just described old school DnD as mountain climbing, going to the club, skydiving (all extreme activities that are highly regarded) that requires everyone to be on point and make no mistakes. Everyone has to be focused and prepared, ready for anything.
Then you described New School DnD as soft and delicate, relaxed and casual, just for fun. Like swimming in a pool or going fishing, just nothing to take too seriously, you don't really need to worry about the game or playing well...
Do you not see how you are insulting people with this?
I've caused players to cry from the emotional moments in my games. I've gotten everyone panicked and scrambling, looking for any advantage in a fight, because they saw death on the table. I've had players struggle for weeks to unravel a mystery. I've had them screaming for joy when they finally outmaneuvered their foes. My games are not soft and delicate things, light social gatherings that no one really cares about.
ezo
Hero
Yeah, I get this and agree.
OSG has things like save-or-die and others which make the game, by default, harder to survive. Magic-Users with d4 hit points, anyone? Death at 0, -3, or -10 hit points (depending on your DM...)? You also needed a lot more XP to level. Fighter in AD&D would have to kill hundreds of orcs to make 2nd level, in 5E it takes half-a-dozen or so. FWIW, I'm not saying that is "easier", just more survivable. NS is more forgiving, just look at all the healing/recovery available in 5E, for example, with things like revivify available often by session 10-12. In AD&D it would take months and months, even a year or more, before you had a cleric get raise dead, by comparison, IME. Even then you had the chance of failing the resurrection survival check...
In OSG players did have to solve puzzles. I never let them "roll" to have their PC do it, or allowed them to roll "as their PC" to give them a hint or anything. But those are common in 5E, for example. You have a riddle? Ok, it is DC 15, your INT 20 PC rolls Intelligence (Investigation or whatever...) and solves it for the player if they rolled high enough. A high INT M-U in AD&D benefited mechanically in learning spells, having access to higher level spells, etc., not in rolling to solve things.
Yet I find odd things on the other side with 5E, such as players not knowing what their PCs can do or just forgetting about them because they have so many features, etc. OSG is much more simple in that respect. I see OSG as the game/ rules were more complex in many ways, as where in NSP it is the characters who have become more complex.
IME players in NSP are also much more casual about playing. I don't see the same level of commitment and dedication to the game I saw back in the day and I also think OSGs are more likely to have players with a higher level of commitment, but I could be mistaken, just my experience and such in general between the two. Groups getting together are often spur of the moment instead of planned as regular things, players will bow out of a session last minute for whatever reason, etc. Players don't take the time outside of the game sessions to learn what their PCs can do, level up, and such. In OSG I played in, such things were very, very rare IME.
Of course, NSP can be more "high-stakes" if a DM runs it as such, throwing out much of the default assumptions of how the game was designed to be played, etc.
So, no worries. I get it. And FWIW I don't think stating your honest observations about it is "insulting" or whatever. It's your view, opinion, etc. and that's it. At worst, experiences differ, right?
EDIT: Concerning some of the other points you've made (such as describing how they PCs will gather firewood or whatever) none of that was my experience, however.
It wasn't' common at all IME, but I did see DMs who would rarely grant a bonus to an action for something that was well developed and described as an action: such as moving silently. I don't recall anything like describing a sword thrust for a bonus to hit, but I knew some DMs I wouldn't put it past them...
Last edited:
mamba
Legend
don't think I have ever seen that
we have different ideas of what is fun
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
While I am no carpenter, I have tried to keep up knowledge of useful things relevant to the story, and one of those things (believe it or not) has been what kinds of wood something is made out of. Acacia, citrus, olive, cedar, and cork are among the few trees hardy enough to grow in the semi-arid/arid/desert climate of the Tarrakhuna. However, I would never expect my players to be experts on woods--if they are engaging in at least a reasonable effort to learn about the world around them and interact with the things in it, I will explain what their character would know.
So, for example, a Wizard would know about the uses of woods for making wands, golems, and magical apparatuses. A Druid or Shaman would know of woods' ritual uses and totemic applications, and what symbolism they have for the nomad tribes. A Bard would know of ornamental or fragrant uses, and possibly which ones are favored for use in theater or handicraft, etc. A character who has done the work to establish a background as a carpenter, chef, or other profession that works with wood might know a lot more fine details.
In some cases, this might be very relevant information (I can think of one time that such a thing came up in the last few years). Most of the time, it will just be my effort to add color and depth to the setting--but I am always open to that effort becoming something more.
Aldarc
Legend
Yeah. 4e is New School. B/X is Old School. Both games would be considered incredibly gamist,* at least by those who can't move on, unlike @niklinna, Baker, and Edwards. (I also tend to love both games as probably some of the best D&D in terms of showcasing a clear and tight design vision as games.) However, how these two games approach "player challenge" as a game agenda differs. Much in the same way that the "challenge" of an ARPG differs from the "challenge" of a survival game differs from the "challenge" of a rogue-like game.
* FWIW, D&D on the whole would probably be considered pretty gamist, which is IMHO a good thing.
Similar Threads
