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

3e, 4e and 5e all play very different. 5e feels more like mix of 2e and 3e. Maybe we need term Old New School and New New School?
They do and they don't. People in the OSR, for example, would tell you that these three games collectively share a lot in common: e.g., standardized mechanics (e.g., roll high) and advancement, combat as sport, character builds and play options matter, character abilities vs. player skill, feats and skills assumed, adventure path-oriented, etc.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

So New School is roughly 24 years old. For a 50y old game, that New school is pretty old. :D

3e, 4e and 5e all play very different. 5e feels more like mix of 2e and 3e. Maybe we need term Old New School and New New School?
I suggested having 3e and 4e being their one styles.

Using @jmartkdr2 's Suggestion, I propose calling

3e, PF1&2 and games of its style Silver Age Play.

4e, 13A 1&3, and possibly the upcoming MCDM game Bronze Age Play.

I'm 10 years when 6e comes out, if it diverges heavily from 5e, 5e style play becomes some other metal.
 



To restate this a bit: Old School is where the Players use their real life abilities and skills to solve problems, New School is the players use the fictional abilities of their characters to solve problems, with a roll of some dice.
when it comes to certain tasks, combat is not one of them…
 



It's almost as if a binary definition does not have the nuance to accurately describe the reality of the situation.
Completely agree. I think there's a valid concept at work here but old vs new can't capture it.

The primary obstacle is that there is no wholly representative record of how games have been played over the years. Sure, some people will say "oh we played like this" but you will always get others who rightly provide counter-examples. This is entirely as it should be. Very few analyses take this sufficiently into account - because it's difficult to do right.

Add to that changes in mechanical approach, adventure design, pop culture, and public discussion of games and you have a very complex topic.

I don't think it's impossible to do this topic justice but I don't think a linear progression from old to new is going to cut it.

You would need to take each of the above factors (plus whatever else real analysis indicates is relevant) and chart the development of those. It's a matrix of factors.
 

That doesn't change the fact that there are many games with newer designs and playstyles than what you call "new school". What are those then? "Even newer school"? It's just farcical.
they do not have a name, or maybe ‘narrative’

Why can something not be 40 years old and be categorized as ‘New X’, it works for New Wave ;) We are not redefining all terms every 10 or so years so the most recent one can be called New X, we assign it once and then use a different one the next time.

OS is OD&D, NS started with Hickman, if any development since warrants a category of its own, that won’t be named NS
 
Last edited:

I do think that there is a sharp dividing line as "Old School" and "New School" was first defined or coined: i.e., TSR D&Ds vs. WotC D&Ds. "New School D&D" was indeed initially defined as 3e D&D and onwards. That is generally how I see "Old School" vs. "New School," in a more technical sense of publishing eras. And dare I say it, "New School" vs. "Old School" was something of a tacit agreement with the idea of "system matters," as some gamers who wanted to keep playing TSR era games weren't connecting with 3e as a game system. But as you say, in some senses, the strands of "New School" play culture were already present in the big tent play culture of TSR D&D.

However...

.... one of the problems in this thread involves unclear terms being used. Some people are conflating Old School D&D with OSR, especially the later strands of it, namely philosophical OSR. (Not claiming that @Reynard is doing this, but his posts highlight topic points where vagueness can lead to confusion.)

Old School D&D - TSR-era D&Ds: Oe-2e D&D, B/X, BECMI, etc.

New School D&D - WotC-era D&Ds: 3e-5e D&D+, but also PF1-2, etc.

Old School Revolution/Renaissance:*
  • Wave 1 - Retro Clones: originally a way to republish and continue playing TSR D&Ds under the OGL
  • Wave 2 - Philsophical OSR: a (somewhat revisionist) strand of OSR influenced by the Forge and interested in the sort of philosophical underpinnings of old school games, TSR D&D compatible but increasingly TSR D&D-adjacent
  • Wave 3 - NuSR/NSR:** TSR incompatible games, but adhere to OSR principles

The Hickman Revolution, for example, arguably became something of a convenient scapegoat or rallying cry for Wave 2 and Wave 3 OSR. The Hickman Revolution didn't really matter for Wave 1, who were mostly interested in playing older editions, but it was a sore point for those who developed the OSR Principles. Again, there was undoubtedly influence in Wave 2-3 OSR from the Forge, namely in this case a certain hostility to GM authored story, linearity, and force. (The Forge was complaining about similar things around the same time in regards to Vampire the Masquerade.)

* There are more waves and strands than this, as read here, but this is more of a convenience.
** Confusingly, there were also attempts to use "New School Renaissance" (NSR) as the name for a movement when there was a surge of renewed interest in 4e D&D 🤷‍♂️

To speak more directly to this point, when you keep in mind what I discuss above, there are really two sense of when "New School" starts:
(1) WotC era D&D, as per "TSR Retroclone-inclined OSR" - the games are now not as compatible as TSR D&Ds were with each other
(2) Hickman Revolution and the emerging dominance of "Trad play culture," as per "Philosophical OSR."

We could even have two timeline to show periods when these senses of Old/New School overlap and contrast.

These are some great thoughts on the divide, but I want to clarify my point some.

I think there are two tensions going on for the majority of D&D's lifespan: For argument's sake, we'll call them rules and adventures but that a bit of an oversimplification: Rules refer to the actual rules of the game, while adventures how actual play was thought to go (both in terms of purchased modules and design principles). Lets grossly simplify them thusly:

OS rules: random generation, high lethality, DM fiat, zero to hero progression
OS adventures: exploration-focused, player challenging, combat as war
NS rules: concept focused generation, recoverable losses, more concrete systems, PCs start out heroic
NS adventures: story-focused, character challenging, combat as sport

When OS rules meet OS adventures, you get the proverbial Keep on the Borderlands/Tomb of Horrors style play. When NS rules meets NS adventures: you get Paizo adventure paths. When NS rules meets OS adventures, you get Dungeon Crawl Classics (the modules, not the RPG) and when OS rules meets NS adventures, you get the bulk of 2nd edition.

Which is why I say NS begins far earlier than 3e; AD&D started out OSR/OSA, but after Hickman began to move towards OSR/NSA, with the rules slowly dragging their feet towards NSR inch by inch. Neither happened overnight, and it isn't until 3e that we really get NSR/NSA styles aligned. (and even then, Goodman proudly produced OSA for NSR, it was their tagline).
 

Remove ads

Top