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

[Vaalingrade]

Yep, that is why the newest vampire movie in 2024 is totally the exact same as Twilight, (a book series written by a woman who self-confessed in knowing NOTHING about vampires before she started writing). I even have a picture

View attachment 367859

For reference, the last movie in the Twilight series, the only mainstream franchise that uses shiny vampires, came out in 2012 -- twelve years ago. And people are still using them as an example of the kind of things 'kids these days' are doing even though the kids those days were making fun of it.

People: I know asking you not to use comparisons to popular culture to look down on people is too much. It's a necessary part of nerd culture we will never be rid of.

But can we at at the absolute rock bottom of effort, at least audit out references more often than once a decade?

 

[Umbran]

There's a difference between not knowing to use the tactic in game and the ubiquitous assertion that it 'blows their minds'.

I have no interest in bringing on myself the aggravation of challenging every bit of hyperbole I see on the internet. So, I pick my battles.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And I picked this one because it's being used to frame new players in a particularly unfavorable way I object to?

 

[DarkCrisis]

Old School: You are stuck in a dungeon full of monsters.

New School: Monsters are stuck in a dungeon with you.

 

[jmartkdr2]

New-School Column
Per level player directed build options as the norm
Game-play is built around the rules and what's on the character sheet
More in the way of pre-planned encounters, storytelling, and scenarios
The dice decide the resolution based on what's on the character sheet
Characters can do what's listed on their character sheet

Just to point out something here:

Generally, the point isn't that characters can only do what's on the character sheet; it's that characters definitely can do something that's listed on the character sheet.

So my rogue certainly can pick locks because I have lock picks and proficiency with them. If I didn't have picks I might be able to improvise something, or not, depending on what I do have and descriptions and roleplay and how the dm sees things. If I'm unconscious the wizard could borrow my picks and attempt to pick a lock but it might be a lot harder than even making a check with no bonus - but the dm doesn't even have to let them try.

The difference between this and OSR is even a rogue built to portray the same character might not always be able to roll to pick a lock; they still need to go through the process of describing the action, because to an OSR fan that's the fun part.

 

[Oofta]

- nm -

 

[bmfrosty]

Generally a good synopsis.

On this item above, that might be true for many 5e players. But my games prioritize skill checks and narrative adjudication of them. I describe the scene, and the players tell me how they interact with it. I decide yes, no, or do a d20 check. Thus much of the play outside of combat, and for stunts during combat, is spontaneous and "emergent" storytelling.

It might be fair to describe this narrative adjudication approach as an "old school style" even within the context of 5e. But to be fair, this is something 5e intentionally designs for.

I consider narrative adjudication essential to achieve "narrative immersion", in the cognitive sense of vividly sometimes visually experiencing the story in first person point of view.

I don't think I'd say that you can't play 5e in an old-school way, but I feel like skill checks being front and center on the sheet (at minimum) nudges those involved to use them.

Just to point out something here:

Generally, the point isn't that characters can only do what's on the character sheet; it's that characters definitely can do something that's listed on the character sheet.

So my rogue certainly can pick locks because I have lock picks and proficiency with them. If I didn't have picks I might be able to improvise something, or not, depending on what I do have and descriptions and roleplay and how the dm sees things. If I'm unconscious the wizard could borrow my picks and attempt to pick a lock but it might be a lot harder than even making a check with no bonus - but the dm doesn't even have to let them try.

The difference between this and OSR is even a rogue built to portray the same character might not always be able to roll to pick a lock; they still need to go through the process of describing the action, because to an OSR fan that's the fun part.

Your experience may vary, but if a character sheet might say that some characters have the ability to do a thing, and DM might decide that characters who don't have that on their can not.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Let me double check ... nope ... I did not say that every representation of vampires were all the same. Just one popular representation that is an example of evil creatures being transformed into something desirable.

...did uh...did you quote the wrong person...?

 

[DarkCrisis]

...did uh...did you quote the wrong person...?

I'm always the right person.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Just to point out something here:

Generally, the point isn't that characters can only do what's on the character sheet; it's that characters definitely can do something that's listed on the character sheet.

Yes! This is a VERY big misunderstanding re: old school versus new school.

Things on your character sheet are guaranteed to work as advertised. It is incorrect to conclude, "Therefore, nothing else ever works." Part of the spirit of new-school play is supporting creativity through setting a baseline. This is part of why I'm such a big advocate for (what I call) "extensible framework" rules. Rules that can be extended into all sorts of situations no designer could ever plan for, but which give reliable performance when used even in such rarefied contexts.

The difference between this and OSR is even a rogue built to portray the same character might not always be able to roll to pick a lock; they still need to go through the process of describing the action, because to an OSR fan that's the fun part.

Precisely. There's still planning, forethought, preparation, effort, creativity, etc. in both approaches. But what things you plan, how you show forethought and preparation, what effort you put in, how you act creatively, differs. Creativity is often centered in the complex action-description portion of old-school play. Creativity is often centered in the tool-use, in the insightful connection of disparate parts, for new-school play. Both things involve action description and connecting bits together.