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

[Not a Decepticon]

Things that come to mind; neo-trad, Hickman revolution, non-random chargen.

Considering how attempts at define neo-trad on this forum ended with people dumping everything they dislike, like 5e, into it, and then trying to bend over backwards to shoehorn things they don't hate, like Forged in the Dark, into freaking forge games of all things, while also trying to strawman anyone who disagrees and twisting words isntead of engaging with arguments, I do not trust this forum to benefit from using neo-trad as a descriptor.

 

[Umbran]

The depiction of vampires and werewolves in media are far more varied than the shallow monolithic narrative you are trying to sell in this thread.

Mod Note:
Folks, this thread is not titled, "Defining Vampires and Werewolves". Please don't argue over Vampires and Werewolves in this thread. Thanks.

 

[mellored]

More focus on how you where raised, less focus on who you where born as.

I.e. in the new 2024 rules.
You are not born with +2 Str.
You get +2 Str because you did a lot of manual labor growing up.

Effort over destiny.

 

[payn]

Considering how attempts at define neo-trad on this forum ended with people dumping everything they dislike, like 5e, into it, and then trying to bend over backwards to shoehorn things they don't hate, like Forged in the Dark, into freaking forge games of all things, while also trying to strawman anyone who disagrees and twisting words isntead of engaging with arguments, I do not trust this forum to benefit from using neo-trad as a descriptor.

Haters gonna hate. I dont let them under my skin, or dictate discourse.

 

[Thomas Shey]

it might be a somewhat different subset, but much of the rules stays the same regardless.

The core elements might, but a lot of the heavy engagement mechanics are often radically different. Ask most people in any version of the game in the last two decades how much playing a Barbarian teaches you about playing a Sorcerer.

In any case, the question was already answered by the person I asked, and I have my answer (which has very little to do with the rules, as I assumed)

Doesn't make my answer any less relevant, far as I can see.

 

[mamba]

Doesn't make my answer any less relevant, far as I can see.

You only pointed out the obvious, so to me it is less relevant

 

[Thomas Shey]

You only pointed out the obvious, so to me it is less relevant

And how obvious it was to you was not obvious to me. Its not like anyone around here can be assumed to be free of blindspots (including me).

 

[Chaosmancer]

A little late to the party, but in my experience, this is the most salient difference:

My original group started with B/X in the 80s. After 5e came out, we came back together to play again. To this day, the players do not ask me if they can do something they want to try. They tell me what they are doing, and then it's on me to adjudicate it.

When I've played with players who started since 2000, they will generally a) ask me if they can do something, or b) decide on some skill and roll unilaterally.

In other words, the "old school" players are comfortable with what I call "DM-based resolution." The "new school" players are more comfortable with "rulebook-based resolution." They prefer hard, mechanical points-of-contact with the game. If the situation does not lend itself to a specific rule or mechanic, they want to confirm how the DM will adjudicate it before they commit to the action.

While no doubt both styles have existed throughout the game's history, I believe the rules (specifically 3.x and 4e) were explicitly designed with rulebook-based resolution in mind, while the pre-2000 rules were explicitly designed with DM-based resolution in mind, and so this is a valid distinction.

FWIW, I do not feel that either paradigm is better than the other, though I have a preference (both as DM and player) for DM-based resolution. 5e seems to me to be an effective hybrid (New Old School?) in that although the essential flow of play as described in the PHB follows DM-based resolution, between the skill system and class abilities there are enough hard points-of-contact that both "schools" are served.

This is a very good point, and I don't disagree with it.

To dig a bit deeper into it, I think this partially comes down to the expected end-result. I've discussed with many people on these forums who advocate "DM-based resolution" and a big part of that for them is that they feel if they properly describe a series of actions, there will be no roll of the dice. They will succeed regardless. I have rarely met a newer player who thought that.

And I think that comes back to combat. Newer players are presented with combat, and no matter how you describe your attack in combat... you could still fail. And so they translate that to skills. You might get a bonus on your stealth if you describe using grease paint and wrapping your feet in clothe to muffle the sound of your steps, and making sure you have camouflage that will break up your silhouette... but you are going to roll either way, and is the bonus you are going to get worth the extra time of the description of your actions? Meanwhile, Old school players sometimes approach these things as though they can go into enough detail that the roll will be canceled entirely, giving them a guaranteed success.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't get why you find it objectionable. Every new player has their mind blown at some point early on that "holy crap I'm allowed to just... do that?" when it first clicks that TTRPGs allow you to do literally anything you can imagine, and not just the options on a dropdown list.

It's usually going to be some mundane and trivial example too, because those are the things that would never be a standard option available in a non-TTRPG game.

I think because of context. Like, anyone who is utterly mind blown at the idea that you can listen for people... I can only imagine that in the greenest of new players. And even then, only within the first few hours of their very first game. It would be like saying "and then I blew their minds by asking if I could see any guards in the market". The level of mundanity to the action would mean the players in question are literally looking for menu options on the paper in front of them.

And this was presented as a difference between this old school player who is totally cool and in charge, and these new school players who don't even realize you can do something other than smash down a door. If this was a "I was experienced and these kids were in their first game" I don't think it would be objectionable. But the underlying "this is what I think new school players are like" grates.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I never said any particular depiction was broad based. In some fiction vampires and werewolves are just a cool power up. In others they are cool and suave but misunderstood with what amount to superhero powers. In other fiction vampires are narcissistic undead sociopaths that only view humans as food. If they befriend a normal human, it's a manipulative domination to make that person their slave. In others they're somewhere in between.

Right... just like people. That was my original point after all. That this isn't some "we always want to domesticate monsters instead of fighting them" but that the actual thing happening is that we end up Anthropomorphizing them.

I'm reading a series right now where one of the characters is a Vampire, created at the beginning of Creation by the Gods. Due to being a unique species created at Creation, we can bypass a lot of the normal lore for vampires. He was weak at that time, vulnerable. Humanity was the first group to offer him shelter. They protected him during the day when he was weak, he protected them at night... and because he was so grateful to them for their aid, he decided to become a guardian of humanity, even as he got more and more powerful over the centuries.

Sure, this is a different take than "Vampires are undead sociopaths", but also... how many times have we seen the story of "The dangerous, amoral assassin/soldier/mercenary/spy is a dangerous loner who doesn't need anyone, but he was injured and is nursed back to health by a kind, helpless caretaker and now he is determined to use his deadly skills to help them with..." Hundreds? It is a very common story. And it is the exact same narrative as this.