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

[Oofta]

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.

The only reason I brought up vampires and werewolves was because at one point they were exclusively monsters until they weren't. But we've been asked to not discuss this so if you really want to belabor the point take it to another thread.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I don't want to argue about this other than to say I've never liked playing "convince the DM that I can automatically succeed". If it's a trap, neither one of us has a clue how it would really work so it just becomes "how good is the player at schmoozing the DM" along with the attitude of the DM towards the player.

For example it's one thing to figure out how to bypass a locked door by taking a different route than explaining in detail how to pick a lock because I'm a locksmith.

Just saying that my preference has not ever changed ... even going back to the old school days. There have always been different ways to play.

 

[bloodtide]

I think because of context. Like, anyone who is utterly mind blown at the idea that you can listen for people...

A lot of this come from NS DMs hat require rolls for anything 'action' related or important. It's part of the that NS does not want the DM making the call on anything: they want the rules to do so. The dice and the rules say if a character does something...not the DM.

Also, more then a few NS DMs don't have anything happen in the background that directly effects the players, and if it does the DM will immediately tell the player to make a check. And more then a few NS DMs do tell players "I will tell you when to make a check".

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

A lot of NS gamers feel a character can only do what is on the character sheet, or in the rules. Anything else is "wrong". Like the above, this comes back to not wanting the DM to make any calls.

 

[Oofta]

A lot of this come from NS DMs hat require rolls for anything 'action' related or important. It's part of the that NS does not want the DM making the call on anything: they want the rules to do so. The dice and the rules say if a character does something...not the DM.

Also, more then a few NS DMs don't have anything happen in the background that directly effects the players, and if it does the DM will immediately tell the player to make a check. And more then a few NS DMs do tell players "I will tell you when to make a check".


A lot of NS gamers feel a character can only do what is on the character sheet, or in the rules. Anything else is "wrong". Like the above, this comes back to not wanting the DM to make any calls.

That's ... really misleading. Saying that character choices and builds is more important than the ability of the player to rattle off a convincing argument does not in negate player decisions and declared actions.

 

[Yaarel]

While still being evil, blood sucking murderers. Not a power up and cool option for immortality.

One of the best ways to avoid a powered up Vampire is, it suffers exhaustion or loses hit points unless it drinks blood from a living creature.

Any incurred exhaustion or hit point loss transfers to the blood source creature.

 

[Oofta]

One of the best ways to avoid a powered up Vampire is, it suffers exhaustion or loses hit points unless it drinks blood from a living creature.

Any incurred exhaustion or hit point loss transfers to the blood source creature.

We've been asked not to discuss vampires on this thread.

 

[KYRON45]

It seems at a high level.

Old School - Game driven, what is External to the PCs is more important. "The main character of the World of Warcraft, is Azeroth."

New School - Story driven, what is Internal to the PCs is more important. "The story is about me, and how the adventure relates to my character."

Everything else seems to fall into either camp to me.

Can't the game be a story; driven by the characters actions as a reaction to the setting with the intent on interacting with the other in game stimuli?

 

[Scribe]

Can't the game be a story; driven by the characters actions as a reaction to the setting with the intent on interacting with the other in game stimuli?

Sure, but there is still going to be a defining line, and if the story is party focused, or world focused, is the line between NS and OS, for me.

Otherwise as I noted, a lot of it falls into both camps.

 

[KYRON45]

Sure, but there is still going to be a defining line, and if the story is party focused, or world focused, is the line between NS and OS, for me.

Otherwise as I noted, a lot of it falls into both camps.

I think the problem here (not that there has to be a problem) is that putting things into boxes keeps the stuff in the boxes from mixing with each other.

What kind of world would we have if my peanut butter never ran afoul of your chocolate?!?!

 

[Scribe]

I think the problem here (not that there has to be a problem) is that putting things into boxes keeps the stuff in the boxes from mixing with each other.

What kind of world would we have if my peanut butter never ran afoul of your chocolate?!?!

As long as its not Pineapple, I think we are OK.