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

[mamba]

Just compare: The character finds a stone tablet written in a strange script.

New School: The player just makes a roll and the character reads the tablet....The DM just tells the player what it says.

Old School: The player is given a tablet handout. The player must use their own personal skills and intelligence to decipher the script using anything they have seen or heard during game play.

There is no doubt that translating a script for real is a lot harder then just rolling a single dice. But that does not make it "better".

I much rather have the characters having to find a way to decipher it that is not just ‘I cast a spell’.

If the point was that they should be able to easily read it, they could find one in their language…

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, no to your point. Old School DMs are not great humanitarians taht want to make their players better people.

In an Old School game characters have to find out things "for real". That is they must to fairly specific focused things to get exact information. New School is much more like movies/tv shows.....ever notice how the heroes just "automatically find stuff to advance the plot". That is New School.

IF you mean better people morally, that wasn't my claim. And what you are saying is exactly my claim, that the players must do "fairly specific focused things to get exact information" to find things. Well, if they fail to do that? Then next time they will do it "better", still failed? They will do it "better"

Where this falls apart though, is how unevenly it is applied. You never ask a fighter to describe the angle of their arms as they use the Jaka School style to slip their sword past an enemies shield. You never ask a mage to describe the precise speed they cycle their mana while reciting the Formula of Elaine to summon light. But if they want to search a room, you basically have them do it all as themselves. Of they want to talk to someone, it is all about precisely what they say. These instances of "skilled play" only appear to take the place of... skills. Which did not exist at the beginning of the game. They never apply to anything else, heck they don't even apply to all skills, only the physical actions like searching. I've never heard of a DM requiring us to state what gauge of thread is used when we stitch up a wound with the medicine skill. But whether or not you stated that you took apart the curtain rod and looked inside? Utterly VITAL to whether or not you find the items hidden there.

It's more accurate to say people simply did not like the Old School way. After all, plenty of players would say they could play an Old School game, they simply don't want too.

An Old School game is harder, there is no two ways about it. But it is not "better" just as it is harder. Old School games are a very hard challenge, that is really a big point about Old School.

Just compare: The character finds a stone tablet written in a strange script.

New School: The player just makes a roll and the character reads the tablet....The DM just tells the player what it says.

Old School: The player is given a tablet handout. The player must use their own personal skills and intelligence to decipher the script using anything they have seen or heard during game play.

There is no doubt that translating a script for real is a lot harder then just rolling a single dice. But that does not make it "better".

Yeah, if people actually acted that way, it would be one thing. But they don't. And frankly, your description is kind of false. Oh sure, actually code breaking a real cypher is a lot harder than rolling dice... but it also means that if I don't have a head for cyphers then my hyper-intelligent wizard with a cypher breaking skill will always fail, because I can't break a cypher, I don't have the bandwidth or expertise to do it.

But if we are playing a game where the players are caught up in a civil war, and they have multiple sides they could pick, and they need to navigate their own concious versus the tactics of their allies... how is your style of game any harder than mine at that point? Are my battles easier? Not really. Are my moral quandries easier? Hardly, they might even be harder.

Yet the assumption is, that I am playing and running an easier game than you, because I let the character's skills solve a puzzle, instead of insisting the players spend real life hours solving it themselves.

A bit too harsh. An Old School player often cares about their character. And because of this they play smart and careful. Not caring for a character at all goes back to Classic Play "Oh no my character Fred XXI died....well, everyone welcome Fred XXII".

And here those assumptions raise their head again. Old School players play smart and carefully... which by the unspoken comparison of "unlike New School players" implies that new school players play stupidly and recklessly. You don't come out and say it directly, but since you make sure that your words imply that this is a unique feature of Old School players, you have the same result while staying polite about it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

By equal, I'm saying no one or thing is important or most of all has plot armor. Any character can die at any time, and any item might be destroyed at any time. In Old School there is always a chance. New School is where you say a PC,, NPC, character or item is "too important" to loose.

And I'm saying that this is not as true as you want it to be.

Because, as I said, "old school" is SO deeply DM dependent, and so many DMs are mediocre or uneven. E.g. one may be brilliant for dialogue and encounter design but really, really bad at consistency and "equality" as you put it, being easily swayed by emotions or personal interests or bribes or (etc., etc.)

A bit too harsh. An Old School player often cares about their character. And because of this they play smart and careful. Not caring for a character at all goes back to Classic Play "Oh no my character Fred XXI died....well, everyone welcome Fred XXII".

....now you're making a distinction I genuinely don't understand. I thought "classic" and "old school" were the same thing. Now they aren't? Now there's two schools-that-are-old? What?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Of course I'd probably do broad categories of story, character and player skill focuses, with a mix-and-match crossover. But then we'd have, I don't know old school, new school and middle school? Because after all we can't just call them Story, Character and Player Skill focuses to describe the styles of play. That might actually tell people what you're talking about without explanation.

How? It's not like new school players are unskillful. It's not like old school players never had story. You seem to think these words are self-evident. They are not. And, as noted, new school folks (like myself) don't take kindly to the implication that their style is for feckless rubes.

 

[bloodtide]

IF you mean better people morally, that wasn't my claim. And what you are saying is exactly my claim, that the players must do "fairly specific focused things to get exact information" to find things. Well, if they fail to do that? Then next time they will do it "better", still failed? They will do it "better"

Guess I'm not following you now. So when a New School player fails a roll, do they learn something and roll "better" next time?

Where this falls apart though, is how unevenly it is applied. You never ask a fighter to describe the angle of their arms as they use the Jaka School style to slip their sword past an enemies shield. You never ask a mage to describe the precise speed they cycle their mana while reciting the Formula of Elaine to summon light. But if they want to search a room, you basically have them do it all as themselves. Of they want to talk to someone, it is all about precisely what they say. These instances of "skilled play" only appear to take the place of... skills. Which did not exist at the beginning of the game. They never apply to anything else, heck they don't even apply to all skills, only the physical actions like searching. I've never heard of a DM requiring us to state what gauge of thread is used when we stitch up a wound with the medicine skill. But whether or not you stated that you took apart the curtain rod and looked inside? Utterly VITAL to whether or not you find the items hidden there.

This does vary from DM to DM.

A good number of Old School DMs do require players to describe actions. And just as many will give bonuses to the player for doing so. So a fighter can describe a sword thrust and get a plus to hit. The same is true with spellcasters.

All the other actions are covered under Adventuring and are classless. Any character can try to do anything. Most DM's are fine with a vague "you collect some wood for a fire".....but a LOT of Old School DMs will have the player describe the wood the player collects(as different woods burn diffidently, give off different smoke). The super details are part of the Hard Fun.

Yeah, if people actually acted that way, it would be one thing. But they don't. And frankly, your description is kind of false. Oh sure, actually code breaking a real cypher is a lot harder than rolling dice... but it also means that if I don't have a head for cyphers then my hyper-intelligent wizard with a cypher breaking skill will always fail, because I can't break a cypher, I don't have the bandwidth or expertise to do it.

Very True. Another difference in Old School is that you need to play a character that matches your player abilities. Though also most Old School games have 'everyman' characters. The PCs are not in any way special, they are "just another wizard" in the world. And for an every person wizard you can say no problem that "they can do magic, but they just are not good at cyphers". And most often Old School characters are not a "genius" or "hyper intelligent".

But if we are playing a game where the players are caught up in a civil war, and they have multiple sides they could pick, and they need to navigate their own concious versus the tactics of their allies... how is your style of game any harder than mine at that point? Are my battles easier? Not really. Are my moral quandries easier? Hardly, they might even be harder.

The basic game play in both types of games would be about the same in many games.

Though it would come down to a lot of details. It is harder to do everything in an Old School game. And players must use their own real life skills and intelligence. So for example in New School a hyper intelligent character can just roll and 'make' a battle plan. In the Old School game the player must make the battle plan, for real.

Yet the assumption is, that I am playing and running an easier game than you, because I let the character's skills solve a puzzle, instead of insisting the players spend real life hours solving it themselves.

Well, it is an easier game. Checkers is easier then Chess, but that does not make it "better"...it is just different.

And here those assumptions raise their head again. Old School players play smart and carefully... which by the unspoken comparison of "unlike New School players" implies that new school players play stupidly and recklessly. You don't come out and say it directly, but since you make sure that your words imply that this is a unique feature of Old School players, you have the same result while staying polite about it.

I'm not sure how or why your jumping to that conclusion. Just compare:

The Old School game is Unfair, Hard Fun, Deadly to Characters, Unforgiving, Merciless, and Harsh. A player in such a game has to be very much smart and careful. They need to "bring their A game" and "be on the ball" and very much be focused and "in the zone". Even just one mistake and you can ruin or end a plot or story.....and even just one mistake and your character is gone forever. It is intense Hard Fun.

The New School game is Fair, Soft Fun, Friendly, Accepting, Forgiving, Merciful and Delicate. A player in such a game needs to be smart and articulate. The game play is relaxed, even casual. A fun informal social gathering. The player need not worry about the game suddenly taking a wrong turn or ending too much, as that is made to not happen. It is more relaxing Soft Fun.

It is comparing mountain climbing to relaxing in a pool. It is going out to nightclubs to staying home and curling up with a good book. It's skydiving to fishing.

And none of the above, including the two games, is "better". It is much, much, much harder to climb a mountain then it is to float in a pool(note as I type this I AM floating in a pool as it is 91 degrees in the shade here).

And I'm saying that this is not as true as you want it to be.

Because, as I said, "old school" is SO deeply DM dependent, and so many DMs are mediocre or uneven. E.g. one may be brilliant for dialogue and encounter design but really, really bad at consistency and "equality" as you put it, being easily seated by emotions or personal interests or bribes or (etc., etc.)

I can agree that each Old School game is very unique, and for a player to jump games can be a huge shock. New School games are much more uniform and players can jump around and not notice much.

....now you're making a distinction I genuinely don't understand. I thought "classic" and "old school" were the same thing. Now they aren't? Now there's two schools-that-are-old? What?

Well, you need to remember Classic Play and Traditional Play are separate. in Old School. Like how Story games and Neo-Trad are separate in New School.

Classic is the nearly pure mechanical near war game like play. Very little story or plot. You have disposable characters...Fred I, Fred II, Fred III. And it has the heavy rule focus...page 11 says x we must all do X.

Traditional is pushing the mechanics to the back ground and putting role playing in the foreground. Lots of story and plot. Players care about characters. Rules are suggestions.

 

[Oofta]

True.

Well, no to your point. Old School DMs are not great humanitarians taht want to make their players better people.

In an Old School game characters have to find out things "for real". That is they must to fairly specific focused things to get exact information. New School is much more like movies/tv shows.....ever notice how the heroes just "automatically find stuff to advance the plot". That is New School.

No, it's not and statements like this are dismissive and annoying. There can still be plenty of challenges and decision points, just not the same ones.

...
Old School: The player is given a tablet handout. The player must use their own personal skills and intelligence to decipher the script using anything they have seen or heard during game play.

Which is the issue I always had. I like to think I'm smarter than the average bear, but I don't have a 20 intelligence like my character. Heaven forbid someone with an average intelligence play a wizard. Why should I, as a player have to figure out the script? Do you expect the guy playing the barbarian to bench press the couch?

 

[pemerton]

1 and 2ed were in the path of survival. Everyone was newbie at the time, and almost all DM stick to the lethality of the game.

You're over-generalising. This doesn't describe DL (mid-80s) nor what I was doing with the original OA in 1986. It doesn't describe the AD&D 2nd ed play I did in the 1990s.

3.5 and 4 turn thing upside down. Players were getting tools to fight on equal terms with the DM. Which often turn the encounter into rules lawyering fight instead! Don’t need to read and please the DM anymore, you just need to have a solid build and you can do whatever you want.

I GMed a lot of 4e D&D. This doesn't describe that either.

5ed start to allow after almost 50 years, to go back the the original goal of the hobby. Play a character and see where the adventure will lead him. Forget about survival, forget math, just take the skin of a character and see what is happening.

And this isn't an accurate description of the "original goal" of D&D - forgetting about survival is the opposite of the goal of play set out in the 1970s D&D rulebooks.

 

[Remathilis]

NSP the STORY is King.
OS PLAYING is king.

I think it's better to frame it NS cares about the narrative while OS cares about the game itself. The OS player views the dungeon as a game board where his own ability to play will be tested, while the NS views it as part of a story his character is experiencing.

 

[pemerton]

The OP asked "old school.in relation to what?" While part of the answer is "5E" another part of the answer is "the Hickman revolution." The folks that actually started to OSR may have been inspired to do so by the OGL and 3E, but most of them had never moved on from 1E.

In its conception, at least, the OSR was a response to pretty much anything after B/X.

Though maaan, if non-random is considered particularly "new school" that has it starting as early as far back as 1980 (when the last piece of The Fantasy Trip was published).

Right. As far as I can tell, the criteria set out in the OP capture, as "new school" play, anything that is using a different structure of play from that set out by Gygax in OD&D and his PHB.

 

[niklinna]

Would you rather we go back to the Forge terms of gaming, narratives, and simultanion?

If Ron Edwards and D. Vincent Baker can move on, then so can I.