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

[pemerton]

...

What did I just read?

Sorry, it wasn't meant to cause upset.

How can I expunge it from my brain meats?

Read Dragons of Autumn Twilight cover to cover?

 

[pemerton]

If the GM is requiring you to make up details for you to be allowed to play the game, that sounds like something an old school game would have.

Well I don't know about requiring. And I'm not really familiar with what you even have in mind here. What's an "old school" example of a GM requiring a player to make up setting backstory about (say) the practices of the regiment their fighter PC used to belong to, or of the cult that their cleric PC belongs to? This isn't something I've ever heard of.

 

[Clint_L]

With regards to younger players being less committed than we were, I think that’s a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.

We know, objectively, that far more folks are trying D&D out than ever before. It used to have a stigma attached. That’s not really the case now. So a lot more folks are open to trying it out, which inevitably means that a lot more folks try it and aren’t that into it.

Anecdotally, probably half or less of the kids who try out D&D at our club stick with it past a game or two.

However, the ones who stick around often get just as hardcore as any of us did. I had one student who not only ran a 5e campaign, she knew 1e better than I did and was running a bunch of other TTRPGs as well.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Well, if you know more then a tiny bit about a topic is a good way to go. And the "average" person does vary. I'd guess your example average person has very little...or none...knowledge about things like wood. That is one type of person. There is another kind though...the person who knows at least a couple paragraphs about wood. And how to make a fire. Tie knots. Catch and clean fish. And so on. They are not "experts". But really the basic knowledge has not changed in over 1,000 years. Everything that was true in 1000 AD, is still true today.

Over and over in this thread, you keep proposing the testing of player book knowledge during the performing of actions in game. Your examples were having to do with wood types and fresh caught fish, if I recall correctly. This is weird to me, and, to be honest, seems like gatekeeping.

If everyone at the table really does know these things, as you propose is likely, we can just sit around and listen to the same description over and over - for realism. And if not, we can divulge in the glorious past time of DM's punishing players who don't know how to prepare a fresh caught fish.

When does this go from a role-playing game, to some strange and arbitrary quiz based on fantasy hypotheticals? One where we all close our eyes and hope the DM has the knowledge to correctly assess our description's "realism," in the context of a fantasy world. One where we are just expected to "know things" because the DM claimed "reasonable people" do. One where incorrect answers lead to in game punishment.

It seems like some odd mental pissing contest to me. Where, at worse, the DM gets the pleasure of telling their players, "No, no, no. Not realistic enough," before rewarding the players with arbitrary punishments for their lack of knowledge. And at best, we can listen to the same description over and over again.

"You didn't say what temperature you cooked your salmon to!"

"But DM, we cooked it to 145f / 62c. Jimmy and I have said so 92 times since level 3."

Maybe I am misunderstanding. But it seems like I'll stick to my DMs "telling me everything" in my "boring" "new school" game.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I probably associate it most strongly - in the context of published games - with HeroWars (2000) and Burning Wheel (revised, 2004). Which makes it contemporaneous with "new school" as some in this thread are defining that!

Since "new school" is used for any of the half-dozen or more ways to play the game that aren't old-school - yeah, that tracks.

"New School" is about as helpful as defining movies as "Westerns" and "Not Westerns."

 

[ezo]

Problems. This is, of course, why New School even exists. This is why NS loves the rules so much: page 11 in the rule book says what happens when you roll....it's not GM whim.

OSG had their shares of rules-lawyers too. This isn't something I see as either NSP or OSG.

The flaw is the player just sits there clueless and does what the DM tells them to do. An NS counts this as "playing the character". Like your smart wizard character finds a magical rune puzzle. You roll a check. The DM tells you the answer. Then you role play your wizard "solving" the puzzle....and feel like you role played a smart wizard.

This isn't so much about the DM telling the player what to do, as it is about NS players using the numbers on the sheet instead of doing it themselves. The PCs discover the magical rune puzzle. The player says their INT 20 wizard inspects it to find the solution (perhaps with elaborate details, but often not), the DM calls for an Intelligence (Arcana or Investigation?) check and the player rolls. If the check succeeds, the PC solves the puzzle.

In OSG, the DM presents the players with a physical, written puzzle, which the players try to figure out for themselves.

NS is for the backtracks of "hey my character would have been smart enough to do X, so can we just say that happened?"

IME NS is notorious for the "retcon" compared to OSG.

In a similar light, Friday's game I told the player his PC took 11 damage. The PC has Heavy Armor Master, so should record only 8 damage, but the player didn't. I told the player, "This is the last time I am going to remind you, how much damage did you take?" And he realized what I was talking about and adjusted the damage himself. It isn't my job to do it, it is his feature. I told him, "if I fail to tell you the damage type, such as fire, then you can reduce the damage".

 

[Hriston]

Well I don't know about requiring. And I'm not really familiar with what you even have in mind here. What's an "old school" example of a GM requiring a player to make up setting backstory about (say) the practices of the regiment their fighter PC used to belong to, or of the cult that their cleric PC belongs to? This isn't something I've ever heard of.

In a recent thread about 5E, I was told I could only use my PC’s background feature if I had a detailed written backstory, approved by the DM, saying how my PC knows such and such person in such and such place. Maybe that’s the sort of thing @Chaosmancer has in mind.

 

[pemerton]

In a recent thread about 5E, I was told I could only use my PC’s background feature if I had a detailed written backstory, approved by the DM, saying how my PC knows such and such person in such and such place. Maybe that’s the sort of thing @Chaosmancer has in mind.

That's bizarre! And the sort of thing that would make me look for a different game.

In the context of the thread topic, is that what we should consider a type of "old school" nerfing/denial of a "new school" character build element?

 

[Yaarel]

In OSG, the DM presents the players with a physical, written puzzle, which the players try to figure out for themselves.

The Old School DM hands out an actual puzzle as a minigame for players to solve. If the players are stumped, the DM might give hints in some way, and would probably give the hint to the player whose character has the highest Intelligence.

 

[Yaarel]

Since "new school" is used for any of the half-dozen or more ways to play the game that aren't old-school - yeah, that tracks.

"New School" is about as helpful as defining movies as "Westerns" and "Not Westerns."

There are trends that later D&D versions tend to share in common, such as mechanics that are consistent, balanced, and fair, with these mechanics intentionally actualizing narrative concepts.