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

[EzekielRaiden]

I think you've misunderstood me.

You gave examples like this:

there are a lot of things I will tell my players, because it is simply something that makes absolute sense for the character to know. "Oh, your character is a noble from this region? Then you would have heard about the scandal of this family, because it was the hot gossip of the last six balls your attended."​

​

In the new school, a player might say "Hey, my fighter was the commander of a squad of soldiers in the war, he might know a better way to engage with these enemies." and then roll, and the DM would give information. Like, "Well, you know that similar troops often kept mounts near the walls, so you might be able to spook them to cause a distraction" Because that is the sort of thing a veteran of many battles in a long war could reasonably know​

These are things that are just made-up - they are elements of the fiction. You said that, in new school, the GM makes them up and then tells the player. My question was, what label should we give to the school where the player makes up this sort of fiction/setting element, as part of playing their PC, and then tells the GM and the other players what it is that their PC knows/remembers?

Well, at least for me, that is also "new school," just a more recent innovation within it. Just as "old school" has the more recent innovation of the "funnel" adventure, which never existed in the days when "old school" was the only school, but is a mainstay now. I love the sheer cleverness of funnels as a design solution to a real, observed problem, even though they appeal to a gameplay interest I don't share.

 

[Desdichado]

3. Player Agency.
These days it seems that the players dominate the control/flow of the game rather than the Dungeon Master. This ranges from players wanting/expecting to play the race/class...etc they want even if it doesn't fit the game world or the campaign that the GM is presenting, to guiding the game in the direction they want rather than telling the story (see #2 above). These are extreme examples that I have seen to be fair and most groups balance this out nicely. Player Agency just wasn't such a dominant aspect back in the old days.
[... ]
Of all these, I'd say that Player Agency has been the biggest difference in games played now compared to the 80's and 90s, especially where D&D is concerned. However I think that White Wolf's World of Darkness games and a few others really started that trend and the emphasis on role-playing from the 90s.

Ironically, player agency is one of the most strongly expressed tenets of most descriptions of the OSR playstyle, although they usually mean by that player driven sandbox exploration and player motivated goals.

But again, that just drives home my conclusion that 1) "old school" is a modern rejection of certain playstyles and doesn't actually represent any genuine "oldness"; that's more an attempt to imply some kind of moral superiority through seniority than anything else, and 2) while the OSR playstyle is relatively well defined and bounded, the opposite, to which it is a reaction, is nothing more than an incoherent grab bag of stuff that OSR preferring players don't like and don't represent a single coherent playstyle at all and never did. 3) There are lots of playstyles, most of them are as old, or nearly so, as the hobby overall, and the only superiority any of them can claim is their ability to match the preferences of a given gamer or group, and finally 4) while "new school" was always an incoherent adjective that meant "anything from a wide variety of playstyles that aren't specifically OSR" in reality, old school as an adjective has been greatly diluted and has become itself somewhat incoherent by the over casual usage of it to describe anything that's vaguely D&D-like, rules light, indy or vaguely "old-like". Or, even more incoherently, new school and old school become value judgements for people who identify with old school in particular, and come to mean little more than "what I like" vs "what I don't like."

UPDATE: This is further complicated by "within D&D" blinders that many have where something is considered "new school" like Universal Task Resolution mechanics, for example, which are clearly quite old; that just originate first outside of D&D. But sometimes this goes both ways too and people talk about old school encompassing games like James Bond or Traveller just because they're old... even though they have very little in common in terms of assumed playstyle to D&D.

 

[Hriston]

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?

Agreed, and I wouldn't associate it with "old school" as I understand the term is used by the OSR. I think it seems to align with some approaches to Trad. But "old school" isn't particularly well defined in this thread, so who knows?

 

[Yaarel]

Well, at least for me, that is also "new school," just a more recent innovation within it. Just as "old school" has the more recent innovation of the "funnel" adventure, which never existed in the days when "old school" was the only school, but is a mainstay now. I love the sheer cleverness of funnels as a design solution to a real, observed problem, even though they appeal to a gameplay interest I don't share.

How does a funnel adventure work?

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

Those don't really speak to the style of play though. Consistency is just better game design (even OSR games are getting away from having a whole new dice mechanic for each kind of action) or things that are just "not OSR" like "hey let's consider the story implications of this" - there's a lot of ways to use that; not caring about story elements at all is the outlier here.

 

[Yaarel]

Those don't really speak to the style of play though. Consistency is just better game design (even OSR games are getting away from having a whole new dice mechanic for each kind of action) or things that are just "not OSR" like "hey let's consider the story implications of this" - there's a lot of ways to use that; not caring about story elements at all is the outlier here.

I view this as old school borrowing from new school, and viceversa new school revisiting an old school feel. Obviously the schools influence each other today.

 

[overgeeked]

Those don't really speak to the style of play though. Consistency is just better game design (even OSR games are getting away from having a whole new dice mechanic for each kind of action) or things that are just "not OSR" like "hey let's consider the story implications of this" - there's a lot of ways to use that; not caring about story elements at all is the outlier here.

I disagree. Consistency for its own sake is bad design. Using the right mechanic for the right task is better design. If something should be 1-in-6 or some %, then moving it to 1d20+mod vs TN is bad design.

 

[Thomas Shey]

UPDATE: This is further complicated by "within D&D" blinders that many have where something is considered "new school" like Universal Task Resolution mechanics, for example, which are clearly quite old; that just originate first outside of D&D. But sometimes this goes both ways too and people talk about old school encompassing games like James Bond or Traveller just because they're old... even though they have very little in common in terms of assumed playstyle to D&D.

That's because there are at least some stylistic differences between a lot of older games and their usual modern equivalents, and a term for those is useful, and frankly, the fact that some of the OS D&D types want to keep it for themselves does not seem to be a good reason to let them.

 

[Umbran]

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

Probably in several ways, even.

For example - we can ask, "Less committed... to what, exactly?"

When a fan of Old School play speaks of commitment, they are probably speaking of commitment to things that take some effort in Old School play. But you have to consider whether those things take much effort in newer games.

"System Mastery / Skilled Play", are probably a good example here. 1e D&D is a mish-mash of various sub-systems, several of which don't share design philosophy. It takes some effort to cram it all into your head and keep it there. But, with unified design of task resolution, the equivalent ease of play at the table is easier to reach, because the design isn't asking you to memorize disparate concepts to get it all.

 

[Umbran]

Consistency is just better game design...

I disagree. Consistency for its own sake is bad design. Using the right mechanic for the right task is better design.

You're both wrong. Good design of games is not one objective thing, the same for all people, any more than there's one single good automotive design. What's good design for a truck is not necessarily good design for a commuter vehicle.

Good design is predicated on the user and intended use. People looking for different play experiences will call for different designs.