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

[Yaarel]

Every player starts with 4 or so characters and they all gos into the deadly, trap-filled dungeon or whatever, and whichever char comes outside alive on the other side, that then is your character

Ah. I see how that can have evolved from old school.

 

[mamba]

Ah. I see how that can have evolved from old school.

First time I have seen it was DCC. Basically the villagers investigate the 'evil thing that bothers their town and no one else takes care of' and whoever survives is now on their path in their adventuring career and the experience forms their backstory

 

[Remathilis]

First time I have seen it was DCC. Basically the villagers investigate the 'evil thing that bothers their town and no one else takes care of' and whoever survives is now on their path in their adventuring career and the experience forms their backstory

NGL, I always viewed it (especially when used in 3.5 DCC moduless) as a spoof/humorous homage mechanic, much akin to how Hackmaster spoofed elements of AD&D. Send a bunch of yokels into a kobold mine and reverse Tucker some level 1 adventurers as they die in a variety of humorous ways. Or a played out version of Traveler chargen where the act of creating a character didn't guarantee you a character. In that regard, I saw it both as a homage and a parody of that "don't name your character until your level 3 at least, lest you get attached" style of play OS trumpets.

 

[DragonLancer]

If Old School is a reaction to modern gaming (New School) then what IS it reacting to?

This might go slightly off book here but the following comes to mind. It's something that has come up in discussions with fellow role-players in person and online over the last 10-15 years. There is, as many have pointed out in this discussion, little real difference between the two schools, so let's forget the concept of old and new schools of RPGs. I think the differences can be put down to the differences in the gaming generations (and no, this isn't a rant at Gen X or whoever).

In the 80s and early 90's, the only people we had to talk to about D&D/RPGs were the people we gamed with and maybe other gamers at our local FLGS, if we had one. We gamed with people who shared the same sort of gaming mindset and any rules issues or what have you, we discussed among ourselves to get a resolution. Then came the 90's where everyone was jumping on the newfangled internet. Every gaming publisher jumped on that electronic bandwagon and soon you were able to talk on their forums with fellow players and even the authors/developers. This opened up a whole new world of possibility and discussion, but it also brought conflict of a sort, when individuals with different gaming mindsets clashed. But suddenly, it wasn't just your gaming buddies with concepts and suggestions about rules issues, table problems...etc. It had been opened up to the world.

Then we got 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons launched, and it rejuvenated the RPG hobby. 3rd edition brought in a heck of a lot of new blood to the game, which was great, but I noticed cracks quite early on. My personal opinion on this is that many of those new players came from the MMO scene at the time, and 3rd edition with it's feat trees and optimization - something 1st and 2nd edition really didn't have to this level - saw the game go from one of exploration, role-play and, dare I say it, storytelling to one of power gaming. The 2000s really saw the newer community jumping on the optimization route. I even ended up leaving ENWorld for about a many years because of the attitude of newer power gamers and their cry of "your experience is not relevant" whenever us older players tried to put forward help and responses. This led the way to Pathfinder which took the D20 system even more mechanical and to the release of 4th edition where D&D was redesigned to be the gateway game for people getting into the hobby. I personally put a lot of that down to people coming from the MMO scene where optimizing your character to be the best is the only real way to play.

These days with 4th and 5th editions being more back to basics, simplified, it has brought in players who value player agency and freedom over the classic DM authority, optimization, and route of more "rail-roaded" games. Instead of looking at as New School reacting to Old School and vice versa, perhaps the way to look at this, is to see how each successive generation of role-players views what came before and how they see the game to be played? Maybe that is the best way to view what everyone is reacting to?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not really. Some older games hadn't yet figured out mechanical solutions to needs that their players had and therefore via a combination of inertia and lack of innovation may have resembled D&D more than an equivalent game today would.

Or, alternatively, some of them were serving needs that are no longer common.

But I think its a mistake to refer to the broad swath of games of the time as "resembling D&D more than an equivalent game today would". Far more games of the time stayed well away from a lot of D&D tropes than any number of games do now. There's a lot more people wanting to capture D&D 5e's lightning in a bottle than there were AD&D1e.

But that's just one example. The idea that old games as disparate as B/X and Runequest and James Bond and Boot Hill and even Tunnels & Trolls are old school just because they're old means that old school can't possibly have a coherent meaning.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm concerned about how coherent the meaning is. That's an error. All I'm talking about is general design elements that have fallen out of favor; they don't all have to be the same.

 

[Thomas Shey]

First time I have seen it was DCC. Basically the villagers investigate the 'evil thing that bothers their town and no one else takes care of' and whoever survives is now on their path in their adventuring career and the experience forms their backstory

Honestly, while I think the funnel is kind if a degenerate expression of that, OD&D play, especially with groups that had a whole stable of characters and/or played more than one at a time could often work out that way because it was so trivial to lose a first or second level character, and a lack of resources to even attempt to bring them back from the dead if you wanted to.

 

[ezo]

I have never seen that in my life. Maybe I am sheltered, but this seems like a caricature of "new school play," rather than something that is actually happening.

All I can say is experiences differ because that is how I see it handled 90% of the time in 5E, and not just in the games I am running or play in, but in the ones I observe others participating in as well.

What I do see is some DMs offering hints based on an appropriate ability or skill check, but that has always happened in some form or another. As a forever DM, nothing sucks worse than when the party is stymied because you realize that you made a trap or puzzle too hard, and now all the rest of your work is going to go to waste because they give up.

Sure. And I favor the player/PC with high INT making a check for a hint as @Yaarel mentioned, too. I think that is pretty common as well and a decent middle ground, but the above happens a lot IME, also.

But in general, TTRPG players love collaborating to figure out puzzles. That has never changed. A good puzzle is always appreciated by my players. Our last game of my D&D Club campaign for the term started with a word puzzle trap the players had to solve, and they were all over it.

None of the younger players I play with enjoy figuring out the puzzles and such. Perhaps they are just more "action oriented" and want to "move along to the more fun stuff"? Even when I try using a time element to make the puzzle more "exciting", it flops.

This just sounds like a player learning the ropes, or maybe a player with ADD (I have a fair few of those). D&D has a lot of stuff to track, and while I can sometimes feel a bit frustrated at reminding players, it's always been part of the process.

I agree to an extent, but sometimes enough it just too much. I mean, come on, already! If you want to play the game, eventually you should learn it--including things your PC can do.

I know @DND_Reborn (who I regularly play with) has gone out of his way to accomodate players, with feature cards, cheat sheets, cliff notes, and even our most recent character sheet design. But I can only hold someone's hand for so long, and frankly I've had players of 5E who were still making those "learning mistakes" after TWO YEARS of playing.

Most DMs are people for whom D&D immediately "clicked," because of the way our brains work. Probably we got it very quickly, and we were likely immediately smitten by the game and wanted to know everything about it. Most humans aren't like that. In my home game, everyone is experienced but no one comes close to my knowledge of the game or intuitive grasp of it. My spouse is fairly hopeless about rules. But they are an amazing role-player and one of the best players I've met.

Sure, and I understand if a player has issue with remembering how a mechanic works, maybe, not not a feature of their PC... they should know those things by heart (or by having handy notes for quick reference!) IMO.

I never expect anyone to know everything (not even DMs!, I know I've forgotten stuff for creatures on occasion!).

As older players, I think we have to be careful about conflating "old school" and "new school" trends in gameplay and design with judgments about older and younger players. Typically, the latter mostly amounts to projecting our own biases and, in the case of older players, forgetting what we were actually like when we were teenagers.

Edit: One thing I have to remind myself is that I am still in high school. The differences between teenagers then and now probably seem less stark to me because I am constantly surrounded by them. My own biases are certainly an issue, as much as for anyone else.

Possibly your experience, but I just can't agree that is mine. When we played as teenagers, ALL the players knew how their characters worked and the basic rules for attacks, dying, etc. Yes, there's a learning curve when you first begin, but they got it. Today, younger players often don't IME and show little inclination to learn those things well enough to play without having to routinely check their phone, laptop, or book for the info; or worse, asking me how it works! I tell them, look it up and write it down so you don't have to look it up again. I do the best I can with them, but man there are times when I am just about fed up with it.

Now, the biggest change I will say I think contributes to this is the switch in OSG to NSP of game/adventure focus to character focus. The DM was expected to master (most) the rules to run the game, the players had very little they had to learn by comparison IMO. With all the traits, features, feats PCs have now, it is a lot more to recall. So, with that in mind, I also work hard to be more understanding. For as long as I can, anyway.

 

[bloodtide]

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

The same, but different. As the OS DM sees the rules as suggestions a Rule Lawyer does not matter: the DM can laugh at them and move on. NS is where everyone agrees to follow the rules always and at all times. So this makes rules lawyers very different.

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.

Except the Pc does not solve the anything: The DM just tells the player the answer.

And anytime the character has to think of a course of action, that is 100% the DM telling the players what to do.

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.

Different strokes. A lot of people like all that near real world stuff...it adds a lots of realism and spice to the game. Old School was a near real world simulation 'close' to real life.

 

[Umbran]

There is, as many have pointed out in this discussion, little real difference between the two schools, so let's forget the concept of old and new schools of RPGs.

Eh. You can wave your hands and say there's "little real difference" between a Western and a Noir Gumshoe story, too. I mean, they're both just stories, the heroes in each have a revolver and will eventually shoot the bad guy, right?

But if someone is looking for something to read, and say they like Westerns, and you point them at The Dresden Files... maybe that recommendation won't be so successful.

I think the differences can be put down to the differences in the gaming generations (and no, this isn't a rant at Gen X or whoever).

I am not sure that's the case at all, in large part because you're only addressing D&D. Each trend you point to really started significantly (like, a decade and more) before you seem to indicate it.

Then we got 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons launched, and it rejuvenated the RPG hobby. 3rd edition brought in a heck of a lot of new blood to the game, which was great, but I noticed cracks quite early on. My personal opinion on this is that many of those new players came from the MMO scene at the time, and 3rd edition with it's feat trees and optimization - something 1st and 2nd edition really didn't have to this level

If you think 2e didn't have optimizers, you didn't see what people were doing with the Kits found in the Complete X books. And those were following in kind the clanbooks, tribebooks, and so on for World of Darkness games, and the ton of supplements for Shadowrun that were all about making your character more badass...

So, no, optimization play didn't start with 3e. Lots of tabletop games were in the space much earlier. 3e was following the trend, not setting it.

Plus, while you are speaking about optimization, you're overlooking other developments in the gaming space (some of which may well have started with D&D), which are often pointed to as differences between... let's call them modes of playstyle development instead of schools or generations.

Because you see, while we see some evidence of every playstyle early in D&D play, that doesn't mean early D&D was actually good at supporting all those styles. Our understanding of our games took time - decades - to develop. We can see games developing to support certain styles of play as people learned what they really wanted from games, and what game design gave them what they were looking for more seamlessly.

 

[ezo]

The same, but different. As the OS DM sees the rules as suggestions a Rule Lawyer does not matter: the DM can laugh at them and move on. NS is where everyone agrees to follow the rules always and at all times. So this makes rules lawyers very different.

A Rules Lawyer is the same in both, only who they have to convince has changed.

The OS Rules Lawyer advocates for their interpretation of the rules when in conflict with the DM, or would advocate for a rules/system the DM wasn't using, or try to convince the DM to not use a system being used. Which is the exact same a NS Rules Laywer does IME. They argue for their interpretation, to use a system, or not use one. The major difference is with NS the DM isn't the only concern, the other players making up the group have a say.

NS is (in theory) a democracy and exchange; the group decides.
OS is (in theory) a monoarchy with DM as the king and the DM decides.

Except the Pc does not solve the anything: The DM just tells the player the answer.

Same thing. The player succeeds on the roll so the PC "solved" the riddle and the DM tells the group what solution the PC came up with. The PC does, in fact, solve it; otherwise the DM wouldn't tell the players what that solution was.

Of course this is vastly different from when a PLAYER actually solves it and shares that solution with the group, allowing their character "in game" to arrive at the solution, which is confirmed by the DM.

And anytime the character has to think of a course of action, that is 100% the DM telling the players what to do.

More accurately it is 100% the DM telling the players what the PCs do or have to do. But even then often the players then fill in the details to describe precisely how the PC completes the course of action the DM says must be done.

It mostly depends on the scene, timeline, priorities of the group, etc. IME just how much involvement the player has for the course of action vs. the DM in a specific vs. general sense.