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

[Chaosmancer]

Not for OS so much. There is a branch of OS that does not even want the players to know anything about playing the game: the DM knows the rules and rolls. The players just role play.

But in general, the rules don't matter much to he players in OS. The DM might change them at any time, after all.

This is a deeply problematic thing for me. You cannot make informed choices if you do not know the rules. You cannot make informed choices if the DM might change how things work at the drop of a hat. And when you are no longer making informed decisions, then it doesn't really matter. You end up disconnected from the events, because you cannot do anything about them, because you lack the knowledge to act.

Sure, players can still declare actions, but with no knowledge of how those actions translate into the game, they can't be informed about their decisions.

Well, your mixing the two.

Old School expects you to role player your character using your player skills and intelligence. A good player learns how to act. No actor is a spy, wizard or ninja for real....but they act like one. And yes OS expects players to put in the effort to act....and again most good actors do this.

The DM being in control of the information is gatekeeping. The clueless players just play the game not knowing much, except when they roll and the DM gives them a bit. But even then a DM will only say so much, right? Less then a paragraph? And the DM will only tell the player what the DM wants them to know.

Old School wants a player to know as much as they want to know and figure things out for real.

But again, you seem to miss the point. It doesn't matter what "good" players or actors are attempting to do, it is about the disconnect. If I'm playing a Wood Elf who has spent 300 years in the forest, and I'm a druid with a deep abiding knowledge of nature, then I should be able to identify most plants and animals. They have studied this. IRL I can barely identify poison ivy, and I only know a handful of incredibly iconic plants. Limiting my elf to my IRL knowledge means that my elf who should be a wellspring of knowledge about animals and plants and nature... comes off as a city boy who has rarely stepped foot outside, let alone been in a forest. They aren't able to be the role, because I don't have that knowledge.

My knowledge of plants should not limit my Druid, and while sure I could download a bunch of survival guides and study them... I shouldn't have to. I shouldn't be required to go studying different subjects to play my character in a game I'm playing for fun. I don't care if it would be "Hard Fun" for you, for me it is a just another log on the stack of things I need to accomplish, and I'm stressed enough about that stack.

The millions of practitioners disagree with you.

And millions of other people agree with me.

Hard Fun is simple enough....it is hard to put together a 5000 peace puzzle. It is easy to put together a 100 piece puzzle. Crossword puzzles are hard...Candy Crush is not.

I'd note that you can find people with a lack of common sense everywhere.....not in just one group.

Redefining your term does not mean I agree with it, or your usage of it. I also challenge you on the second example, because I played some pretty difficult levels of Candy Crush (and was nowhere near the end of the game) and I've seen more incredibly easy crossword puzzles than hard ones. And I'm sure that it is harder to play baseball without mitts, but that doesn't make it more fun to play baseball barehanded. Bet it would be a lot harder to play soccer with a bowling ball. Doesn't mean it would be more fun.

And sure, you might be able to find people that lack common sense in all sorts of places... but it is particularly notable when one side of the conversation keeps claiming that THEIR side has common sense, you know, as a baseline.

Okay, so that is your one picked example that does not seem relevant?

You keep claiming that "New School" is constantly just telling the player the answer to the puzzle. I'm pointing out I have literally only done that once, and it was in a scenario where the puzzle in question was unplanned, do to the players having a very clever use of a spell. So, if my style of play does this constantly... why only once in 10 years has that ACTUALLY happened, and it wasn't planned?

You might be stuck on the rut that this only applies to puzzles? Note it apples to all game play all the time.

And giving the players a "pass" is very New School.

Puzzles are an easy example to use. And it doesn't apply to the entire game all the time. I keep pointing that out to you, but you keep brushing it off. In most old school games (maybe you are an exception) this style of game stops happening with attack rolls and spells.

And how did I give them a "pass"? Because I said it was close enough? Tell me, what are the tenants of Estana that allow for the proper reversal of a desecration of her image? And how does the Goddess's own opinion factor into that? It is also kind of funny, you want to claim that "giving players a pass" is something that New School DMs do... yet you also want to claim that Old School DMs follow no rules except for their heart, and will make rulings based on whatever they feel like. So wouldn't a "you know what, that's close enough to work" be a very Old School thing to do?

Right, not everyone is good at puzzles. Don't use them if you have players that can't solve them.....the same way with nearly anything else.

The difference here is the OS DM tells that player "sorry your not a good fit for my game, goodbye" and the NS DM changes the game so they can solve the puzzles or "says it is close enough to the answer".

Right, so what? When a new player comes asking to join the table they need to solve four logic puzzles correctly before being allowed to join? Or after the game has started because you didn't do that, you kick them for not playing to a high enough standard for you? This starts to sound incredibly elitist with the idea that a player's worthiness to play your game of dungeons and dragons is going to depend on how well they can spot the difference on this picture of two flowers.

Very few Old School games backtrack.

Your example is an example of lack of detail. In NS everyone is just assuming the smart characters are doing smart stuff all the time and does not need to be mentioned. In OS, the characters would prepare for the journey and be keeping track of things like water by the gallon.

Right, Old School is constantly obsessed with details. And often, from discussions I have had with people advocating for old school play, it is to absolve themselves of any blame from the players when things go wrong.

And, take a step back for a moment. Let us say that you have the players tracking water by the gallon. Well, as the DM, you don't trust them to do that accurately, so you track their water by the gallon too. But if everyone does it correctly... then it never matters. If you properly track and buy and deal with the water... it never matters. But you and the players but have entire reams of paper tracking these details, ready to pull out your notes and point to your records the moment there is a discrepancy. For what? You'll call it "Hard Fun" but unlike jigsaw puzzles or crossword puzzles or poker... tracking the gasoline in my car by the gallon to compare to the mile... isn't fun. It is just some tedious math whose end goal is to change nothing but keep a record.

Your example is odd as it is yet again the DM...who is in control of the magic ring glowing...not telling the players vital information.

Sure some Old School DMs might say those for this bad example.

But this does does show the differences. The NS player just has their character sit down and drink and plays the game very lite and casually. The OS player is 100% saying to the DM that they put on their ring AND the test the liquid before drinking it, as the game is harsh and deadly.

In OS it is common enough to have items stolen, replaced or destroyed. Or like in this case have a dispel cast on the ring. But again a good OS player has a vial of poison with them to test the ring all the time and always before drinking anything. See the level of minute detail?

Also, in OS, some enchanted wine with undetectable poison would be just fine.

See, this is the thing. You call the player just following the flow of the game "very lite and casual". But, frankly, why should they have to constantly remind the DM of their magic item? Why should EVERY party and EVERY drink and EVERY situation involve mentioning this?

And yeah, I see the paranoia. The OS player is going to announce that they sit down, that they put on their magic ring, that they pull out their test vial of poison, that they feed the poison to a rat to make sure it is still poison and not something else, wait for the rat to die, make sure the ring is glowing, then take their drink and drink it... for EVERY SINGLE DRINK THEY EVER TAKE. Sure, I can do that. I can give you that level of extreme paranoia... but then you throw in at the end that it won't even matter, because the poison might be undetectable.

So, end of the day, the real question is... Did the OS DM decide to poison the player's today, yes or no? Because if they did, nothing I do is going to stop it. And if they don't, then my entire ritual to prevent it is pointless. So why should I bother doing something that isn't fun? It isn't fun to pull out my notebook of ten thousand standard operating procedures and read "fancy party #3"s list of twenty steps to attempt to avoid poisoning. And even if I do, it won't matter.

----------
But ok, drop the silly magic ring part. We have group NS and OS resting in the afternoon shade. So a messenger comes with an invite from a baron none of the PCs know, and invites the Pcs to dinner with an offer of a great job. The baron is in fact planning to poison and capture the PCs and sell them off to an old foe.

So in OS the DM will do nothing to tip away that evil plot. But the characters are free to use all afternoon to discover whatever information about the baron that they can. But as they must do every little bit "for real" this will take time and effort. The baron did not tell every NPC in the world his plan....only three NPCs know about it. Only if the players can use their real skills and intelligence might they piece together random facts and clues. And in general, the only way they might really find out about the plot is going to the barons castle ahead of time. The players here have to be alert that anything might be a trap or worse. The players might do some preparation, like have antidote or magic too.

So....NS. Well, the players will just roll "what does not character know about this baron?" and the DM will read off a bit. And the critical bit is does the DM...buy just this lone roll...tip the players off by having the character "know the baron and the old foe are best friends". Because when the players are told that information for free, they might take notice. Also the NS DM thinks it's fair that the characters has "someway" to learn about the poison plan....maybe even just "they will see the cook putting drops in the drinks from a vial marked 'poison'." The players here are more casual....they know the NS DM will give them lots of obvious chances....and they can always ask for recons like "oh my character would have been smart enough to do X"....and the DM will agree.

But what would you say? In an OS game there is at least a 50% chance that the characters would learn nothing suspicious and get poisoned. In a NS game the percent is...

I find it telling that you point out "anything might be a trap or worse" because it highlights again for me what this is. Paranoia. OS games seem to constantly be about always expecting every single event, every single item, every single everything, to be a deadly trap that will kill them. Note that your OS group had no indication that anything was wrong... and yet went looking for a plot against them. Like the idea of being invited to a party by a nearby Baron is so unusual that it must be a trap. And out of everyone in the barony, only three people will know the truth, so the PCs will need to somehow figure out who the Baron would trust, and then IRL interrogate them... which requires being in the seat of the guys power and if you are that convinced it is a trap... just don't go.

On the New School side, I think you start off with something fairly reasonable. The Players ask "hey, what do we know about this guy?". That is a completely reasonable question. And, if the player rolls well, and the DM has plans in place for the Baron to be evil... then yeah, that's going to come up. You didn't give any details on this "old foe" but if they are an old opponent of the players, then they would know a lot about them... and so yeah, I might not even need to hint at the connection directly. I might be able to simply name the military school they went to, and the players will go "Wait, isn't that the same place XXX went? Did they go during the same year?" and they have made the connection.

One thing I think many advocates of OS miss about this process, is that they often seem to imagine that PCs appeared fully formed in the Tavern, with no past or history. You can't seem to imagine that a PC might have heard about a nearby noble, so it seems completely out-of-left field for the Player to ask "hey, do I know anything about this" and get an answer. And yeah, if the players just go blissfully along, might throw another hint or two at them about the plot. Why? Because it is more fun if they have a chance to discover it. Also, it builds trust. Instead of being paranoid and investigating every single event I ever try and get them to go to, they can trust that if nothing seems strange or out of the ordinary... that they don't need to swab test their poison and anti-poison vials to see if some invisible thief swapped them as part of a conspiracy to take them out.

But you treat this with derision. Like they aren't REALLY playing the game, they don't REALLY care, because they aren't constantly looking for threats everywhere. They aren't constantly working every angle to see if I'm out to get them. But mostly... we just find doing that utterly exhausting.

So..................to be clear you are saying Character Death is the Worst thing that can happen in a game?

No, the worst thing that can happen in a game is spontaneous PVP that leaves hard feelings and breaks up a group of friends. Somewhere in the top five worst things is the DM showing favortism to a significant other, and ruining everyone else's fun.

They are not...that is how a near reality simulation world works. A player is limited by what their character can see and hear. They have no idea what goes on in the rest of the world.

This is the big difference between the NS character being Main Characters and having the world revolve around them; and OS where the characters are just everybodies.

They aren't even everybodies. They are mushrooms. And yeah, when I spend 208 hours following the same group of people, then the time devoted to those people tends to revolve around those people. Especially when I've been thinking about those people, thinking about how those people react, thinking about how other people will react to those people, designing environments and traps to challenge those people, considering how monsters might fight and approach those people... it often feels like those people are the focus of what I am doing.

New School players are also limited to their senses... we just tend to give context to their senses. "Hey, that smells like rotten eggs" gets a bit of detail added "And you know that unless there is a trash pit nearby, that usually means a demonic prescence". It is adding to the mentality of the Character, because the player's are not actually in the world. I don't get the luxury of actually knowing the full political situation in a fantasy land over the last 100 years... I'm busy with my real life 99% of the time. That's why it is appreciated when we get a "and your character would know what that means"

 

[Clint_L]

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.


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.


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.


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.


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!).


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.

I dunno, man. I've been running a D&D Club at a high school for years. I've run D&D camp in the summer for mostly cognitively divergent kids. And I'm a teacher with decades of experience and training in working with teenagers. I'm not sure how extensive your experience is, but what you are describing is very different from mine. I have DMed for many hundreds of teens over the years, and I'm just not seeing these problems.

As far as what we were like when we were teenagers, that's pretty anecdotal, and most people have very poor recollection of what they were actually like as teenagers. I suspect that if you and I could get in a time machine right now and go back and observe ourselves and our friends, we would see very similar behaviour patterns. Old folks complaining about kids today being so different from what we were like is a tale as old as time.

As for people still forgetting the rules years into a game, sure. It happens. Some players are like that. It doesn't mean they aren't trying, it probably means their brains are different than yours. For me, learning and remembering game rules is something my brain is really good at. My spouse is a biologist, a senior executive in government, has a black belt in karate, and is hopeless at remembering game rules. But they're super fun to play with, and if the price of playing with someone fun is that you have to remind them about rules, then that is a price I am willing to pay.

I've been listening to Critical Role for ten years and all of the players still get rules wrong all the time. Even Mercer, on occasion, whiffs on one. That doesn't mean they aren't fully invested in the game. If teaching has taught me anything, it's that everyone's brain is different, and is good at different things.

 

[ezo]

I do think this thread is funny for not having many mentions of actual "New School R[enaissaince/evival/evisionist]" games like SWORDDREAM, Songbirds, Troika, or FIST - that is, games with the design philosophy invented by OSR (which does not seem to have much actual representation in historical play, hence revisionist as it's a different way of reading previously established rules) but without feeling the need to constrain themselves to being yet another clone of DND 2e.

I don't find it odd at all considering I know many players have no idea of those games, including myself. I'd have to poll my current groups to be certain, but I'd lay heavy odds none of them have, either. D&D has been their intro to RPGs and all they have really known in general.

I dunno, man. I've been running a D&D Club at a high school for years. I've run D&D camp in the summer for mostly cognitively divergent kids. And I'm a teacher with decades of experience and training in working with teenagers. I'm not sure how extensive your experience is, but what you are describing is very different from mine. I have DMed for many hundreds of teens over the years, and I'm just not seeing these problems.

As I've said, experiences differ.

I don't play with minors. I'm talking early 20s to mid 30s in general, with a few in the 40s or 50s.

As far as what we were like when we were teenagers, that's pretty anecdotal, and most people have very poor recollection of what they were actually like as teenagers. I suspect that if you and I could get in a time machine right now and go back and observe ourselves and our friends, we would see very similar behaviour patterns. Old folks complaining about kids today being so different from what we were like is a tale as old as time.

I don't think so. Most of my work has been in education (at the college level) with my own graduate education degree and I am very familiar with how the brain functions differently in people. I know people remember the past through the "best parts" filter. Even so, I know when I played with my friends as teens we were not always looking up rules and such to play--we knew the game. Hell, I had most of it committed to memory (including the AD&D ability tables) and could make a PC without even opening a book. Now, I very much realize I am an outlier in that case, but its the facts.

As for people still forgetting the rules years into a game, sure. It happens. Some players are like that. It doesn't mean they aren't trying, it probably means their brains are different than yours. For me, learning and remembering game rules is something my brain is really good at. My spouse is a biologist, a senior executive in government, has a black belt in karate, and is hopeless at remembering game rules. But they're super fun to play with, and if the price of playing with someone fun is that you have to remind them about rules, then that is a price I am willing to pay.

I really don't see how someone who is that intelligent and can recall enough information to earn a biology degree cannot recall game rules? Does she know how to calculate the attack bonus for her character? Does she know not to add her proficiency bonus to damage? Does she understand how her PC features work? I'm talking pretty basic game systems here and/or a limited amount of information.

I enjoy playing with my players as well, but for pity's sake this isn't that hard. Either learn the information or organize it so you can very quickly find it--instead of asking me or taking up game time to look it up, repeatedly. Good will only goes so far.

I've been listening to Critical Role for ten years and all of the players still get rules wrong all the time. Even Mercer, on occasion, whiffs on one. That doesn't mean they aren't fully invested in the game. If teaching has taught me anything, it's that everyone's brain is different, and is good at different things.

I tried watching the show, never liked it, found it to be garbage personally.

Yes, everyone is different, and I have often gone to great lengths to make it easier for people who struggle with the game, but when the last year or more myself and others have spent our time homebrewing the game to make it "easier to learn and more simple to play", that speak volumes IMO.

 

[mamba]

I do think this thread is funny for not having many mentions of actual "New School R[enaissaince/evival/evisionist]" games like SWORDDREAM, Songbirds, Troika, or FIST - that is, games with the design philosophy invented by OSR (which does not seem to have much actual representation in historical play, hence revisionist as it's a different way of reading previously established rules) but without feeling the need to constrain themselves to being yet another clone of DND 2e.

that is probably a reflection on how well known they are…

I was aware of Troika but would not have thought of it as OSR

Things like ‘36 backgrounds ranging from pond priests to lobotomised aristocrats’ make it sound predominantly weird

 

[Desdichado]

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.

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.

I haven't the foggiest idea what you're concerned about. I'm replying also to the topic of the thread; what is new school. My hypothesis is that the seeds of all playstyles, mostly, that we're familiar with today go back to nearly the beginning of the hobby, and that they were mostly distinct from each other already. Of course, it took time for RPG theorists and designers to understand them well and figure out how mechanics interact with playstyle, which is why the mechanics often lagged and still looked similar even as they attempted to promote other types of play. This still happens, in my opinion.

I do think this thread is funny for not having many mentions of actual "New School R[enaissaince/evival/evisionist]" games like SWORDDREAM, Songbirds, Troika, or FIST - that is, games with the design philosophy invented by OSR (which does not seem to have much actual representation in historical play, hence revisionist as it's a different way of reading previously established rules) but without feeling the need to constrain themselves to being yet another clone of DND 2e.

Exactly so. I'm sympathetic to the OSR, but let's be honest about what they are. A modern reaction to stuff going on in the hobby that they didn't like, not really a recreation of ur-gaming.

Right, Old School is constantly obsessed with details. And often, from discussions I have had with people advocating for old school play, it is to absolve themselves of any blame from the players when things go wrong.

Different playstyles are obviously different, but at some point being obsessive and misanthropic and lacking social skills isn't a playstyle anymore, it's just a personal challenge. If you can find a group willing to play that game, good on you (speaking to the generic you) but don't try to justify it by tying it to a well known and reasonably popular playstyle.

I've been listening to Critical Role for ten years and all of the players still get rules wrong all the time. Even Mercer, on occasion, whiffs on one. That doesn't mean they aren't fully invested in the game. If teaching has taught me anything, it's that everyone's brain is different, and is good at different things.

Critical Role are performance artists doing performance art professionally. I'm not sure how much useful information about regular games can be gleaned from that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Absolutely. People act like players were a plentiful resource. In the 90s, you found or trained your players and hoped you didn't lose them to work, school, or dating. I don't think I ever had so many players that I could tell one to piss off because he didn't like my ruling on extra attacks...

There were places where there was a pretty large pool of players looking for games on a regular basis though. It just wasn't everywhere.

 

[Thomas Shey]

that is probably a reflection on how well known they are…

I was at least somewhat aware of SWORDREAM but all the references to it I's seen just called it an offshoot from OSR.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Right, Old School is constantly obsessed with details. And often, from discussions I have had with people advocating for old school play, it is to absolve themselves of any blame from the players when things go wrong.

We can see in the old modules from the 70s and 80s that there were some interesting features. Such as instant death traps, or puzzles with dire consequences. Combat was far more lethal, and the odds were stacked against the PCs in many ways.

Taking Tomb of Horrors, for example. Published in 1978, this is some of the oldest "old school." And it is infamous for it's difficulty. It had some hard puzzles with dire consequences. But those puzzles never relied on players describing something precisely. They never relied on the players knowing obscure facts never mentioned to them. Everyone I found, gave all the information needed and just required spatial reasoning and problem solving. Maybe I missed an example to the contrary, but if so it was seldom.

I think this is where Bloodtide over stretches what Old School was. Instead of making these moments purely "in game," they are stretched to the very semantics of the game play. Now, not only do I have to figure out the puzzle - but I have to word the solution correctly. I have to guess the password in a way. It's a second puzzle layered on top of the first, and one completely outside the "game."

In old school, you tracked ammo and many other things. This is mentioned in many of these modules. And if you ran out, there were consequences, challenges. You could, in the right situation forage for food. Never in the modules was it stated that you needed to "realistically" describe that food's prep after foraging. This is again, adding a password of sorts. An additional onus on the player themselves, outside of the "game."

This is what I mean when I say Bloodtide is stretching the lethality and punishing aspects of old school into the very semantics of the game play. And in that case, I feel like we are moving from old school's detail oriented approach into adversarial DMing laced with gotchas. And I think this does old school a disservice as it paints it an extreme that it didn't neccessarily encompass by design.

Edit: I think it's fine and good if groups want to play this style of game. I just think it doesn't help old school's popularity to frame the game as being like this as a whole.

 

[Chaosmancer]

We can see in the old modules from the 70s and 80s that there were some interesting features. Such as instant death traps, or puzzles with dire consequences. Combat was far more lethal, and the odds were stacked against the PCs in many ways.

Taking Tomb of Horrors, for example. Published in 1978, this is some of the oldest "old school." And it is infamous for it's difficulty. It had some hard puzzles with dire consequences. But those puzzles never relied on players describing something precisely. They never relied on the players knowing obscure facts never mentioned to them. Everyone I found, gave all the information needed and just required spatial reasoning and problem solving. Maybe I missed an example to the contrary, but if so it was seldom.

I don't know if Tomb of Horrors is a good example. It is infamous for killing characters, but if my memory serves it was designed to punish players who had gotten too much loot. I remember it was also used in tournament play. One detail I remember is that there are three main entrances into the Tomb.. and if you go into any of those three your character will instantly die, the only actual way into the Tomb is through the secret 4th entrance.

And that entire concept rubs me the wrong way, because it ends up feeling very much like attempting to play the game is punished. If you die for going in the door, then why would I want to even create more behind that door? None of my players will want a take two.

This isn't to disparage OS as a whole as being like this, but just to explain why I think the Tomb is a particularly bad example to hang the style off of.

I think this is where Bloodtide over stretches what Old School was. Instead of making these moments purely "in game," they are stretched to the very semantics of the game play. Now, not only do I have to figure out the puzzle - but I have to word the solution correctly. I have to guess the password in a way. It's a second puzzle layered on top of the first, and one completely outside the "game."

In old school, you tracked ammo and many other things. This is mentioned in many of these modules. And if you ran out, there were consequences, challenges. You could, in the right situation forage for food. Never in the modules was it stated that you needed to "realistically" describe that food's prep after foraging. This is again, adding a password of sorts. An additional onus on the player themselves, outside of the "game."

This is what I mean when I say Bloodtide is stretching the lethality and punishing aspects of old school into the very semantics of the game play. And in that case, I feel like we are moving from old school's detail oriented approach into adversarial DMing laced with gotchas. And I think this does old school a disservice as it paints it an extreme that it didn't neccessarily encompass by design.

Edit: I think it's fine and good if groups want to play this style of game. I just think it doesn't help old school's popularity to frame the game as being like this as a whole.

I tend to agree with your assessement. I do want to give an example though that I think highlights a significant difference in perception.

Ammo tracking. A single Quiver holds 20 arrows. It would not be unreasonable for an adventurer to have two full quivers, that is 40 arrows, and costs at worse 4 gold, with a recurring 2 gold for the 40 arrows. Starting at level 1, you can only make a single attack. Most combats take approximately 3 rounds, so for ease of use we will say that you shoot 4 arrows a combat. Why is that easy? Because per the rules, you can recover half the arrows you use in combat, so that means you are spending 2 arrows per combat.

2 arrows per combat, 40 arrows, means that you need to get through 20 combats before needing to replace a single arrow. This does not include looting arrows from enemies, which stretches this out even further. It is completely possible to go from level 1 to level 5, tracking ammo, and never have to buy a single arrow during that entire time. And if you do, it is a single gold piece to add another 10+ combats to the log. This does speed up at 5th level, where most archer characters will now go through a quiver approximately every 5 fights, with no looting arrows from enemies.

So, it ends up being that, unless you taking deep treks where you will have 20 or more combats between visits to any town, and no enemies carry arrows, and you can't fletch your own arrows at camp... then it is just the occasional 3 to 5 gold in town every few levels. And this is with the strictest ammo rules. Even something as minor as letting a quiver hold up to 100 arrows (something I've seen) renders this an even more moot point.

This isn't to say that people can't have fun tracking their ammo, I've never stopped anyone from doing so if they wanted, but they all tend to fall off doing it, because just due to the structure of hitting a village or town every level or so, it doesn't end up mattering. They never actually run out. And this ends up applying to most resource tracking. The only one that ever gives any grievance is water, simply due to the sheer weight the game lists for it, and the staggering amount required daily. And, if you do track and handle everything perfectly... then nothing happens. But both the player and the DM need to track it, keeping a close eye on these numbers on the seemingly rare instance where something does happen. It always feels like a lot of effort, for very little pay off.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is what I mean when I say Bloodtide is stretching the lethality and punishing aspects of old school into the very semantics of the game play. And in that case, I feel like we are moving from old school's detail oriented approach into adversarial DMing laced with gotchas. And I think this does old school a disservice as it paints it an extreme that it didn't neccessarily encompass by design.

Edit: I think it's fine and good if groups want to play this style of game. I just think it doesn't help old school's popularity to frame the game as being like this as a whole.

There were absolutely people who treated those as all part of the gig in the old days, but it was never everyone, and as you say, even people who might want the detail-oriented player-skill style aren't going to automatically (or probably usually) want the "death at the least error" thing that sometimes went with it, and the assumption they're wedded together is both faulty and counterproductive.