Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9382174" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I am surprised. I actually agree with most of this, other than the last bit."New school" wants to present a worthwhile challenge--meaning, a challenge that genuinely has both success and failure as valid options, which avoids bumbling into absolute no-win scenarios or dull, monotonous grind (that is, where one or more sessions is against enemies in an absolute no-win scenario). If players actively choose to be little poops, there's no obligation to save them from their poopy behavior. But part of the idea is that the players agree not to behave like that--just as most groups, for example, expect everyone to be courteous, to notify if they're going to be late/absent/have to leave early/etc. Some behavior is acceptable, other behavior isn't. We agree to be courteous to one another; part of courtesy in a "new school" game is getting folks on the same page regarding the tone and style of play before the game begins.The only problem I have is the last bit: "but treats everything equally." That is not a requirement in my experience of "old school." The only requirement is that the DM believes they've made the correct decision--and guess who decides whether the decision is correct or not! Equality might be a factor in that. I have found it often is not. Every approach has its fail-states (e.g., "new school" necessarily runs into issues if the players are actively malicious or disingenuous), and old school's fail-state is that it is intensely, profoundly dependent on DMs being really, really good at things that humans are generally not very good at: consistency, impartiality, statistics (the old "roll for stealth every single time something happens" problem, aka iterative probability issues), game design. All of that on top of the stuff the DM would be embarked on regardless of which "school" you're using."New school," by choosing to be more player-dependent, has more issues if players are disruptive. "Old school," by being almost exclusively DM-dependent, is pretty tolerant against players being little poops. It is, to put it very mildly, not particularly tolerant of unskillful DMs. Personally, I think it isn't even tolerant of merely mediocre DMs--but most DMs are mediocre, and that's kind of a problem. "New school," having offloaded some of the DM's burden to printed rules, social contract, and player-behavior expectations, is more tolerant of a wider range of DM skill...and with DMs being incredibly hard to find, that's a major benefit.How does this square with 4e, which I would call a definitive "new school" game, being so gamist?For me, OS = player play. Pawn stance, beer-and-pretzels, devil-may-care attitude regarding the characters. Becoming attached to a character is something that only happens if that character has lasted years and years, and even then, it just means their death will be memorable when it finally happens. The only "role" you take on is as someone who is trying to keep their game piece alive as long as possible--unless getting your game piece killed off would be more interesting right now.NS = participant play. Actor/Author stance, immersion, deep connection to the characters. Becoming attached to a character is something that happens at creation--like watching a TV show and becoming attached to its main characters by the time the pilot episode is finished. The role you take on is, as mentioned upthread, like being a method actor "stepping into" the character. Gameplay, when it is relevant, should be a worthwhile effort for its own sake, not simply because it creates an obstacle between the players and their ends.Both of these things involve "skillful play," which is one of the reasons why a lot of "new school" fans get bristly when they hear "old school" play described as "skillful play" or "player skill"--as though no other form of play could involve skill. The skills are just different, and trying to play game A by the standards of game B will usually lead to a lot of frustration and annoyance or, worse, thinking that game A is trash because it "doesn't work" or the like.And, note that the above distinction embraces both heavily "gamist" play and heavily "narrativist" play. 4e D&D is a very gamist game, and a defining example of "new school" gaming. Apocalypse World and other PbtA games are a defining example of Story Now, narrativist gaming--but I would classify them as just as much "new school" as 4e D&D. Participation in the thing-we're-immersed-in does not care whether that participation is skirmish combats or teen monster romance drama or skulduggery and heistery; it's all participation.</blockquote>

Verification