Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9385959" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Since this is supposed to be a more positive thread, I think I should take a step back and do my part on attempting to define the two broad strokes styles in as neutral a manner as I can. Precise Detail vs Broad StrokesThis is, I think, one of the key differences between Old School styles and New School styles. Beyond just tracking ammo, food, encumbrance, ect, OS style games are the ones where I would expect the DM to open a description with "The room is 30 ft wide by 60 ft long..." where as a NS style DM will often just say "You enter a long room...". The Old School seems to like the precise, technical details, while the New School eschews them for a bit more purple prose. Now, this isn't to say that information is unavailable. If the player asks "how far to the back of the room" the DM usually has an answer for them. But it isn't the information presented front and center to the players. We want to give the feel of the situation, not the tactical loadout, if that makes sense. It might even be more fair to simply say that we reverse the process, because I imagine after the precise details of the room, the OS DM often gives that description like we do. But it feels like there is a difference in focus there. Lethality and Permanence vs ConsentI don't think anyone disagrees that Old School games are more lethal. Whether that is from instant-death abilities, simply more traps and monsters, from restarting characters from level 1... I think the reasons differ depending on the flavor of the Old School DM. I also think Old School games are far more likely to permanently alter or damage PCs. It would be a rare situation where a NS PC loses an arm, and there isn't a way to replace it offered within a session or two. This often is the point of bitter contention between the two camps. But I do not feel like the difference is one of difficulty. Thinking on it, OS games are also more likely to have monsters like Rust Monsters which destroy equipment. And I think that is where it is a mix of two interests of the New School DM. One interest is story the other is simplicity of play. Let us say a PC loses an arm. This now needs to be accounted for with EVERYTHING. Every task needs to be reconsidered with the new information. It becomes something to track, which can lead to goofs and mistakes where one-side or the other forgets the limitation and does something, then we need to go back and explain how it happened. And this carries through with permanent ability score loss, or losing levels and losing access to abilities or spells as well. It is a complexity of remember both the "real" values and the "new" values. And for NS DMs, I feel like we are usually running a cost-benefit analysis of "is removing the fighter's arm and forcing them to use their back-up weapon worth it?" Yes, it would be a "challenge" because they are using a different weapon, and having one-arm is more challenging than having two, but is the amount of fun they might have figuring that challenge out, worth the effort and frustration they may inevitably feel? There is a big culture of consenting to the challenge/drama that I feel is an important component. I remember one time I was discussing with a DM who was trying to force my character into a situation where they were going to be forcibly turned into a vampire and forced to betray the party. I did not want that for my character, that was not the story I wanted for them. And this always seems to confuse old school players to a degree, because they feel that since I agreed to play the game, I consented to any and all things they decide to do in the game. To maybe give a clearer example, I was recently in discussion with a DM who wanted to prevent a disaster that was threatening to derail the campaign. We both agreed that my character was a perfect conduit to accomplish this. The DM asked what my character would give up to save those people, and my character's honest reaction would have been "anything". But, as a player, I told him that I did not want to give up my new magical item or permanently lose my powers. Because I had JUST gotten this item, a gift from his new god that we spent three sessions obtaining, and I haven't had an opportunity to use it once. So even though it would make sense, and the DM could have easily said that was what was being lost, I felt it would ruin the narrative we were building and it would simply be less fun to have gotten a cool divine artifact that he asked me to name, and then loss it permanently without having activated it a single time. It isn't that I didn't want my character to sacrifice anything, no no, I was happy to sacrifice some things. But I needed to make sure that the sacrifice didn't end my character's story or take it in a direction that was going to be less exciting for me. We want challenges, we want drama, many NS players and DMs refer to personal plothooks as "knives" because we want the DM to use them and twist them, because the drama is fun and delicious. I want my prideful barbarian to be confronted with the idea that his culture isn't the best thing ever created, I don't want him to lose both legs and have his mind put into the body of a dog. One is a challenge and emotional drama I will relish, the other is going to have me trashing the character sheet and likely looking for a new game, because it sucks all the fun out of what I was trying to build together with the group. Not that I think old school games automatically invalidate player consent like that, but simply when we talk about this, people seem to get the wrong idea and assume that it means there are zero challenges, because the players can veto specific challenges as going in the wrong direction.</blockquote>

Verification