Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vespucci" data-source="post: 5587897" data-attributes="member: 6675688">I'm sticking to the art analogy.  The output of a studio famed for turning out gangster rap might contain works that stretch this definition, or outright defy it.  But we could still legitimately refer to the basic axis of the studio's work by reference to its most famous and prolific artists, etc.With D&D, we actually have it much easier.  Because the industry leader produces not merely content (in the form of modules) but a guide on how to play in them (the PHB) and run them (the DMG), we can just turn to those texts when wondering "how does that play"?  This doesn't tell us how an individual module, player, or ref will play, but it is what people read when they learn how to play the game.I'm taking as non-controversial that the 3e PHB invites scripted character development.  The 3e DMG, on the other hand, is explicitly ambivalent on scripting.  It describes two styles of adventure: the "site-based adventure" (typically dungeoneering) and the "event-based adventure" which,"is often described as more story-based, because it's more like a book or movie and less like exploration of a passive site.  Event-based adventures usually don't involve a room-by-room key but instead notes on what happens when." There's some good advice on managing event-based adventures and stern warnings about the need for choices, especially meaningful ones.  There's also advice to script in an exciting climax to the adventure!  And we get some useful content for non-scripted adventures (among other things, random tables for dungeon non-design)It's hard to divine the writer's intent, but I suspect that they were trying for a "big tent" to welcome in those who thought Hickman is the messiah and seat them with those who felt Dragonlance ruined everything.  However, due to increasingly complex rules, scripting had a better hand - "winging it" had become a lot harder.Short answer?  3e trends towards the scripted New School, though the writers are trying to accommodate the Old School.Once again, I assume no controversy in claiming that the 4e PHB invites character development scripting.  Let's start with the 4e DMG on campaigns:"When you start a campaign, you should have some idea of its end and how the characters will get there. Fundamentally, the story is what the characters do over the course of the campaign. Keep that point in mind—the story is theirs, not yours... If the characters go in drastically unexpected directions, try to coax them back to the story you want your game to tell without railroading them." This is somewhat contradictory, but I think it boils down to "script, but don't be heavy-handed while trying to get players back onto the script".  Or, to use the author's words again:"you’ll at least have an idea of the campaign’s climax and how the characters can get there. When they stray from your outline—and they will—you’ll have some sense of what adventures to create to get them back on course" I'm not quite sure what's drawn your eye in the Skill Challenges.  Some people do regard this sort of stuff as New School, pointing out that they substitute character skill for player skill, and would really beat up on the section about solving puzzles with dice rolls. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />So, another short answer: 4e is the continuation of the New School.  It's perhaps not the most finished expression of scripting to hand (IMO, that's Pathfinder), but it puts more weight on it than any prior D&D.</blockquote>

Verification