Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JonWake" data-source="post: 5838196" data-attributes="member: 95255">I've been trying to figure out what the psychological difference there is in new school versus old school play.  I have a theory, and I'd like people to honestly assess it.In old school play, the rules existed only as a rough approximation of the fiction. That is, the players treated the fictional world as the primary source of information about their characters, and the stats and abilities were simply about conflict resolution. The rules were what you consulted when you couldn't figure out what happened. In new school play (and by that I mean 3e and 4e DnD), the playstyle has moved to an explicit interaction with the rules, far more akin to how games like GURPS have been played for years. Now, I think the majority of this sea change came from 3e: much like with GURPS, when you propose a system that does EveryThing, you have to publish reams of rules for every corner case that comes up. Different from GURPS, 3e never had to reference reality. (And say what you will about Steve Jackson Games, they research their settings and rules systems like Ph.D students on methamphetamine). But 4e, with the player's handbook at least presented the notion that the rules did not reflect the world, they defined it. In combat, at least, the interaction was with the mechanics and the fiction happened as result.  It's a subtle difference, and I've only noticed it because of getting the chance to watch dozens of different players play over the past 15 years, but it's there.For example, a fighter want to shove a giant off a cliff. An old school player might look at his (you so cheated) 18/100 strength, ask the GM how far away the cliff edge was, and tell the GM that he's throwing his shoulder into the giant's knee and knocking him off balance with the haft of his great ax. The DM then makes a ruling, or has the player make a strength check, or any of a dozen different ways to deal with it.Upside: The player is thinking in terms of the world.Downside: The potential for five week long arguments about center of gravity and mass.A new school player will ask the DM (or look at the battle mat) how far away the cliff is, then look for the ability that lets them push a creature 10'.  The player makes an attack roll, hits, the monster gets pushed over the ledge and that's all she wrote. The DM then describes it as the fighter using the haft of the ax to shove him back, etc.Upside: Clarity: the rules are explicit, without regard to particulars. The power works.Downside: The player thinks in terms of how the rules interact with the story.This is a gross generalization, true, and play groups all treat the game differently.  There are groups who played AD&D as a literal wargame, and people who ignore 80% of 4e's Powers. But if you want to understand the gap between the play styles, you have to look at the different tendencies as equally valid.I'm of the opinion that 5e cannot please both groups. General, vague rules will anger one group, explicit, defined interactions with the fiction will anger the other. Any attempt to square that circle will lead to a schizophrenic rules set, and I suspect that the designers aren't fully aware of the actual reasons behind the differing play styles.</blockquote>

Verification