Searching for "New School" elements

[Ariosto]

So the context of the number of players intended to be in a campaign is a valuable point in an 'old school' discussion, imo.

I think that The Party is the usual mode today probably regardless of school, with things closer to the old model (e.g., IIRC, Lan - "School the Schoolers" - efan's campaign) being exceptional.

Indeed, I think that has probably been true since early days after D&D started getting into the hands of many people not inclined to think, "It was readily apparent, from previous experience running a 'conventional' Napoleonic Wargames campaign, that...."

There are various ways of dealing with that (and some of the variants in Gygax's Unearthed Arcana may have been directed so). I think the "old school" tends to lean toward trying to bring back into play similar forces even if via different methods ("emulating" the old environment, perhaps). The "new schools" (for here the plurality of approaches is I think becoming more significant) lean toward making a new set of dynamics specifically fitted to the common circumstances.

 

[Ariosto]

Jumping in late, I've had a perspective change on what is old school recently and thought I'd share.

Well, that was pretty much my own view at the end of the '70s, although I would not chalk it up to the DMG per se.

However, that was then and this is now and the vanguards of both old and new schools today are I think mainly made up of people who learned chiefly via books rather than through the oral tradition.

Modules as a formative mainstay seems also to be pretty common in both camps. (Most of the guys I am playing with regularly these days assume "home brewed" material even more than my old gang, and have taken no interest whatsoever in suggestions of trying some "classic" scenarios. Their lack of both familiarity and interest, though, is at odds with what I see online. )

 

[jmucchiello]

I'm going to try interpreting this charitably. Are you saying that the publication of the 1e DMG established the basis for the development of the New School? Given that the document had to be written by people who started off not knowing "what the hell they were doing", and embodies their views on the game, it must be a product of their School. And many of those who played based on it, would be their Schoolmen.

Yes, but not in the manner you think.

Before the DMG, the only way to understand AD&D was to play it with someone who learned it from someone else. After the DMG, you had the ability to read and study DMing before applying it at a table in front of your friends. Not all people, though, who read the DMG take the same game away from it as others. The hallmark of OD&D and early AD&D is having a party of 15-20 folks go to the dungeon. So why did it evolve into one character per player? Perhaps it was influenced by other RPGs. And perhaps it was someone just skimming over the henchmen and hireling rules. And by not understanding them, they played a "different game". There wasn't a single schism after the DMG was released, AD&D branched off into as many directions as their were self-taught DMs. This doesn't make one "school" better or worse than the others but it does explain why there is no real agreed upon definition for the terms being bandied about in the thread.

For me, I would say that the tipping point is when the industry leader went in for plot-based adventures, in which the main structure (the plot) cannot plausibly be replayed in the same campaign.

And how many of these kinds of adventures were written by people who never played D&D with the old guard, instead learning the rules by reading the DMG?

 

[pemerton]

I would say that the tipping point is when the industry leader went in for plot-based adventures, in which the main structure (the plot) cannot plausibly be replayed in the same campaign. By comparison, a site-based adventure's main structure (the site) can be replayed in the same campaign without straining disbelief. Just restock the dungeon, tip off the PCs that new evils have invaded, and away you go! (Plus, players who take good care of their old maps get rewarded for their diligence.)

On this measure of replayability, a "plot-based" adventure is replayable as well - just work out a new set of problems/circumstances for the NPCs to be caught up in, that relate in some way to the PCs. And the players who took good care of their notes on history and personalities of PCs even get rewarded for their diligence!

(I take "plot-based" scenarios in this context to be scenarios where social relations between NPCs, and between NPCs and PCs, are the dominant subject-matter of exploration, and where the payoff for play is something other than successful looting of a dungeon.)

The difference between "plot-based" and "site-based" adventures in my view is not primarily about railroading vs player freedom, nor replayability. "Site-based" adventures of the KotB variety seem to be primarily aimed at a type of exploration-heavy gamism. This sort of play is also emphasised by Gygax in the final few pages of the 1st ed PHB (Gygax's DMG also emphasises this sort of play, although in my view not quite as consistently, and in some ways more obliquely - eg the discussion of time in the campaign, many of the random tables and lists of traps and tricks, etc only make sense in the context of this sort of play). "Plot-based" scenarios are aimed at a different sort of play experience - I personally think the Dragonlance/2nd-ed style adventures are a failed attempt to deliver that experience, but that's a further point.

So why did it evolve into one character per player? Perhaps it was influenced by other RPGs. And perhaps it was someone just skimming over the henchmen and hireling rules. And by not understanding them

In some cases (I would consider myself as one such) the players in question did understand those rules but didn't particularly care for the play experience that it produces.

I don't know whether Moldvay Basic is considered new or old school. Or the sort of play described in the British paberback "What is Dungeons and Dragons?" (which was also available in Australia, published by Puffin - I don't know if this was available in the US). But these all assumed one player per PC, and in the examples of play had one player per PC, with the NPC henchmen being hired by the party rather than a single player, and clearly being a secondary participant in the adventure. (I think the example of play in Gygax's DMG also involved one player per PC.)

From at least the 1980s, if not earlier, it seems to me that there were a range of approaches to the game - some players liking the idea of role assumption and playing a PC through an adventure, but not particularly caring for all the other tropes of classic D&D play.

 

[Vespucci]

Before the DMG, the only way to understand AD&D was to play it with someone who learned it from someone else. After the DMG, you had the ability to read and study DMing before applying it at a table in front of your friends. Not all people, though, who read the DMG take the same game away from it as others. The hallmark of OD&D and early AD&D is having a party of 15-20 folks go to the dungeon. So why did it evolve into one character per player? Perhaps it was influenced by other RPGs. And perhaps it was someone just skimming over the henchmen and hireling rules. And by not understanding them, they played a "different game". There wasn't a single schism after the DMG was released, AD&D branched off into as many directions as their were self-taught DMs. This doesn't make one "school" better or worse than the others but it does explain why there is no real agreed upon definition for the terms being bandied about in the thread.

Firstly, you have to understand that Bullgrit has been flogging the "nobody even knows what these terms mean!" horse for some time. (Whether this is trolling or not is a question for the moderators.) That there is an old school movement, with substantial agreement about the kind of thing they're talking about, is good reason to think that the term means something. Further, Bullgrit aside, people outside of the old school movement are not mystified by the term.

It is somewhat vague, and I think we both agree that an historically-derived definition is the way to go. However, the definition of the old school (synonymous with old guard) has to be wrong: it says that the so-called "old school movement" is staffed almost exclusively by those who are engaged in deceit (either of themselves, or others). I think you're right to point to the DMG as a significant development, but it goes too far to make this the point at which things change over.

 

[Bullgrit]

Firstly, you have to understand that Bullgrit has been flogging the "nobody even knows what these terms mean!" horse for some time.

Oh for the love of god, people, I have never said this. Disagreeing with me is one thing, but when you have to completely misrepresent what I've actually said in order to do so, or to get others to do so, it's pathetic.

the term means something.

Yes, but...

It is somewhat vague

... too vague, is my point.

My point, which I have stated clearly, many times: "Old School" means something different to different people -- often drastically different, and sometimes contradictorally different. This makes it troublesome and confusing to use when describing a play style. (It seems to work sufficiently when describing an era -- years -- of the game.)

Look at this ENWorld poll for an example of what I've been talking to:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/260389-defining-old-school-vote.html

Things that some people claim are strictly "Old School" can be found in modern materials. And things that some people claim are strictly "New School" can be found in classic materials. I have presented many examples of this concept, yet some people ignore the examples and instead twist my point into something that I have not said, do not think, and would not support.

Disagree or agree with me, at least do so based on what I've actually said. To twist my position is trolling.

I love classic D&D, but to believe what some folks say that I've said, you'd never believe it. I've promoted more classic D&D discussion here on ENWorld than most any other poster. Check it out with a simple search of my threads. But it's ironic that some of the people with whom I have the classic experience in common are often constantly trolling me on the subject rather than discussing it with me.

Bullgrit

 

[jmucchiello]

That there is an old school movement, with substantial agreement about the kind of thing they're talking about, is good reason to think that the term means something.

It is somewhat vague

How can these two statements both be true? You may disagree with my placement of the cutoff point at the release of the DMG. (And the release date of the DMG is not the absolute date in question for my definition, people had to have it and read it too.) But that's why the definition is somewhat vague and people disagree about it. As I said elsewhere, tournament modules are not really old school. They are the antithesis of old school because they don't provide an open environment to explore. Yet, S1, S2, C1, A1-4, etc are always trotted out as examples of Old School dungeons. Hogwash. They are all designed to crush the party to the point that only one survives and wins the tournament. The 1e DMG is designed to foster that tournament environment by creating rules that no one ever really used, not even the author.

Ironically, the true Old School modules are the ones like B1, B2, B4, T1, X1, etc. Site based settings with room for the DM to expand as needed. And most of them aren't AD&D modules. (I'm not sure where to put the giants series.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

A term can have meaning, without that meaning being cut as sharp as a razor's edge. In fact, I would argue that, in many cases, language is both far less precise than we realize, and our choice of words conveys more meaning than we intend.


RC

 

[Vespucci]

Uh. Yeah. I agree with Raven Crowking. (Slightly surprising, given our recent disagreements about meaning!)

I would add (and this is controversial) that a more precise definition of "Old School" than "stuff liked by readers of Grognardia" is possible. However, something like that is a good starting point. Any definition that doesn't get to grips with that vague sense is on its way to a private language.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think old school means something. There are some play elements unique to old school - the mega-dungeon, large parties with lots of henchmen and hirelings, and the OD&D playstyle Ariosto mentions upthread (a high player to DM ratio, frequent play, a small subset of the player base arranging a time to meet with the DM).

And there are other elements strongly associated with old school but not unique to it - high PC death rate, very gamist play, lack of realism, lots of random generation, classes balanced over the long-term, many discrete sub-systems.