Searching for "New School" elements

[Ariosto]

I found it an interesting and valuable reminder that, despite the claims of some of the more strident OSR folks, that mode of play is not the only 'old school', or the One True Way To Play D&D As Intended by Gygax Himself.

It appears that you are claiming either that "the more strident OSR folks" claim that "the One True Way To Play D&D As Intended by Gygax Himself" includes

- very rules-minimal storytelling
- world-building
- individual, familial, and dynastic drama
- ways of including characters' ability to persuade, intimidate, compel allegiance or dread, and other aspects of social and emotional interaction


... for all of which the Original and Advanced games do indeed provide ...

or that in their stridently advocated "mode of play", actually "much of this is anathema in 'old-school' design", for which I have seen no evidence.

-----

Note that any "old school" did not become that until there was a "new school" in contrast to which to define itself. The Old School Renaissance is thus not particularly a renaissance of schools that (as schools) are necessarily very old.

The usual conceptual D&D "old school" (a very broad association of people who for diverse reasons prefer the old game) coalesced in opposition to philosophies that rose to prominence in the 1990s and 2000s.

Not surprisingly, it tends to approve rather than disapprove of things that are "old skool" in the sense of how they were "back in the day". However, there are nuances.

As with other things that were different in that day -- computer programming comes particularly to my mind -- both appreciation of the old ways and distaste for them, both skill at them and lack of talent, and both real knowledge and myths, are to be found both among old-timers and among young people.

 

[pawsplay]

Some amusingly new school quotes from 1e:

Since I don't get what's particularly new school about them, I guess that explains why I don't find them amusing.

Quote:
Each of you will become an artful thespian as time goes by - and you will acquire gold, magic items, and great renown as you become Falstaff the Invincible!

I don't see this as even relevant to playstyle. That's just a description of the D&D genre.

Quote:
the player character is all-important

- DMG page 80

I consider that a thoroughly old school statement. The new school says play balance, shared group goals, and "progress" is made in adventures. The old school says, screw that, the player character is all-important, and stuff happens.

And elsewhere:

Quote:
each Dungeon Master uses the rules to become a playwrite (hopefully of Shakespearean stature), scripting only plot outlines however, and the players become the Thespians.

- Gary Gygax, Dragon #22

That's an analogy. Insofar as it says anything substantive, it says the GM is not in charge of details.

Quote:
Dungeons and Dragons, as is written, should play like a good fantasy story.

- Dragon #29, Doug Green, Rewarding Heroism in D&D

That's old school. The new school says a game should sound like a good fantasy story, which is something else entirely. The word play is the key. When GMs ask for help telling their story, my inner old schooler cringes. You don't tell the story, you play the story.

Quote:
The method gives dungeonmasters better guidance than previously available on the thorny question of how many wandering monsters should appear against a party of a particular size and strength.

- White Dwarf #1, Don Turnbull's Monstermark system

Old school. Since the monsters are going to be random and have a "real" existence, they need to be tailored in a reasonable way or they will slaughter the party.

Quote:
What sorts of challenges are appropriate? How stiff should the opposition be? Generally, these are questions the GM will answer by examining the game materials, assessing the prowess of the PCs and their players, and then selecting and combining elements of the game rules and the milieu so that the strength of the opposition is tailored to the capabilities of those who will contest against it.

- Role-Playing Mastery by Gary Gygax, page 43

I don't see this as relevant to a play style. This is simply a description of what GMing is. This quoted section does not even specify what sorts of answers they recommend in answer to those questions.

 

[Ariosto]

Much appreciated, pawsplay!
"Must spread some experience points..."

People with a "new school" mind set often -- whether from genuine ignorance or in rhetorical posturing -- treat statements from an older frame of reference as if the words have "new school" meanings.

In some cases here (e.g., Doug Green), you may have turned the tables with your own wordplay and in the process shed more heat than light upon the untutored. I appreciate it nonetheless!

Just what we really mean by similar figures of speech is indeed different between "schools", and the differences have been given pretty solid expression in the handbooks for different games.

It is most definitely by design that 4e differs from Gygax's D&D. On point after point it was no accident that the old rules produced different results. The greater shape of the game -- what a "campaign" was envisioned to be -- was strikingly different, and so were the shapes of the pieces making it up.

 

[Vespucci]

For me, the center of the "school argument" is over what the guy behind the screen is doing. Rather than introduce the positions myself, let's take a quote from the 4e DMG:

"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." (Emphasis mine.)

This is what one might call "shame-faced" storytelling. The DM is telling the story - but has to remember it's the characters' story, not his! The DM should try to get the characters onto the story he wants to tell - but don't "railroad" them!

Paizo's Gamemastery Guide has the courage of its convictions:

"Storyteller: Weaving plots involving the characters and any number of nonplayer characters, leading dialogue, and unfurling a vast tapestry of ideas, stories, and adventure, the Game Master is a storyteller first and foremost. While the game is a collaborative narrative told from all sides of the table, the Game Master paves and maintains the road along which the adventurers walk." (Emphasis mine.)

It would have been a step too far to literally say that the characters should be "railroaded", but it's quite clear what this means.

On the other side, the 1e DMG:

"It is no exaggeration to state that the fantasy world builds itself, almost as if the milieu actually takes on a life and reality of its own. This is not to say that an occult power takes over. It is simply that the interaction of judge and players shapes the bare bones of the initial creation into something far larger... What this all boils down to is that once the campaign is set in motion, you will become more of a recorder of events, while the milieu seemingly charts its own course!" (Emphasis mine.)

The reader, naturally, will be able to tell which side I'm taking. But the main point I'm trying to make is that there is a real debate, over something fairly important to the hobby.

 

[RedTonic]

Honestly, I think the old school versus new school issue originates with old DMs sitting behind their screens, telling the kids to get off the... Lawn? Gaming table? Dice? I don't believe that time has changed the aggregate behaviors of GMs and gamers in respect to style; I think the differences in style have always existed.

 

[Vespucci]

Honestly, I think the old school versus new school issue originates with old DMs sitting behind their screens, telling the kids to get off the... Lawn? Gaming table? Dice? I don't believe that time has changed the aggregate behaviors of GMs and gamers in respect to style; I think the differences in style have always existed.

"You gosh-darn kids better start mapping the dungeon and get yourselves a caller, or there's gonna be some saving throws versus death magic! And while you're at it, get your fighters into some sensible armor!"

 

[Raven Crowking]

Honestly, I think the old school versus new school issue originates with old DMs sitting behind their screens, telling the kids to get off the... Lawn? Gaming table? Dice? I don't believe that time has changed the aggregate behaviors of GMs and gamers in respect to style; I think the differences in style have always existed.

If time has not changed the aggregate behaviors of GMs and gamers in respect to style, pray tell why you think the issue originates with old DMs? Why would it not originate with the "kids"? Why would there be a time differencial like that at all?

No, your conclusion simply doesn't match your lead up.


RC

 

[RedTonic]

If time has not changed the aggregate behaviors of GMs and gamers in respect to style, pray tell why you think the issue originates with old DMs? Why would it not originate with the "kids"? Why would there be a time differencial like that at all?

No, your conclusion simply doesn't match your lead up.


RC

Ultimate attribution error for starters. Then there's "mean old world" bias with the usual notion that the older generation has had "it," in this case gaming, so much harder/better/different than the player generation beginning with later editions 3.x and 4e. After all, you old folk had to walk uphill both ways barefoot in the snow to share a single tattered copy of the original DMG, and your DM at any time was always out to kill you and ran prepublished adventures strictly by the book. Contributing to this is a clustering illusion where you see patterns that don't exist or are so faint as to be immaterial in assigning gamestyles to time periods. Compounding the effects of these cognitive biases is the tendency to dismiss the bearers of thoughts and ideas that compete with your own and the illusion of asymmetric insight.

 

[Doug McCrae]

There are multiple "new schools" and multiple "old schools".

Personally, the only "new schools" I recall back in 1979 were the "OFFICIAL®" school (typified by a new, AD&D-centric generation with such pressing concerns as whether female dwarves had beards) and the "slick system" school (typified by "partisans" of Chaosium's RuneQuest and MetaGaming's The Fantasy Trip, which I recall as more a matter of critics, while players were pretty omnivorous).

I've read there was a marked distinction between West Coast rpging and that to be found elsewhere in the US. West Coast style was more wahoo, exemplified by David Hargrave's Arduin Grimoire. I believe OSR blogger Jeff Rients, of Jeff's Gameblog is very much a fan of this style.

We could say the West Coast style is more new school. One often sees GMs on ENWorld expressing their dislike of the 'Mos Eisley cantina' PC group, with its half-dragons, tieflings, and the like. Of course 'Mos Eisley' PCs are common in very early D&D (OD&D and proto-D&D) but AD&D got away from this. d20 brought it back, with the explicit rules for monstrous PCs in both 3e and 4e.

In his article D&D Campaigns in White Dwarf #1, cover dated June/July 1977, Lew Pulsipher notes two distinct styles within D&D.

D&D Styles
D&D players can be divided into two groups, those who want to play the game as a game and those who want to play it as a fantasy novel, i .e . direct escapism through abandonment of oneself to the flow of play as opposed to the gamer's indirect escapism - the clearcut competition and mental exercise any good game offers . There are two subdivisions in each division . The game-players may emphasise player skill in players-vs-monsters (and sometimes vs other players) or they may prefer players-vs-puzzles (riddles, traps, mazes, etc.) to monster slaying . Of course no D&D campaign is purely one or the other. The escapists can be divided into those who prefer to be told a story by the referee, in effect, with themselves as protagonist, and those who like a silly, totally unbelievable game.

This distinction, between gamist and story-oriented play, is very much alive today.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ultimate attribution error for starters. Then there's "mean old world" bias with the usual notion that the older generation has had "it," in this case gaming, so much harder/better/different than the player generation beginning with later editions 3.x and 4e.

Obviously, a newer player could try to play those games, and thus could have the same type of experience. But imagining that there is no difference between 1e and 4e (for example) requires too much willful blindness for me to be able to do it!

Personally, I'm pretty easy about inviting the kids onto my lawn, and I am sure that I am not alone.

After all, you old folk had to walk uphill both ways barefoot in the snow to share a single tattered copy of the original DMG,

Funny, but somewhat true.

When I started gaming, I had the Holmes Basic book. We were somewhat economically depressed, so when we switched to AD&D 1e, I couldn't afford my own books for about six months. Never being daunted by small problems, though, I simply borrowed the books from my friend Keith as they were released....and copied them by hand.

Now, time has dimmed my recall somewhat, but there was a point where it would have been difficult to find someone who knew the rules better. Back then, in the mists of time, when my mind was much sharper.

and your DM at any time was always out to kill you and ran prepublished adventures strictly by the book.

Well, being that I was the DM far more often than not, no. That would be suicidal.

I was neither out to kill the PCs nor preserve them. Then, as now, the dice fell where they fell.

Contributing to this is a clustering illusion where you see patterns that don't exist or are so faint as to be immaterial in assigning gamestyles to time periods. Compounding the effects of these cognitive biases is the tendency to dismiss the bearers of thoughts and ideas that compete with your own and the illusion of asymmetric insight.

Dang. And here I thought that my direct experience was, you know, direct experience. My friend Eric was a killer DM. Likewise, Jim was a railroader who liked to pass out laser pistols as treasure. Strangely, neither Eric nor Jim could often get players for their escapades. Frank was a pretty good DM. My friend Kurt was a reasonably good DM, who prefered Basic-Expert to AD&D 1e.

But, of course. I'm seeing "patterns that don't exist or are so faint as to be immaterial" while at the same time dismissing "the bearers of thoughts and ideas that compete with" my own. How astute of you.

I still say, faulty conclusion. Either there is a difference, or the "problem" doesn't arise from old gamers.

Take your pick, but you can't have it both ways.


RC