Searching for "New School" elements

[Ariosto]

We could say the West Coast style is more new school.

What do you mean, "We," kemo sabe?

I am West Coast and I was playing "West Coast style" before the AD&D New Wave came in. It's an older school chronologically, a manifestation of the Original D&D ethos.

It's not really coastal, either. It goes right back to Dave Arneson's seminal Blackmoor campaign. Prof. Barker was another Midwesterner, and I think so was Jim Ward at least when he was an employee of TSR. Kevin Siembieda hailed from Detroit. The Rolemaster guys came out of University of Virginia. Ken St Andre and his crew were in Phoenix, Western but not West Coast.

The notable West Coast names I recall were Glorantha (Chaosium), Arduin (Hargrave) and Warlock (Cal Tech and Balboa). Lee Gold was not especially known for "wahoo" stuff that I recall, more for historical (especially Old Japan).

I think a lot of people in today's "old school" dig it. Check out Original D&D Discussion maybe to find more concentrated love, but don't expect it to be absent at Dragonsfoot either.

 

[Ariosto]

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

Only now, the main thrust of that "story orientation" is called (in GNS jargon) simulationism. Notice that Pulsipher opposes it to "those who like a silly, totally unbelievable game."

Do not take the segment of "those who prefer to be told a story by the referee, in effect, with themselves as protagonist" as meaning just what a "new school" would take it to mean. To do so would be to remove entirely from the spectrum the role-playing game as actually conceived and presented and (in my experience) usually well understood in the 1970s.

The concept of reducing the real game to a sham in order to tell some frustrated novelist's story was still too perverse to occur to most people at all, much less to occupy the huge mental space it does today. The most likely response to such a suggestion would be, "But...but...what's the point, then?" (That was the response in my circle to the Dragonlance Saga a few years later, and that may have been fairly light railroading compared with some later examples.)

Even later, I can tell you from personal experience as the designer of one such, the concept of a new game form that combined RPG techniques with "narrative control" on the part of players to make telling the story the focus of how players played the game was an innovation regarded with considerable wariness and skepticism and some confusion. It was not until the late '80s that I saw this form really take off.

Metaphors such as "improvisational puppet theatre" were just very approximate and incomplete comparisons of aspects of the new thing with existing things, not the direct equivalences that newer game forms implement.

Such jargon as "hit dice" and "armor class" and "encounter", "adventure" and "campaign" has also changed meanings as the game changed. "Hit dice" actually means nothing in 4e, I think.

Neither of those tendencies, by the way, was anything like a "school" back in '77, certainly nothing like the "new schools" that have so changed not mere "play styles" but the official rules of the game.

Of course no D&D campaign is purely one or the other.

 

[Ariosto]

Wouldn't an old schooler say, “And so what if they do? The players should've played smarter and avoided the encounter.” I see the old school approach to encounters as being status quo. Numbers and type of monsters encountered depend solely upon game-world factors such as terrain type, dungeon level, etc, and not at all on the size and strength of the party.

Maybe. On the other hand, an "old schooler" might have a better grasp of the actual game context than I suspect is reflected in your (not clearly stated) assumptions, and also of the fact that the size and strength of a party is a game-world factor. Maybe there were some people back then who misunderstood things in a "new school" way -- but not so many, I reckon, as those who accurately understand the actual "new school" indoctrination today.

Those unstated assumptions seem to be a big problem here, Doug. There are some pretty important differences between the game under discussion and the games produced by the "new school". If you assume "new school" procedures a priori, and interpret every statement in the context of those assumptions, then you are making pretty well sure that you will not learn anything from what Mr. Gygax or anyone else has to say.

 

[Ariosto]

I am strongly of the opinion that "illusion of choice" assumes a level of naivity on the part of those poor, gullable players that (IME and IMHO) is almost never warranted.

Yes, I have found such blather from some designers not just off-putting but thoroughly bizarre because it was in the very book the players were expected to read. There was just no excuse but self-delusion for anyone to be fooled.

Well, so it is with the theater and novels -- the emulation of which is much more literally the object of these games than of the old RPGs.

They are games only within the limits that protecting the DM's plot allows. At the moment that is threatened, the supposed rules become a masquerade.

I think that is all "above board" from the perspective of people who are really after some sort of performance art.

Both "traditional role-playing" gamers and Forge-style "narrativists" are more interested in what I would call a real game. We want "the story" to be something that play creates, rather than something that players are directed to re-create.

I think that computerized entertainment, still technologically limited relative to the human mind when it comes to improvisation, may have done much to popularize the more literal "tell a story" approach. PC and console games have such a bigger market that people are more likely to be familiar with them and new to RPGs (as distinct from CRPGs) than the other way around.

 

[Vespucci]

I would modify this somewhat.

There is nothing wrong, in either school, about saying "Hey! Let's run through G1-3!"

The difference is, in the old school, the DM had to be upfront that he was running only a limited campaign milieu, because that wasn't the general expectation. In the new school, the DM is encouraged to pretend he is running an open campaign milieu, while in fact running a limited campaign milieu.

The difference, I think, is one of respect for the players.

When one discusses actual choice (and choosing to run through G1-3, knowing that is what you are choosing, is an actual choice) over the so-called "illusion of choice", I am strongly of the opinion that "illusion of choice" assumes a level of naivity on the part of those poor, gullable players that (IME and IMHO) is almost never warranted.

You say "modify", I say, "expand upon". Agree completely.

 

[pemerton]

I admit, I had to skim--I'm sitting in a lecture on non-profit fiduciary duties

As someone who from time to time gives lectures on non-profit fiduciary duties, I have to object to this outrageous misallocation of your time!

 

[pemerton]

Vespucci, good stuff.

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 classic incoherent stuff - and it occurs in so many RPG texts that the Forge has a name for it - "the impossible thing before breakfast".

The advice in the same book on running skill challenges points in favour of the bit about the story being the players'. The advice in the same book on scenario design points in favour of the game being a GM-driven railroad.

I would like to think that WotC could try and clear this up, but they have conflicting interests - between giving coherent guidance to players of their game, and selling scenarios that are primarily about railroading.

Paizo's Gamemastery Guide has the courage of its convictions

This makes sense - Paizo is, after all, in the business of selling adventure paths, ie predetermined stories. (Interestingly, though, I think Pathfinder would more often be labelled old school than is D&D, despite this much less unambiguous guidance to GMs. This is one reason why I think new school/old school is not a very illuminating contrast.)

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

<snip>

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

Of the story-oriented play that Pulsipher identifes, some is clearly simulationist (the players experiencing the GM's story) while the more gonzo stuff could be either very high concept simulationist, or wacky light-hearted narrativism.

Pulsipher himself clearly like a very heavy simulatonist platform to support his gamism.

The epics formerly were largely expected to be consequences of campaign play: YOUR epic in YOUR world caused by YOUR player-characters.

<snip>

The DM sets up situations rather than preparing stories; "the adventure" is not a pre-game text, but whatever enterprise the players have undertaken.

If I've read you right, you're presenting this as old school.

But it could equally describe the GMing advice in narrativist games like Maelstrom Storytelling, Burning Wheel etc - which, presumably, are new school (or, at least, not old school).

What it does seem to me to contrast with is railroading play (what the Forge, as you note, calls High Concept Simulationism) of the Dragonlance/Vampire/AD&D 2nd ed variety.

My conclusion (which may be in agreement with you - I'm having trouble following the precise argument of your posts) is that old school/new school on its own is not a very adequate or precise contrast.

Because while modern narrativist games give the same GMing advice as that which I have quoted from you, I think it's pretty clear that they aimed at producing a different play experience from a lot of classic D&D play.

Iin the old school, the DM had to be upfront that he was running only a limited campaign milieu, because that wasn't the general expectation. In the new school, the DM is encouraged to pretend he is running an open campaign milieu, while in fact running a limited campaign milieu.

IMO, Illusionism--whether manifesting in that bad 4E GM campaign advice, or in running something like the giant series as a tournament module while pretending not to--is not characteristic of any school, old, new or indifferent. Rather, it is a particularly incoherent symptom of cognitive dissonance that can infect any school, when someone wants to have their cake and eat it too.

I think that Crazy Jerome is closer to the truth here - where I'd quibble is with his use of "illusionism" as a euphemism for "lying".

I think illusionism is better used to describe a type of consensual GM-guided play, in which the players - by immersing themselves in the colour of their PCs and the gameworld - wilfully blind themselves to the plot-manipulation in which the GM is engaged. The seeming popularity of so much 2nd ed campaign and adventure material suggests that this approach to play is (bizarrely, to my mind) very popular. The continuing successful publication of adventure paths for D&D is further evidence for the same conclusion.

But I can't accept that all these players are being tricked/lied to. They must want the GM to direct the story.

 

[RedTonic]

As someone who from time to time gives lectures on non-profit fiduciary duties, I have to object to this outrageous misallocation of your time!

I agree, sitting in those lectures is a waste of my time.

 

[Vespucci]

OK. Here's an attempt to frame the discussion, and to incorporate some insights from a parallel thread.

1. Is there a difference between the "Old School" and the "New School"?

The burden of proof is on the affirmative. Those that don't think there is a difference essentially can't prove their case, though they need to make sure that their standards of proof are not unreasonable. These terms need not be universal or monolithic, but should represent identifiable game standards to which hobbyists more or less adhere. Finally, the terms don't need to be exhaustive in order to be valid - there could be other Schools altogether.

For me, there is a difference. If nothing else, the advice from the industry leader on how to run the game has changed significantly. Whether that means you can label someone's campaign as one school or the other is unclear, but the terms are legitimate for describing an important difference between the ref advice given for 1e on the one hand, and, Pathfinder and 4e on the other.

2. Can whole game systems be called "Old School" or "New School"?

This is a more demanding question. Again, those who simply answer "no" don't need to press their case, but instead need to offer reasons for rejecting the options on the affirmative. For those claiming that a system can belong to a school, they need to show how the rules reinforce (or explain) the tenets of that school.

My own answer is "maybe". A resolution mechanic, or even a scheme of resolution mechanics, doesn't commit one to either school. (So a game can be Old School but use d20+modifier, aiming high, for just about everything.)

However, reinforcing the 1e/PF+4e split, there's clearly an invitation to players in the more recent games to "script" their characters ahead. One can sit down and plan out what a character will get as they go up in levels, all working towards - if not an end-point, at least definite way-points. While one could do so in 1e, the scope of such activity is very minor - a character's advancement is much more dependent upon which magic items the ref would allow them to acquire. (Note that this emphasis on the "script" mirrors the advice to the ref.)

3. Do "Old School" and "New School" need to apply to other RPG families in order to be valid?

A "yes" to this has been implied by some posters. They need to work on that case.

For me, they don't. "Old School" and "New School" mean something in music - typically, referring to different artistic movements in hip-hop. I don't know if there is such a thing as "New School" Baroque, but whether there is or not has no bearing upon using the term to describe different Hip-Hop works and artists. Going back to RPGs, it's enough for me that "Old School" means something in the context of Pulp Adventure games.

 

[Bullgrit]

Is there a difference between the "Old School" and the "New School"?

My main problem with all of this is the "Old" and "New" descriptors. Those words imply, rather directly, that X items were predominant in an earlier era and aren't present in the later era, and Y items are predominant in the current era but were absent in the earlier era.

Looking at my own gaming experience, both then and now, and reading the texts of old and new gaming material, I see that the X and Y elements that people usually refer to exist both in the "old days" and in the "new days."

I propose we should do away with the "Old" and "New" terms, and use something more accurate. Maybe something like Hardass School vs. Softie School.

Gamist School vs. Storyteller School.

Etc.

There were softie DMs in the 70s and 80s, and there are hard DMs in the 2000s.

There were storyteller game groups in the 70s and 80s, and there are gamist groups in the 2000s.

There were railroad plots in the 70s and 80s, and there are huge mega dungeon crawls in the 2000s.

Because the things that most people claim are "Old School" didn't always and only exist in the old days. And the things that most people claim are "New School" don't always and only exist in modern days. The terms are misleading. Heck, we can't even agree on what they freakin' mean.

But, I realize that calling for the dropping of "Old" and "New" is a insane proposition -- it won't happen. Because I do believe there are some people who have strong emotional investment in the idea that things were *completely* different and better in the old days compared to the *completely* different and worse in the current days. Suggesting that there are still similarities and mixtures is sacrilegious.

No matter that some, like me, can play like I did in the 80s using material from the 2000s, with no editing necessary. This means that either I/we were playing "New School" style back in the old days, or we are now playing "Old School" style in these modern days.

Bullgrit