Searching for "New School" elements

[the Jester]

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.

I'd say it was a matter of emphasis rather than on predominance, and are as much about the types of games we played in those days ("we" being those of us that consider ourselves "old skool" by any spelling).

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...

snip

...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.

Very true. My style is typically very "old skool" (though I've dabbled in "new school" "Know the end at the beginning" type campaigns once). I know what that means for me- but it might be wholly different for other folks.

I would say, for me, two important elements of old skool writing that are not linked to game play directly but certainly influence it are a certain attitude present in the text, typified by the advice from P.T. Barnum quoted at the start of the DM's Guide ("Never give a sucker an even break"); and a high vocabulary level full of strange and wonderful new words for me to learn.

 

[Ariosto]

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

I am presenting it as my impression of how the 1st ed. AD&D devotees at K&KA -- generally regarded as a bastion of conservatism or even reaction -- tend to work their games. I note that it is in keeping with the Gygaxian presentation of the game. See, for instance, the advice to players in the PHB.

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).

Unless I am mistaken, they are not any "school" of D&D at all. I expect most K&KA regulars know at most very little about them, and care even less. Why should Burning Wheel's adoption (or rejection, for that matter) of this or that from the seminal RPG be either here or there to people who have no particular interest in Burning Wheel?

This seems lost on some people who seem earnestly convinced that they really, truly do have the One True Way. One can appreciate different games for their differences. The design philosophy of Game X need not be some sort of ideological prescription for any other RPG -- much less for every one!

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.

It may not be "very precise", but it is pretty adequate if you keep it to the actual affinity groups at hand: schools of D&D. People can and do speak quite well enough as to their likes and dislikes to find like-minded people and notice what they have in common.

Really, if there is no significant difference from the perspective of Bullgrit or whoever then he is welcome to come play in an old-D&D game whenever my gang gets back to that. Walk the walk, you know?

We're giving 3e a try now, but the guys are definitely noticing a difference that is significant to them and not liking it -- but that has to do with the bloat of book-keeping in the rules set, not with any change in scenario.

These guys are not very old-school in that regard, being pretty happy with a steady diet of episodes strung on the DM's plot line. They can get into more open and strategic scenarios, dependent on player initiative, too, but it's not a big deal to them either way. Our last DM -- a 2e fellow -- pulled some pretty blatantly arbitrary stuff on us to protect his line-up of "encounters".

 

[Vespucci]

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.

That's a straw man. Nobody is claiming that Hickman conjured up railroading from some nether pit and unleashed it upon the hobby. (Though now that I've brought this up, a light-hearted adventure based on such an event has potential. )

The terms just denote changes in the D&D paradigm over time. Are you claiming that there's no difference between the advice to refs I quoted? Are you claiming that a focus on "builds" existed in OD&D, or that no such focus exists now?

I propose we should do away with the "Old" and "New" terms, and use something more accurate... 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.

Actually, we can agree on what they mean, and they're not misleading. An artistic school can only dominate a cultural landscape - it cannot define one. Your harping on about exceptions illustrates nothing more than a tremendous ability to miss the point.

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.

You're the main representative of such people here. Other posters regard the difference as one of emphasis.

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.

In the 80s? When in the 80s? Did you start with Dragonlance?

 

[Ariosto]

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.)

"Resolution mechanics" are shrubberies, not the forest.

The mass of interlocking rules concerning classes and spells and this and that, however, tend (if the designers have good sense) to work well in the larger framework of the game.

Change that larger framework, and the minor rules are likely to be out of balance.

Change the minor rules in the wrong way, and the imbalances can become extreme.

 

[Vespucci]

"Resolution mechanics" are shrubberies, not the forest.

The mass of interlocking rules concerning classes and spells and this and that, however, tend (if the designers have good sense) to work well in the larger framework of the game.

Change that larger framework, and the minor rules are likely to be out of balance.

Change the minor rules in the wrong way, and the imbalances can become extreme.

I have no idea what this has to do with the school discussion, and suspect that other posters would be similarly confused. Would you please clarify your contribution?

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

The burden of proof is equal on both sides.

Whether a statement is an affirmative or a negative depends largely on framing, rather than content.

"There is no difference" is as affirmative of a statement as "There is a difference".

By choosing framing, and by claiming that the burden lies on one particular type of framing, one can easily dodge the burden of proof on any question, while claiming that the "other side" must meet said burden. I would be very, very wary of this sort of wordplay, as you will see it often over the course of your life. Those who engage in it might do so innocently. Sometimes, though, they know exactly what they are doing.

Burden of proof relates not to position held, but to your desire to "prove" your position to someone who does not hold it. Literally, the other person decides at what threshold you have met your burden, therefore convincing that person.

In some specific cases, such as law, a decision must be made on which side to err, when burden of proof cannot be met. Thus, for example, you are "innocent until proven guilty" in North America, because of a general belief that it is better to let the guilty go unpunished than to punish the innocent.

In my own attempt at creating a "perfect game" for my playstyle, I am working at blending new and old school elements, because I like some of each. I hardly think that "blended" games are unusual.....but that doesn't mean that the elements being blended do not exist.

Or, at least, no more than the existence of purple means that red and blue don't exist.



RC

 

[Bullgrit]

In the 80s? When in the 80s? Did you start with Dragonlance?

My first adventure was in 1980: In Search of the Unknown. Then Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh. Then Keep on the Borderlands. My favorite adventure of all times is either Keep on the Borderlands or Temple of Elemental Evil. They represent my preferred play style. I also especially like, though I've never personally played/run: Against the Giants, Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury, as they are along my style of adventure.

I've read Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain, and the first Dragonlance adventure. I found them distasteful for my style, and so never used them. [I did give WPM a run a few years ago, but that experience confirmed my dislike of that style adventure.]

There are other adventures, of the classic, middle, and modern eras, that I like parts of and dislike parts of.

Actually, we can agree on what they mean, and they're not misleading.

Actually, it seems that we can't agree on what they mean: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/260389-defining-old-school-vote.html

Bullgrit

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

None of these terms are "more accurate".

Nothing makes me grit my teeth on a message board more than "I just don't think these are helpful terms". Attempts to control content and meaning in this manner are....offensive.

I have seen the argument about "better", "more accurate", "less offensive", etc., terms float around this little corner of cyberspace many a time. And the root problem has always, always, always ended up being "I don't like what you are trying to convey" rather than the method of conveyance. Always.

When I use the term "pokemount" I mean it to have a negative connotation. That is part of the message. "3.5 paladin's mount" doesn't mean the same thing. And it is that negative connotation that attempts to remove the term (back when 3.5 was king) were all about.

Sorry, but No. Some people are going to view some things that you like as negatives. Some people are going to view some things that I like as negatives. That's the way life is.


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

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

The bolded part is the only thing I'm having trouble with here. I have run a 4E campaign in a more old school style and it is certainly possible, just as it is possible to rework older modules into structured encounters using treasure parcels and such. Translation either way requires some editing. This doesn't mean that you have have to take the adventure and actually do a re-write before play but editing will be taking place at the table even if its simple omission of material.

 

[Vespucci]

The burden of proof is equal on both sides.

Whether a statement is an affirmative or a negative depends largely on framing, rather than content.

"There is no difference" is as affirmative of a statement as "There is a difference".

By choosing framing, and by claiming that the burden lies on one particular type of framing, one can easily dodge the burden of proof on any question, while claiming that the "other side" must meet said burden. I would be very, very wary of this sort of wordplay, as you will see it often over the course of your life. Those who engage in it might do so innocently. Sometimes, though, they know exactly what they are doing.

Maybe "For me, there is a difference" wasn't sufficiently clear? Just so we're on the same page, I wasn't trying to dodge the burden of proof for my side of the argument. (Actually - our side of the argument, as you and I agree in this thread.) Rather, I was saying that the other side shouldn't have to do anything other than fight off the arguments given for the difference between schools.

As they're incapable of doing that, it seems like time for high-fives all round. Well done, guys!