Searching for "New School" elements

[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.

I've no experience with D&D4 materials, so I'm not talking about them. (I don't play D&D4; I've only read the PHB.)

I was talking about AD&D2 and D&D3 materials. It's my understanding that AD&D2 and D&D3 are considered of the "New School" by those who separate things by "Old" and "New" schools. And I have used AD&D2 and D&D3 materials exactly like I used AD&D1 and BD&D materials. The things that people argue are strictly "Old School", I find in the AD&D2 and D&D3 materials. And things that people argue are strictly "New School", I can find plenty in AD&D1 and BD&D materials.

Bullgrit

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

Cognitive dissonance is not always "lying" to yourself. So I wasn't using "Illusionism" as a euphemisim. Rather, cognitivie dissonance is holding two, mutually incompatible views at the same time. When this is a useful activity in human affairs, it often touches on things we can't know, or at least aren't willing to deal with yet. If you want to get really philosophical about it, it's being willing to accept paradox, which I'm the last person to disparage.

Look, it's really best to go back to the root analogy behind "Illusionism". If you go to see the stage magician cut his assistant in half, then in the back of your mind, you know it is all a trick, even if you don't know how he does it. That's fun. That's "illusionism" that works. But once someone starts thinking there is real magic there--that the impossible thing before breakfast is actually being served--it fails.

So no, all those players are not being tricked/lied to. They want the DM to produce an illusion. As long as they know they want an illusion, it works. However, the moment thep stop pretending its an illusion, they start down the road to failure.

To the extent that there is an "old school", "hardcase" (whatever that means) reaction to this, I think it is that the "old school" DM always kept in his mind that the stage magician was a stage magician, and not a real one. I'd call that the "realist" school, myself.

 

[Bullgrit]

It's like my experience with using miniatures. So many people argue that the use of miniatures in D&D gaming is a "New School" thing -- something that supposedly came with D&D3. I don't want to threadcrap this discussion (or fight, as some apparently want), to the subject of miniatures, but I figure it might help to pick one single aspect of the supposed "Old School" / "New School" divide and explain.

I've used miniatures in my D&D gaming since circa 1981. From what I saw at the time, the text suggested the use of miniatures, the rules supported the use of miniatures, some adventures had illustrations showing exact placement of monsters on a battlegrid, and the company that made the game also presented and sold miniatures. So using miniatures in my games seemed perfectly normal and common. When I occasionally played with other groups, I saw them using minis, too. There was nothing unusual about the props. This was all during the "Old School" days.

But then with D&D3, suddenly I see so many people complaining about how miniatures were an integral part of the game. I thought, They've always been an integral part of the game.

I've still got minis and their boxes from the early 80s -- some with the TSR logo, and some with a support message from Dave Arneson. How do you get more "Old School" than that!?

So, maybe you can see why this whole "Old School" / "New School" label thing is confusing and frustrating to some people.

Bullgrit

 

[Guest 85555]

It's like my experience with using miniatures. So many people argue that the use of miniatures in D&D gaming is a "New School" thing -- something that supposedly came with D&D3. I don't want to threadcrap this discussion (or fight, as some apparently want), to the subject of miniatures, but I figure it might help to pick one single aspect of the supposed "Old School" / "New School" divide and explain.

I've used miniatures in my D&D gaming since circa 1981. From what I saw at the time, the text suggested the use of miniatures, the rules supported the use of miniatures, some adventures had illustrations showing exact placement of monsters on a battlegrid, and the company that made the game also presented and sold miniatures. So using miniatures in my games seemed perfectly normal and common. When I occasionally played with other groups, I saw them using minis, too. There was nothing unusual about the props. This was all during the "Old School" days.

But then with D&D3, suddenly I see so many people complaining about how miniatures were an integral part of the game. I thought, They've always been an integral part of the game.

I've still got minis and their boxes from the early 80s -- some with the TSR logo, and some with a support message from Dave Arneson. How do you get more "Old School" than that!?

So, maybe you can see why this whole "Old School" / "New School" label thing is confusing and frustrating to some people.

Bullgrit

I think a lot of it is subjective (but I think a lot of the new terms people have suggested over the years can add to the confusion even more and make people feel compelled to divide playing styles too much).

With minis, my experience is with 1E and 2E, you could use them (and we often did), but they weren't nearly as essential and tactically there weren't as many mechanical options as in 3E or 4E.

I don't know why, but in my 2E games, we went essentially without minis most of the time, and battles tended to be short. With 3E, I prefered not to use the minis as much, but most of my group felt you weren't getting as much out of that system without them. By 3.5 it seemed like you pretty much had little choice but to use minis.

But is that an old shool/new school thing? I don't know.

When we say old school in my own gaming group generally we mean: lethal, GM as authority, more sandbox and dungeons crawl, etc. I think it refers to a range of features we associate with 1st edition. That also has a lot to do with flavor (such as the use of demons) and artwork.

 

[Guest 85555]

Just to add to my previous post, when we use the term newschool, I do think that has more flexibility. It can refer to anything from more self aware design approaches, more streamlined design, more efforts to balance the game overall, less lethality, more player control, newer aesthetics etc.

I think when you are talking new school and old school these are very broad categories with a certain degree of overlap. And that within those two categories are a number of more specific things people have in mind. The labels seem useful in that they are natural and people generally seem to have a sense that there is an Old School and a New School. But you can end up with problems if you adhere to them too rigidly: what if you like sandbox and lethality, but want a streamlined system with a unifying core mechanic? My approach with old school stuff and new school stuff is not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Take what elements I like, and eliminate those I don't.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So many people argue that the use of miniatures in D&D gaming is a "New School" thing -- something that supposedly came with D&D3.

Really? I've never seen that argument once.

I have, OTOH, seen an argument about the degree to which the rules assume the use of miniatures, and the level of expectation that minis are being used.

Perhaps your concern with the OS/NS discussion isn't based on that discussion at all, but rather a misunderstanding of it?


RC

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Cognitive dissonance is not always "lying" to yourself. So I wasn't using "Illusionism" as a euphemisim. Rather, cognitivie dissonance is holding two, mutually incompatible views at the same time.

It's a nitpick, but this is a psychology term. Cognitive dissonance is actually the uncomfortable feeling you get when holding two mutually incompatible views at the same time.

Cognitive Dissonance


What you're describing sounds more like a healthy use of a defense mechanism (thought suppression for those aware they're doing it, denial for those who are doing it intentionally but are not aware).

Good points though.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It's like my experience with using miniatures. So many people argue that the use of miniatures in D&D gaming is a "New School" thing -- something that supposedly came with D&D3. I don't want to threadcrap this discussion (or fight, as some apparently want), to the subject of miniatures, but I figure it might help to pick one single aspect of the supposed "Old School" / "New School" divide and explain.

I've used miniatures in my D&D gaming since circa 1981. From what I saw at the time, the text suggested the use of miniatures, the rules supported the use of miniatures, some adventures had illustrations showing exact placement of monsters on a battlegrid, and the company that made the game also presented and sold miniatures. So using miniatures in my games seemed perfectly normal and common. When I occasionally played with other groups, I saw them using minis, too. There was nothing unusual about the props. This was all during the "Old School" days.

But then with D&D3, suddenly I see so many people complaining about how miniatures were an integral part of the game. I thought, They've always been an integral part of the game.

I've still got minis and their boxes from the early 80s -- some with the TSR logo, and some with a support message from Dave Arneson. How do you get more "Old School" than that!?

So, maybe you can see why this whole "Old School" / "New School" label thing is confusing and frustrating to some people.

Bullgrit

Playing with little fantasy figures is fun you can have no matter what style of game you play. Thinking of them as a part of the game that isn't optional is IMHO more new school. I played for my first 8 years without minis. When I finally got some and started using them I didn't feel like those earlier games were really missing anything for not having them. Collecting and painting the things were fun to do with or without using them.

Really? I've never seen that argument once.

I have, OTOH, seen an argument about the degree to which the rules assume the use of miniatures, and the level of expectation that minis are being used.

Perhaps your concern with the OS/NS discussion isn't based on that discussion at all, but rather a misunderstanding of it?


RC

Pretty much this too.

 

[pemerton]

maybe you can see why this whole "Old School" / "New School" label thing is confusing and frustrating to some people.

I agree, although I think for slightly different reasons. (And am discussing the same issue on the current Railroading thread.)

 

[the Jester]

I was talking about AD&D2 and D&D3 materials. It's my understanding that AD&D2 and D&D3 are considered of the "New School" by those who separate things by "Old" and "New" schools.

Speaking as a self-declared "old skooler", I would say that it's a little more complex than that.

Largely, 1e was old skool. Most 1e modules that I am familiar with certainly are. There are exceptions.

Largely, 2e was new skool. I'm not very familiar with many 2e modules, but a goodly number of the adventures I have seen were definitely new skool in my book. Again, there are exceptions.

3e split the difference- a good amount of 3e stuff is old skool, a good amount is new skool.

Rather than relying on the era its from, where a given adventure comes down in the divide often comes from its attitude and presentation.

Old Skool Adventure Examples (to me, anyway):

Tomb of Horrors
Keep on the Borderlands
Secret of Bone Hill
EGG's Greyhawk
Savage Tide Adventure Path [kudos for having "if the pcs decided to be bad guys" info throughout]
Gates of Firestorm Peak
Expedition to the Barrier Peaks
Thunderspire Labyrinth
Red Hand of Doom
Demon Queen's Enclave

New Skool Adventure Examples (again, to me):

The OG Dragonlance modules
The Avatar modules
Almost anything Spelljammer
Keep on the Shadowfell
Pyramid of Shadows
Of Sound Mind


Now, note that while most of the "new skool" examples I give are not that hot (imho), one of them- Of Sound Mind- is absolutely fantastic. It has the flat-out most satisfying ending of any module I have ever run. (And it's written by Piratecat!) But it has a lot of what I consider to be "new skool" elements, most notably a heavy reliance on assumptions about the pcs' course of action. Interestingly, that reliance comes not through railroading but via prediction- which is a great technique if it works.

I guess the upshot of this is, Don't think that just because I consider myself "old skool" that I see "new skool" as bad. It isn't bad; it's just that my preferences typically lie elsewhere. Certain "new skool" elements are great and I use them liberally (I'll pick templates as an easy example, though I don't really use 'em in 4e, I literally find it easier and more satisfying just to make a "half-demon carrion crawler" or whatever from scratch).

Also note that a lot of those are a mix, and while I put them in one category or another, they use a blend of both old and new skool elements. Some of the very best are that way- the aforementioned Of Sound Mind, Red Hand of Doom, Demon Queen's Enclave (another new skool adventure that I absolutely love), etc.