Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Doug McCrae" data-source="post: 5586207" data-attributes="member: 21169">Are there not many old schoolers today who thoroughly reject any terms, such as 'thespian' or 'playwright', that smack of story, even when it's just an analogy?“You will acquire gold, magic items etc” seems new school to me. Old school would be, “You may acquire gold and magic items, but only thru smart play”. The view is that power-ups were contingent, but have become necessary.But is it not frequently said that new school puts more emphasis on the player character? Builds, feats, magic items in the PHB, player-focused splatbooks, increased player entitlement, art with no backgrounds suggesting the game-world has been deprecated in favour of the PCs.I think a better critique of my quote would have been to point out the places where Gary states that the PC is not all-important.I agree that gamist play is, on the whole, more an old school thing, though 4e is very gamist. However Doug Green's article is all about making D&D less gamist and more like a fantasy novel. He wants D&D to do what rpgs like James Bond 007, WEG Star Wars and Feng Shui try to do – simulate fiction. It's a very interesting article and I talk a bit more about it  <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/306672-tomb-horrors-example-many-one-kind-11.html#post5585045" target="_blank">here</a>.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.Tailored vs status quo encounter design.</blockquote>

Verification