Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7769112" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Having read through the initial post a couple of times, I can say that I find there is very little substance to it. It's a bit of opinion with not a lot to back it up. As a compare and contrast type of piece, it seems remarkably one sided. I don't mind if Lew has his preference, but he seems to be incapable of accurately describing what he is calling New School games. He's quite good at describing Old School games. When comparing the two, it would help if he was able to accurately site both sides, and provide examples. His tone is certainly dismissive, but that's fine. I don't question EnWorld's decision to run his articles. We can all deal with a little sass. He's being a bit provocative, and in the "in my day /get off my lawn" manner that will always be present in any discussion. I figured that it would make sense to break it down by section. So there seems to be no noticeable difference given here between how Old School and New School games approach adherence to the rules. Instead, it seems that Lew believes that it's more a choice that any GM can make for themselves, and he explains why he prefers flexibility to strict adherence. Nothing about how the two Schools compare in relation to rules. Lew does offer FATE as an example of a New School game, and how it has rules that make it easier to tell stories. But that statement doesn't seem to have much to it. I don't know if the GM's two roles are rules arbiter and a sort of god. He seems to be implying that in order for storytelling to be present in a game, the GM has to oversee it all, and that rules mostly get in the way of this. By contrast, rules light systems would better fit a more story focused game because then there are less rules to get in the way. I don't think this is particularly accurate. I find that some games have rules that help promote story, others have rules that can at times hinder story. This seems more a criticism of a GM who has decided to railroad his preferred story into the game, which is something that can certainly happen in either Old or New School games. Here, at least, Lew seems to actually attempt to compare the two styles. I don't agree entirely with his conclusion (old school= rules heavy, new school= rules light), but at least there is something here. It would probably have helped if he provided some solid examples. Here we delve into some odd assumptions about New School games. According to this section, the following must be true of New School games:- Nothing unpleasant happens- Nothing terrific happens- Failure is not possible- Every monster provides a loot drop- No one gets in serious trouble- The game has no pacing, no negative consequences, and no lossesFor lack of a better term, this is utter nonsense. In my opinion, it also gives the sense that Lew is woefully ill informed about how New School games function. I don't know of ANY game that would fit the above criteria, and none are given as examples.Here Lew talks about board games, card games, and video games. He gives one example of a video game by providing a quote from PC Magazine, which seems to lament how easy the game makes certain aspects that would otherwise likely be tedious. The statement that board and card games have moved away from competitive play and high level of player interaction to "parallel competitions that are usually puzzles" is not backed up in any way. This doesn't seem to map to my own experiences. Yes, many board games have adopted a cooperative play element ("Arkham Horror", "Pandemic", "Gloomhaven", etc.) but there are still plenty that have competitive play ("Scythe", "Game of Thrones", "Twilight Imperium", etc.). I don't think this is a shift from one to the other so much as designers experimenting with styles and mixing and matching until they find interesting results, like some of the games that are both competitive and cooperative ("Betrayal at House on the Hill", "The Thing: Outbreak at Outpost 31", etc.). One thing I can say is that all these games are very high on player interaction. I'm less familiar with card games myself, but from what I see, Magic and Pokemon and other competitive card games are still going strong. The video game market is likely even more varied, and to try and pin down a trend based on one minor example seems hasty.  Why do New School Games de-emphasize strategy? Because strategy requires planning, and planning means you deviate from the story. This again relies on some odd assumptions of New School games. To me it sounds like we're talking about a railroad, which I think we can all agree is something that can happen regardless of system or school of play. The bit about tactical games seems unrelated to the overall point of New vs. Old school and how they relate to tactics. There were such games before the rise of RPGs, and there continue to be. Here, there seems to be a salient point. Lew does provide a valid distinction from Old to New School. But he then draws a pretty shaky conclusion based on that distinction. Yes, exploration and reading cues to determine the best way to proceed is a big part of Old School games, and one that is less often found in New School games. Some New School games actively seek ways around such aspects of play because for many people, they are tedious in the extreme. I personally found things like that to be frustrating and boring when I was playing as a kid. If we didn't find the secret door, then we could only proceed to a certain point. That kind of design is frustrating, and I think it has been addressed in several ways, in both the Old School and the New School. I don't think that the fact that New School favors a different sort of challenge means that they need their hands held. In fact, in the old days, when our party ran into a dead end for whatever reason, the DM would inevitably simply allow us to find the secret door, or to learn the pass phrase, or otherwise access whatever key we missed in order to proceed. Sounds exactly like hand holding to me. So again, I think that removing such types of challenges to focus on others doesn't mean the GM is holding the hands of the players. Again, this is something that seems just as likely in any game, depending on the mechanics and how they are applied, and if any alternate solutions are at the ready, and how the players react. How so? What New School games focus on the individual? In what way does Old School focus on the party? Here Lew sites only himself from an earlier article as a source. You have to back up your thesis with examples. Again, Lew sites himself, with nothing else to support his statement. Do New School games view combat as sport? How so? We can't know from these statements here.I suppose all of this is true. It seems that Lew is basically saying that all his points may have exceptions. Okay.   Certainly not. Unfortunately, if you're going to analyze them, you may want to be familiar with them to the point that you can actually discuss them and provide examples that demonstrate the conclusions you've drawn.</blockquote>

Verification