Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7769328" data-attributes="member: 22779">Honestly, I think the biggest shift from what I think of as Old School games and New School games has a lot less to do with pacing or treasure expectations or that sort of stuff.&nbsp; That's all largely table expectation stuff and will vary far more from table to table than from game to game.&nbsp; I've played &quot;old school&quot; games where treasure was plentiful and death was relatively rare (mostly due to aforesaid treasure allowing copious raising and resurrection) such as playing the old GDQ series of modules for AD&amp;D.&nbsp; I've also played new school games where there was no treasure and death was frequent and permanent.&nbsp; That's not really the difference so much as simply a symptom.No, to me the difference between OS and NS games is the expectation that the DM/GM will play amateur games designer far, far more often in an OS game than in a NS game.&nbsp; OS games are characterized by rules absence.&nbsp; Not rules light, no.&nbsp; Simply rules absence.&nbsp; The earlier example of climbing the wall is a perfect one.&nbsp; In an OS game, outside of the thief, how do you adjudicate any PC climbing a wall?&nbsp; Using the rules of AD&amp;D, tell me what I should roll for my fighter in chain mail to climb up a wall.&nbsp; Can I do it at all?&nbsp; In an OS game, every table will have a different answer.&nbsp; Maybe it's a Strength check (roll low).&nbsp; Maybe it's some sort of saving throw (Petrification seems to be the go to one for this sort of thing).&nbsp; Maybe it's a percentile check where you multiply the character level times the average of Strength and Dex.&nbsp; Who knows?&nbsp; The rules don't tell you.&nbsp; The game expects that the DM will whip out his &quot;Amateur Game Designer&quot; hat on the spot and create a new rule for this situation.&nbsp; If the situation comes up again, the DM might rule the same way, or maybe not, depends on whim.&nbsp; Again, the rules are silent on the issue.New School games aren't like that though.&nbsp; Either they go the 3e D&amp;D route of trying to have a rule for everything, or they go with one or two very basic standing rules (Savage World's Rule of 4 - any score over 4 succeeds whatever it is you're trying to do) that we broadly apply to situations that aren't covered by the rules.To me, this is the biggest difference between the two schools.&nbsp; Everything flows from this basic, fundamental point - does the system expect the person in the rules arbiter position (DM/GM/Throat Warbler Mangrove/Etc) to be able to create fair and interesting mechanics on the spot or not.&nbsp; Everything else is just variations on that theme.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7769328, member: 22779"] Honestly, I think the biggest shift from what I think of as Old School games and New School games has a lot less to do with pacing or treasure expectations or that sort of stuff. That's all largely table expectation stuff and will vary far more from table to table than from game to game. I've played "old school" games where treasure was plentiful and death was relatively rare (mostly due to aforesaid treasure allowing copious raising and resurrection) such as playing the old GDQ series of modules for AD&D. I've also played new school games where there was no treasure and death was frequent and permanent. That's not really the difference so much as simply a symptom. No, to me the difference between OS and NS games is the expectation that the DM/GM will play amateur games designer far, far more often in an OS game than in a NS game. OS games are characterized by rules absence. Not rules light, no. Simply rules absence. The earlier example of climbing the wall is a perfect one. In an OS game, outside of the thief, how do you adjudicate any PC climbing a wall? Using the rules of AD&D, tell me what I should roll for my fighter in chain mail to climb up a wall. Can I do it at all? In an OS game, every table will have a different answer. Maybe it's a Strength check (roll low). Maybe it's some sort of saving throw (Petrification seems to be the go to one for this sort of thing). Maybe it's a percentile check where you multiply the character level times the average of Strength and Dex. Who knows? The rules don't tell you. The game expects that the DM will whip out his "Amateur Game Designer" hat on the spot and create a new rule for this situation. If the situation comes up again, the DM might rule the same way, or maybe not, depends on whim. Again, the rules are silent on the issue. New School games aren't like that though. Either they go the 3e D&D route of trying to have a rule for everything, or they go with one or two very basic standing rules (Savage World's Rule of 4 - any score over 4 succeeds whatever it is you're trying to do) that we broadly apply to situations that aren't covered by the rules. To me, this is the biggest difference between the two schools. Everything flows from this basic, fundamental point - does the system expect the person in the rules arbiter position (DM/GM/Throat Warbler Mangrove/Etc) to be able to create fair and interesting mechanics on the spot or not. Everything else is just variations on that theme. [/QUOTE]

Verification