Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 7769399" data-attributes="member: 177">I think it is challenging for historical, tribal reasons.&nbsp; This is a Dichotomy Conflict (the 3e-4e Edition Wars were another such conflict), and in these, one side or another tends to lay claim to &quot;good&quot; behaviors, and assert the other side doesn't have them.&nbsp; Historically, this has happened a lot, and if you are going to enter the discussion, it is *really* helpful to remember that.If you call out a thing that is important to, or often found in, Old School play, that's fine.&nbsp; However, if it isn't *particular* to Old School play, then it isn't telling us much for this discussion - it does not elucidate anything special about the style, *and* it can easily look like the toxic behavior historically seen.&nbsp; So...Constructive suggestion - if you are not aware of how many of the games in the class work, don't just make assertions.&nbsp; Couple them with questions.&nbsp; F'rex:&quot;I have noted that a lot of OS discussions include discussion faith in GM abilities as a major point.&nbsp; What role does this take in New School play?&quot;Because, in my memory of history that &quot;faith in GM abilities,&quot; isn't tied to school.&nbsp; It is tied to Edition Wars.&nbsp; Specifically, it arose as a criticism of 3e, specifically due to its comprehensive rules and presentation of a formulae for everything down to encounter creation, and later extended to 4e which had different structure, but also tried to be comprehensive.&nbsp; The designers have since said these were attempts to reach a goal they thought was important to players - ensuring consistency of play across tables.&nbsp; However, it got interpreted by some as a decision to take the choices away from the GM, because the GM was not trusted.&nbsp; This was, of course, countered with stories that GM had a tendency to be self-aggrandizing and abusive, and maybe folks who felt a strong need to keep power maybe shouldn't be trusted with it... and the arguments got toxic.But, most other games that are often labelled 'New School' don't have rules that are comprehensive, and very specifically have aspects that call for a lot of GM judgement in run-time play.&nbsp; The whole &quot;don't trust the GM&quot; thing *just doesn't exist* in these games.&nbsp; Folks who were sore about design changes assigned these traits to the style, but they aren't actually common.And, if you couple with questions, that gives a frame for digging around and seeing what we can find are common to one genre of game or another.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 7769399, member: 177"] I think it is challenging for historical, tribal reasons. This is a Dichotomy Conflict (the 3e-4e Edition Wars were another such conflict), and in these, one side or another tends to lay claim to "good" behaviors, and assert the other side doesn't have them. Historically, this has happened a lot, and if you are going to enter the discussion, it is *really* helpful to remember that. If you call out a thing that is important to, or often found in, Old School play, that's fine. However, if it isn't *particular* to Old School play, then it isn't telling us much for this discussion - it does not elucidate anything special about the style, *and* it can easily look like the toxic behavior historically seen. So... Constructive suggestion - if you are not aware of how many of the games in the class work, don't just make assertions. Couple them with questions. F'rex: "I have noted that a lot of OS discussions include discussion faith in GM abilities as a major point. What role does this take in New School play?" Because, in my memory of history that "faith in GM abilities," isn't tied to school. It is tied to Edition Wars. Specifically, it arose as a criticism of 3e, specifically due to its comprehensive rules and presentation of a formulae for everything down to encounter creation, and later extended to 4e which had different structure, but also tried to be comprehensive. The designers have since said these were attempts to reach a goal they thought was important to players - ensuring consistency of play across tables. However, it got interpreted by some as a decision to take the choices away from the GM, because the GM was not trusted. This was, of course, countered with stories that GM had a tendency to be self-aggrandizing and abusive, and maybe folks who felt a strong need to keep power maybe shouldn't be trusted with it... and the arguments got toxic. But, most other games that are often labelled 'New School' don't have rules that are comprehensive, and very specifically have aspects that call for a lot of GM judgement in run-time play. The whole "don't trust the GM" thing *just doesn't exist* in these games. Folks who were sore about design changes assigned these traits to the style, but they aren't actually common. And, if you couple with questions, that gives a frame for digging around and seeing what we can find are common to one genre of game or another. [/QUOTE]

Verification