Old School vs. New School

[DangerousPuhson]

As a thought experiment, I'd like to posit: Where's the line? I personally think it lies in the dichotomy between a DM-driven game (what I'd call "autarchic" gameplay) and a player-driven game (what I'd call "communal" gameplay). The difference?

Autarchic/Old School adventures are generally dictated by a static narrative – there is a challenge established by the DM beforehand (a dungeon, a situation, a tough objective), and the party takes actions to overcome it. The ramifications of overcoming the challenge are local and minimalized, generally serving to solve an immediate issue and lead into the next challenge. Pre-made challenges are strung together by the DM to form the campaign. The narrative of the campaign is driven by how effectively the players overcome this sequence of challenges, with character goals being primarily relegated to “was able to overcome the challenge”. Challenges cannot be skipped or bypassed, as doing so would break the static narrative of the campaign. In this way, greater emphasis is placed on the DM, as they are the one who defines the goals and sets the obstacles of the campaign.

Specific, pre-set challenges are the defining hallmark of Old School/Autarchic play; as such, there is more focus on creative problem solving to overcome said challenges, as well as a de-emphasis on character skills and abilities (as they serve to bypass the problem-solving process) and an uptick in lethality (a simple way to increase challenge). Consequently, this style of play also hinders player agency, as challenges cannot be ignored or chosen at leisure, resulting in a much more linear campaign. Likewise, individual player goals conflict with the linear nature of Autarchic play, resulting in either smaller-scale goals, or none at all.

Example: Against the Giants depends on the characters going through the Hill Giant Steading to get to the Frost Giant Glacial Rift to get to the Fire Giant Hall to get to the drow Demonweb Pits. The party cannot simply arrive at the Demonweb Pits through an alternate route, nor can they skip straight ahead to the Demonweb Pits without first engaging the Hill/Frost/Fire giants, as doing so would break the narrative of the campaign. Their initial goal (provided by the DM) is “infiltrate the Hill Giant Steading”; once complete, the next goal of “infiltrate the Frost Giant Rift” is provided by the DM, all the way until the drow are defeated in the Demonweb Pits and the campaign comes to an end.

Communal/New School adventures are defined by a dynamic narrative – there is a world established by the DM, but the players are responsible for setting/achieving their own end goals within the world by identifying and undertaking challenges aligned with those goals. The direct ramifications of these challenges are limited to impacts specifically on the character goals, but their overarching effects will alter the world, forcing the characters to realign in order to fit the newly-changed world in a way that best serves their stated goals. A Modern campaign consists of a living world adapting to the failures and successes of the party, and it only truly ends once the party has achieved all its goals. The narrative of the campaign is driven by the consequences of player decisions in service of their specific personal goals, and the new situations that develop as a result of those consequences. Challenges are undertaken or ignored based solely on how best they serve the individual goals of the players; these dynamic choices are what defines the narrative of the campaign. For this reason, emphasis is placed more on player choices as the chief driver of gameplay.

Since player goals dictate the direction of the campaign, the game tends to focus more on the development of these characters, fleshing-out their adventures into a more cohesive story. This results in a focus on character agency and choices in order to punch up the impact of their stories, as well as widening the breadth of “tools” (i.e. skills and abilities) at their disposal to better serve the pursuit of their goals. Conversely, this means that players in Communal/New School games receive less fulfillment in overcoming obstacles which are unrelated to their personal goals, and are less contented at lower levels when they have fewer “tools” at their disposal. Lethality is likewise de-emphasized, as character death becomes disruptive to the narrative of the campaign since it obliterates player goals and the existing story surrounding them.

Example: Princes of the Apocalypse presents a world with several elemental temples to be undertaken in any order, and while the ultimate objective of the campaign is “prevent the apocalypse by disrupting the plans of the elemental cultists”, each player nonetheless adopts a mindset of an individual goal (one wants to become a Harper, one wants to amass treasure, one wants to slaughter a specific cult leader, etc.). As one cult is defeated or another grows to power, the individual goals of the party are formed and fall away in adaptation to the world. If the water cult is obliterated, the player with the goal of killing the water cult leader pivots their goal to become something else (like “kill the earth cult leader” or “assume control over the defeated water cultists”), while the player with the goal to amass treasure turns their eyes towards a nearby tomb rumored to hold a magical axe, and the one who wants to become a Harper does whatever they think will win them the most points with the Harper faction. If eventually the overarching objective is achieved (i.e. the apocalypse is prevented) but player goals remain unfulfilled, the campaign narrative can still continue beyond the natural “end” of things.

I know some folk like to point to the "Six Cultures of Play" to define this stuff, but in all honesty I don't buy into it all that much... too nebulous, too much overlap.... and WTF is "Nordic LARP" even doing in that list as a "play culture"? That's like saying pickleball is a "play culture" of tennis! An easy two-sided split should be much more straightforward, and I propose making that split right at the point where the game's onus shifts from the DM to the players.

Of note, by this definition, one can technically play a "new school" game of OD&D, or an "old school" game of 5e. "Old school" and "new school" are not necessarily defined by chronology (as the OSR will well testify). A modern campaign like Rise of Tiamat could be considered "old school" in many ways (mostly due to the DM-led narrative), and an older campaign like West Marches campaign could be considered "new school" (due to emphasis on player-driven goals) when categorized by the divide of autarchic vs. communal.

What do you all think?

 

[Beoric]

By your definition, Dragonlance is Old School. That's going to be a tough sell. Like, seriously are you baiting?

Each of the elements of Against the Giants is only barely attached to the next, and can easily be replaced with something else if you want to get to the Demonweb Pits. They used to be called "modules" because they are intended to be modular. And even if you set them up in your world as written (or use Greyhawk), in Classic play the players could just decide not to complete them, and go in an entirely different direction. Like, remember that Gygax didn't think modules would sell at first, because

Also, by your definition, the 1e DMG teaches something like New School play. Like, (a) the DM sets up an initial situation, (b) the players react to the world, (c) the world reacts to the players, (d) go back to (b). That's as Gygaxian as play gets.

Like, seriously, your definitions are ass-backwards. I'm halfway convinced you're just trolling.

You may not like the six cultures of play framework, but I run into gamers/adventures that are identifiably Classic, Trad, OSR or OC/Neo-Trad all the time (and I loathe OC/Neo-Trad). The storygamers definitely exist, even if our paths never cross; I've seen the websites, and they are too weird for me, and I have a very high threshold for weirdness. I admit I have never met a Nordic LARPer in the wild, though.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Off to a good start already it seems. I didn't realize I was nailing a thesis to the church doors here; just trying to spark a conversation. But if you want to be all hostile about it...

By your definition, Dragonlance is Old School. That's going to be a tough sell. Like, seriously are you baiting?

Not baiting, but by some definitions, it is. The key outlier with Dragonlance though, and why it doesn't really equate into the conversation, is that it is essentially just a complicated a story and not really a game at all. It is so on rails that it's neither old nor new school - it's just reading with extra steps.

And let's not pretend that the 80s weren't forty years ago now... Dragonlance, like myself, is officially "hella-old" by this point. But again, I don't want to lump everything old into "old school" just by age itself.

Each of the elements of Against the Giants is only barely attached to the next, and can easily be replaced with something else if you want to get to the Demonweb Pits. They used to be called "modules" because they are intended to be modular. And even if you set them up in your world as written (or use Greyhawk), in Classic play the players could just decide not to complete them, and go in an entirely different direction. Like, remember that Gygax didn't think modules would sell at first, because

Yes, modules are modular. Thank you for clearing that up. But if you run the Against the Giants Campaign, as intended, you end up visiting all the giants. Someone could say "well my group abandoned the Fire Giants and just went and killed a dragon-god" or whatever, but then they aren't playing Against the Giants; they're free-forming their own homebrew campaign, in an admittedly "new-school" approach (or "Trad" by your own preferred terms).

You also neglected to finish your final thought there, because

Also, by your definition, the 1e DMG teaches something like New School play. Like, (a) the DM sets up an initial situation, (b) the players react to the world, (c) the world reacts to the players, (d) go back to (b). That's as Gygaxian as play gets.

That may well just be the case then. Gygaxian doesn't necessarily mean old school by default, and everything he advocated wasn't necessarily all-encompassing of what old school is. His game style evolved over time (hell, even just in the small gap between OD&D and AD&D which are like two totally different games). "Old school playstyle" is not a concept inherently by-the-book anyway; the 1e DMG was actually kind of revolutionary on that front.

Your A>B>C>D flow is the basis of all roleplaying games, and are neither inherent to defining old nor new school of play.
Situation > Decision > Action > Consequences.
DM to Players to DM to Players.
It's literally just how all roleplaying games with a referee are played.

My definition relates more to who steers goal orientation, and the forming of long-term plot beads. That's it. DM-centric, or player-centric. I thought it was a fairly straightforward line in the sand to draw. I'd love to hear why you think this is a bad way to categorize play, perhaps in a way more conducive to constructive dialogue instead of aimless naysaying?

Like, seriously, your definitions are ass-backwards. I'm halfway convinced you're just trolling.

Me, very prominently at the start of the post (emphasis mine):

As a thought experiment, I'd like to posit: Where's the line? I personally think it lies in...

Nice to see this place hasn't changed much - but then really, this is probably the last place that ever would, right?

You may not like the six cultures of play framework, but I run into gamers/adventures that are identifiably Classic, Trad, OSR or OC/Neo-Trad all the time (and I loathe OC/Neo-Trad).

Ok? And? I use the color "blue" to describe blue things... once in a while I hear other people use the word "aqua" to describe something that is clearly blue. Other times they use totally alien words that make no sense to me, like "bleu". Some people are so crazy, and stuff that is clearly blue they call "big" or "round" instead of "blue" - I shout at these people the loudest on the internet....

 

[squeen]

I don't include Dragonlance in (classic) old-school, and neither would most of the OSRIC crowd. It's something else.

I disagree with the fundamental thesis about old-school play. It is not linear or DM-driven, that's a bastardized/immature version of old-school play.

In classic D&D, the DM creates (or purchases...I guess, but in truth not really so much, or for very long) an environment. There may be threads to tug on, such as the drow G/D series of (tournament!) modules, but the direction of play is 100% player driven. More often than not, the players choose to by-pass sections, or go completely off-road. It is essential that the DM be fast on his feet to create new content in response to the player's actions. The campaign evolves, surprising both PCs and DM. For it to be successful, and not degenerate into pointless fantasy wish-fulfillment, is that everything the players attempt must come with trade-offs, unanticipated costs, distractions, hurtles, antagonists, etc. so that a highly challenging & engaging environments persists---anything else leads quickly to boredom. Again, the DM has no "plan" or skin-in-the-game. It's is solely his job to keep populating the environment with interesting, tempting & challenging content for the players to contemplate. To think otherwise is to misunderstand how D&D is played, and quit frankly, ruin it.

For example, here's how my players tackled G1: The party traveled for several days having adventurers en route, eventually camping in the woods outside the Steading. They waited until late night, after the partying died down. The magic-user cast fly and invisibility on the thief, who flew up into the rafters and found, after a bit of exploration and random encounters (mostly avoided), the Chief's bedroom. Dropped some sleep-dust through a hole in the ceiling to make sure he & his bear wouldn't wake up, and then went through the door to cut off his head (that being the mission...i.e. return Nosra's head to a political rival). He then flew up and out through the main hall chimney. They party was content to ignore all other treasure and never saw the drow note, which was fine as they had a couple dozen other things they wanted to get back to in the campaign. It was not at all what I imagined...but that's totally fine. I had some lingering DM-guilt that I didn't make it hard enough for them, but this time the party won. Zero treasure, negligible XP, but mission accomplished. The drow have their fingers in other pies in the world, and may make an appearance later.

No railroad. No Quantum Ogres. Totally non-Autarchic/Autocratic.

And its not just me, my DM in the 70s did the same and I strove to emulate his style. I think most folks (e.g. at K&KA) arrive at this understanding over time too. We can argue about edition mechanics until we're blue in the face, but I don't think you can sustain a long-term campaign any other way.

Here's the region map I made that located the (mislabeled!) Steading in the world. You can see I placed Matt Finch's Spire of Iron and Crystal in there too, but it was never visited. The Gud Compound (to rescue a scout with knowledge of the Steading's location & get the head-bounty), the Fen Ford (fought a beholder to aquire a very, very long-sought bag of holding!), and the Twin Oblisks (renamed Needle Bridge) were the other sites visited during the journey. Although relatively minor locations, they spent far more time there than the one session of assualting G1. At the bridge, the cleric killed a Hill Giant border-guard, satisfying a geis put upon her by her deity, and unlocking an ability in an artifact that allowed much faster travel. The other sites between the Bridge and the Steading were then largely by-passed. Fortunately, I hadn't invested too much prep-time on them. And so it goes.

Also, my own partially CAD-redrawn G1 map, which was probably over-prep considering how long they actually spent there. However, it did burn into my brain the compound layout, which helped me to run it smoothly---akin to something I had self-authored.


And here's the final kicker: because it's an established environment (i.e. "place") in the campaign world now, with real functionality in the regional geo-poltics, there's a non-zero probability that the party may return there (albeit many, many, many sessions later). If and when this happens, especially with self-authored content, it's a real treat. You, as DM, must simply be patient---it could take years, so take good notes!

Throw-away prep is essential to make the system work. A lazy DM or vapid players are (like in most aspects of life) utterly worthless. You get out of it what you put into it. Good, classic, D&D is reserved for top 10% high performers (once-upon-a-time known as Nerds). That also why it will always fail in mass markets and it is constantly being dumbed down to lower the learning-curve and appeal to a ca$ual demographic.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Fair points squeen, but I still maintain my premise.

In your example of "how could G1 *not* be considered old school!?!", you've explained how the characters in your game were free to solve the issues in their own ways and tackle the scenes of the modules in their own orders, but what you're not grasping here is that what you described is not what I'm describing when I say "control rests with the players". What you described is the basis of play for both styles of game; the fundamental back-and-forth that is all editions of D&D, old and new. My use of Against the Giants as an example was about the campaign of all the adventures together culminating in a fight against Lolth, not about the individual modules and the myriad of ways they can be tackled.

As a counter-example: my own players in Against the Giants bypassed a shit-load of the Glacial Rift (like, they skipped past 90% of it) through some clever planning and while making dynamic, unanticipated choices throughout - was that "old school"? If yes: what if I told you I was playing 5th edition in this case? Still old school? What if I told you they went to the Fire Giants after the Frost Giants because that's where the book said they were going next - old school again? And now what if I told you there was a tabaxi warlock in the party, loaded with feats and skills - old school? You see how the lines get blurred when you analyze through the lens of a single adventure, rather than the whole campaign? You see what sort of minutiae need to be ignored because they are applicable to both camps?

Besides, old OG campaigns can still be used in "new school" play, just as brand new adventures can still be appropriated for the "old school". G1 can be run either old school or new school (in my terms of it, anyway); modules themselves are not sprawling enough to distinguish between them, and each table is so different that it would be pointless to do so anyway. In fact, trying to classify any of this game by group/table instead of by campaign is an insane attempt, as if all groups were made of clones playing together in a vacuum.

What you say was "Totally non-Autarchic" was autarchic the moment you (the DM, not the party) decided that they (the party, not just you) would be playing G1 instead of S1 or T2 or whatever. They didn't choose that - you did. You, the Dungeon Master, had all the power in choosing the direction of the entire campaign... hence, "autarchic".

When I speak of autarchic and communal, I speak primarily of drivers of the narrative core of the campaign (and note I say "campaign" very deliberately here), and the long-term goals of those playing it. In some campaigns, that stuff is driven by the DM; in others, the players. Choosing to enter the Steading via a chimney instead of using a front door is not a core campaign narrative choice nor an action reflecting a long-term goal; it is merely an approach to solving a problem, something found in all games of D&D (incidentally, it's why I take issue with your decrying of newer-edition players for "not using skill to play the game" or whatever - different rules doesn't mean automatic problem-solving, it just means a focus on different problems).

And to be clear: I am not saying "all old school D&D is a railroad" or anything so outrageous here; the parties are still free to approach whatever problems they encounter with whatever solutions they can come up with, and the DM is still free to change things on the fly, regardless of "school". The concept focuses mostly on where the party goes next - in one camp, the DM already knows where they are going to next, and has known since the campaign began; in the other, the DM only knows where the players are going immediately next, and won't know where they will be five sessions from now.

Old School and New School are not a line I propose we draw based on edition, or chronology, or even individual player freedoms. Instead, what I put to you, is that we delineate based on when the game shifted its zeitgeist from "here are the adventures you will be getting into today" towards "what adventures will you guys will be getting into today?". The paradigm shift towards sandbox play, West March style rotating casts, settings without adventures, adventures without settings - those are all what I'd call "new school play", compared to the more deliberate, precise, prescriptive path of an "old school" campaign, where we (or at least the DM) already know where the adventure takes us next.

Perhaps using the terms "old school" and "new school" was a mistake, since they have existing connotations (despite no formal definitions). It definitely seems to be tripping you guys up; maybe a safer bet would have been "formal vs. informal" or "prescribed vs. free-form" or something.

 

[squeen]

What you say was "Totally non-Autarchic" was autarchic the moment you (the DM, not the party) decided that they (the party, not just you) would be playing G1 instead of S1 or T2 or whatever. They didn't choose that - you did. You, the Dungeon Master, had all the power in choosing the direction of the entire campaign... hence, "autarchic".

I didn't choose G1. I simply placed G1 in the world and put in some hooks (elsewhere) that the players chose to follow. Nothing was pre-determined by me as DM. This whole map is just a small corner of the world, and they got-in-and-out as fast as they liked---lingering and detouring as they fancied.

If the players go Left, and I prepped Right, then I may be forced to improvise for a half-session or so...but between sessions I just prep/invent the necessary Left-content.

Part of the old/new school divide you are picking at are largely edition mechanics. What each and every mechanic and rule-tweak does to the game-play (and the unintended repercussions over a campaign) is a whole other topic.

The DM-railroad/story-game vs. player-driven sandbox divide is largely something else---not as clean as old vs. new. Classic (1e) folks reject it too, along with most all forms of DM autocracy except rule-enforcement judgment calls. That's why Beroic suggested you read the "Six Cultures" article, because Trad (Dragonlance, etc.) is not Classic (OD&D=0e or AD&D=1e) play. The distinctions are real and helpful to understand, so that we don't accidentally talk past each other.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I didn't choose G1. I simply placed G1 in the world and put in some hooks (elsewhere) that the players chose to follow. Nothing was pre-determined by me as DM. This whole map is just a small corner of the world, and they got-in-and-out as fast as they liked---lingering and detouring as they fancied. If the players go Left, and I prepped Right, then I may be force to improvise for a half-session or so...but between sessions I just prep/invent the necessary Left-content.

Then you were playing "new school" D&D, by my definition of it. You may have been playing new school D&D back in 197X too. Again, "new" doesn't mean by time in this sense, only by mindset. If your players were driving the goals of the campaign, then it was new school.

Part of the old/new school divide you are picking at are largely edition mechanics. What each and every mechanic and rule-tweak does to the game-play (and the unintended repercussions over a campaign) is a whole other topic.

No, editions and mechanics have nothing to do with the divide I'm looking at here. I can play Against the Giants in 1e and 5e just as easily, and the results of the player's choices will be just as unpredictable in either edition. Whether the campaign play is DM-driven or player-driven has literally nothing to do with rules, feats, "candy classes", or whatever.

Throw-away prep is essential to make the system work. A lazy DM or vapid players are (like in most aspects of life) utterly worthless. You get out of it what you put into it. Good, classic, D&D is reserved for top 10% high performers (once-upon-a-time known as Nerds). That also why it will always fail in mass markets and it is constantly being dumbed down to lower the learning-curve and appeal to a ca$ual demographic.

Ah, the classic squeen gatekeeping and exclusivity and 'them kids ain't right' mentality; how I did not miss it.
"Technically Dungeons & Dragons comes from the Lake Geneva region of Wisconsin; everything else is just 'sparkling roleplay'".

 

[DangerousPuhson]

The DM-railroad/story-game vs. player-driven sandbox divide is largely something else---not as clean as old vs. new. Classic (1e) folks reject it too, along with most all forms of DM autocracy except rule-enforcement judgment calls. That's why Beroic suggested you read the "Six Cultures" article, because Trad (Dragonlance, etc.) is not Classic (OD&D=0e or AD&D=1e) play. The distinctions are real and helpful to understand, so that we don't accidentally talk past each other.

I've read it. A couple times. I don't see them so much as "cultures" but rather "touchstone changes to the game that appeared over time". My general understanding of the six cultures is this -

Classic: The party is put up against specific, progressing challenges in a dungeon or scenario
Traditional: Addition of a persistent game world and narrative/consequences for those challenges
Nordic LARP: Added focus towards verisimilitude and free-form DMing
Story Games: Added end game goals and narratives for players
OSR: Added a de-emphasis on using rules for arbitration and abilities for play
Neo-Trad: Added an emphasis on content development by the players

My issue with it is that they intersect too much and aren't distinct enough (by the author's own definition). They overlap effortlessly. If I have a persistent campaign world where most of the content is generated by the players setting their own goals, but there is a strong de-emphasis on using RAW system rules to solve issues, and a big encouragement to roleplay and create ad-hoc situations, then what culture do I belong to? Technically, all of them. That's why I find the six cultures worthless as a categorization tool. Yes, those trends are things that do exist and vary from group to group, but using them for any kind of analysis or categorization is totally pointless because the overlap is too great. You may as well divide groups by what snacks they eat, for all the good it does.

If you want to use your preferred vernacular though, then fine, here's my summary: The line between "old school" and "new school" mostly exists in the schism between "Classic" and "Trad", though only if the Trad campaign is incorporating the player-driven elements of Neo-Trad play.

 

[Malrex]

I think I'm similar with Squeen's approach. Back in the day, I would create a region, add some pre-bought modules and scatter them across the region, add some of my own stuff, add some rumors/hooks to all of these places, and the players decided what they wanted to do. As DM, I remained neutral and just provided info. I never really had an agenda, although admittedly, back in the day, it was much easier if players just chose a module so that I could prep. Now I feel comfortable wingin it all. I'm not sure how that can be new school if it's really old school because the new school didnt exist yet?

And yes...I believe character goals are super important and can shape the world. It also helps me as the DM to shape the world together. I think some players view their characters as numbers and equipment and some view them as a role to play--I prefer the role to play because it makes things more spontaneous--you never know what the characters are going to do.

The whole 6 cultures thing...sorry people, I don't got time to study that shit. I never played Dragonlance, but read a few, and it seems labeled as Story Games. I'd put most of 2e modules as storygames as well (I like 2e rules, but hate and loathe 99% of the 2e adventures--1e adventures are great).

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I'm not really surprised. By some metrics, one could argue that "new school" (by my terms) debuted with AD&D, as the AD&D DMG does espouse this "player-shaped" playstyle in a few spots. Not fully realized, mind you, but the seeds were certainly there. Most people took those seeds as gospel for how the game should be played going forward - WotC included - and the zeitgeist changed when it got incorporated into new products and editions, and so "new school" just became "D&D". I doubt there are many people at all who play legitimate "old school" campaigns, by my definition of the term.

I don't disagree that my definitions of "new school" and "old school" are going to conflict with what other people think defines those terms; the problem is that those terms remain uncodified (hence the thread), so I am effectively tilting against the windmills of piecemeal, homebrewed definitions; if anybody else wants to offer up a counter-definition instead of picking at details, I'm definitely all ears.

And yes, Dragonlance is just a story disguised in module trappings, infamously so on-rails that we may as well not even give it consideration. Now, let us never speak of Kender again.

 

[squeen]

Classic: The party is dumped into the DM's developed world that runs along fine with or without them, and they have the potential to influence events through their actions. Player have total freedom to choose their own way (but not warp game-reality with their backstories or desires without a Wish spell). The world is intentionally challenging (i.e. no kid gloves or Easy-Mode), especially for low-level nobodies.

That's how it was coming out of the gate with OD&D. As a result, mortality could be high with unskilled/level-1 players and thus the original game's reputation for lethality---but that's really a red herring with regards to DM intent, i.e. a consequence of the set-up as opposed to a conscious goal.

After AD&D (1e), things started to go in other directions as you noted.

5e was a reaction to the OSR (whose original intent was to get back to Classic-play core-values) and a conscious effort to reincorporate some of the its elements while also making it extra-inviting for new players.

Subsequently, the OSR also went off in multiple, disparate, directions, and 5e is about to morph in D&D One (Edition to Rule Them All).

Ah, the classic squeen gatekeeping and exclusivity and 'them kids ain't right' mentality; how I did not miss it.
"Technically Dungeons & Dragons comes from the Lake Geneva region of Wisconsin; everything else is just 'sparkling roleplay'".

Whatever. I have firm opinions (which aren't quite what you paraphrased), but I own no gate-keys. Do as you will, but you can't make me call the Sun the Moon.

Like pretenders to the throne, every new edition wants a legitimate claim to be "D&D" (...but IMO there is only one true King and thankfully, it's still alive and kicking). Ultimately its pointless to bicker. Ask yourself: Do you have something that is rocking it for you? If so, then great. Look no further.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Per you:

The party is dumped into the DM's developed world that runs along fine with or without them, and they have the potential to influence events through their actions. Player have total freedom to choose their own way (but not warp game-reality with their backstories or desires without a Wish spell). The world is intentionally challenging (i.e. no kid gloves or Easy-Mode), especially for low-level nobodies.

What you're calling "Classic" could be called many things - "Neo-Trad", if the players actions are responsible for shaping the world somehow, or "OSR" if the rules are de-emphasized. Hell, you could even call it "Nordic LARP" depending on how theatric everyone is feeling during play.

Per the blog:

Classic play is oriented around the linked progressive development of challenges and PC power, with the rules existing to help keep those in rough proportion to one another and adjudicate the interactions of the two "fairly". ... The focus on challenge-based play means lots of overland adventure and sprawling labyrinths and it recycles the same notation to describe towns, which are also treated as sites of challenge. At some point, PCs become powerful enough to command domains, and this opens up the scope of challenges further, by allowing mass hordes to engage in wargame-style clashes. The point of playing the game in classic play is not to tell a story (tho' it's fine if you do), but rather the focus of play is coping with challenges and threats that smoothly escalate in scope and power as the PCs rise in level.
...
Trad holds that the primary goal of a game is to tell an emotionally satisfying narrative, and the DM is the primary creative agent in making that happen - building the world, establishing all the details of the story, playing all the antagonists, and doing so mostly in line with their personal tastes and vision. The PCs can contribute, but their contributions are secondary in value and authority to the DM's.

If I (the DM) have a progressive development of challenges using a ruleset that is meant to scale with PC power, and am the primary creative agent in a game world that tells an emotionally-satisfying narrative, am I Classic or Trad? If we act it all out sometimes, am I Nordic LARP too?

This is why I dislike the Six Cultures - It's like trying to categorize a vehicle as either a car or a truck, but only by looking at how a driver drives it rather than how it's built. It's why I wanted to explore a more distinct boundary between the old and the new.

 

[Beoric]

I don't disagree that my definitions of "new school" and "old school" are going to conflict with what other people think defines those terms; the problem is that those terms remain uncodified (hence the thread), so I am effectively tilting against the windmills of piecemeal, homebrewed definitions; if anybody else wants to offer up a counter-definition instead of picking at details, I'm definitely all ears.

When you take two terms, which have generally accepted characteristics, and redefine them as their opposites, you are going to get arguments.

I mean, I could rename "blue" as "green", and "green" as "blue", but if I start calling "blue" everything that other people define as "green", people are going to argue with me.

Again, I think your redefinition is intended to do nothing more than provoke arguments. I think you are trolling.

The whole 6 cultures thing...sorry people, I don't got time to study that shit. I never played Dragonlance, but read a few, and it seems labeled as Story Games. I'd put most of 2e modules as storygames as well (I like 2e rules, but hate and loathe 99% of the 2e adventures--1e adventures are great).

This tends to be what a lot of Classic/OCR people think Story Games are, because you are running a predetermined story. And maybe that is an earlier use of the term. But there is a group of people out there who call themselves Story Gamers who run a very different style, and their manifesto is frankly bonkers. That is what @Pseudoephedrine is referring to in the "Six Cultures" article. People who like the DM-running-a-story playstyle tend to refer to themselves as Trad.

I dunno, maybe its fair for Classic/OSR gamers to refer to anything that isn't a Classic or OSR game as a (lower case) storygame. It just isn't useful if you need to draw distinctions between those not-Classic/OSR playstyles.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

When you take two terms, which have generally accepted characteristics, and redefine them as their opposites, you are going to get arguments.

I mean, I could rename "blue" as "green", and "green" as "blue", but if I start calling "blue" everything that other people define as "green", people are going to argue with me.

Again, I think your redefinition is intended to do nothing more than provoke arguments. I think you are trolling.

Come now, you hyperbolize. "Opposites" is hardly the case - if comparing to six elements, at most you could say that I set my line at the boundary between this:

Classic play is oriented around the linked progressive development of challenges and PC power
...
Trad holds that the primary goal of a game is to tell an emotionally satisfying narrative, and the DM is the primary creative agent in making that happen - building the world, establishing all the details of the story, playing all the antagonists, and doing so mostly in line with their personal tastes and vision.

and this

A good (Story Games) game has a strong consonance between the desires of the people playing it, the rules themselves, and the dynamics of the those things interacting.
...
The OSR draws on the challenge-based gameplay from the proto-culture of D&D and combines it with an interest in PC agency, particularly in the form of decision-making. The goal is a game where PC decision-making, especially diegetic decision-making, is the driver of play.
...
...the goal of the (Neo-Trad) game is to tell a story, but it deprioritises the authority of the DM as the creator of that story and elevates the players' roles as contributors and creators.

Yes, on the surface by lumping OSR in the second quote it looks like I'm saying OSR is considered "new school", and yes I am aware of what the "OS" in "OSR" stands for, but my position is that there actually are quite a few "OSR" and older games that are ironically new school in composition, at least when it comes to the lens of the autarch/commune dichotomy. "OSR" is just a man-made badge, invented by people, hastily slapped onto many different things, and still to this day arguments are held as to what the heck it even means (hell, there isn't even any consensus over what the "R" in the dang acronym stands for, ffs). And my definition of "old school" and "new school" as terms are comparably fabricated and subjective; all I ask is that you entertain the thought, maybe start to look at the game through a slightly different lens. I split the lens along a single axis for simplicity sake - autarchic vs. communal - and dubbed them "Old" and "New" strictly because one form preceded the other (Blackmoore and the OG Greyhawk campaigns were inarguably autarchic, since literally all players were learning the game as it was being developed by their DMs).

Furthermore I resent being told I'm trolling when I'm just trying to stimulate conversation in good faith (and being met with outright hostility by you and squeen right from the get-go). As it is a public forum you are obviously free to provide a contrary opinion, but I won't tolerate you berating me.

 

[Attronarch]

IMHO, your Autarchic / Communal comparison falls apart at the very dawn of D&D: Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and Wilderlands of High Fantasy were all open-eneded, living sandboxes. Players shaped them and they shaped players. Tournament-style modules that TSR began publishing early on were deliberately narrower and firmer. If you take early Judges Guild adventures for comparison they are quite open, often with a sandbox area. Very dynamic and player driven.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

IMHO, your Autarchic / Communal comparison falls apart at the very dawn of D&D: Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and Wilderlands of High Fantasy were all open-eneded, living sandboxes. Players shaped them and they shaped players. Tournament-style modules that TSR began publishing early on were deliberately narrower and firmer. If you take early Judges Guild adventures for comparison they are quite open, often with a sandbox area. Very dynamic and player driven.

Huh, I thought Blackmoor/Greyhawk/Wilderlands were more DM-driven than that, but in digging I see you're right. I'd wrongly believed that their early campaigns were akin to the tournament modules of the era, or more of a megadungeon environment, but you're definitely right about them being sandboxes, which goes counter to autarchic being the earlier form of game. Well, never let it be said that ol' DP wasn't willing to be corrected when he's made a mistake.

Although, with that point in mind, autarchic play (for lack of a better term) is still considered a hallmark of both "Classic" and "Traditional" play according to the Six Cultures, so what's that about?

 

[squeen]

Furthermore I resent being told I'm trolling when I'm just trying to stimulate conversation in good faith (and being met with outright hostility by you and squeen right from the get-go). As it is a public forum you are obviously free to provide a contrary opinion, but I won't tolerate you berating me.

I think you are being sincere and that's why I pointed you to the essay, to make communication clearer. It's also fine that you reject it and its definitions although you sounded confused to me.

I'm not being hostile to you specifically, just to being a uber-curmudgeon about mods to the D&D chassis, as that's my general stance with few exceptions.

In general, folks on this board (and @The1True in particular) have missed you being a deft provocateur. It gets the ball rolling. You shouldn't be off-put, by me at least.

 

[Beoric]

Huh, I thought Blackmoor/Greyhawk/Wilderlands were more DM-driven than that, but in digging I see you're right. I'd wrongly believed that their early campaigns were akin to the tournament modules of the era, or more of a megadungeon environment, but you're definitely right about them being sandboxes, which goes counter to autarchic being the earlier form of game. Well, never let it be said that ol' DP wasn't willing to be corrected when he's made a mistake.

Although, with that point in mind, autarchic play (for lack of a better term) is still considered a hallmark of both "Classic" and "Traditional" play according to the Six Cultures, so what's that about?

Classic is not autarchic, as you have defined autarchic. In Classic play, the DM creates an environment, and the players do whatever the hell they feel like in it. There is a reason the 1e DMG refers to the DM as a "referee". OSR is also non-autarchic, perhaps radically so. Trad is autarchic.

OC/Neo-trad is hard to classify, because players influence the overall setting and their character arcs, but then (as near as I can tell) the DM creates a (frequently linear) play experience for them within those parameters. I've also seen Actual Plays in this style where the DM will invite the players to declare how their actions affect the world, although its more common to invite players to narrate their successes and failures.

I don't understand Nordic LARP or Story Games well enough to say what they are. I'm not even sure that the distinction is relevant to them. I'm not sure the distinction is relevant to OC/Neo-trad, for that matter.

Trad is actually pretty old, like I think it predates 1e. So I'm not sure the autarchic/non-autarchic distinction defines old school and new school play so much as it distinguishes two different types of old school play (OSR being IMO a romanticized subvariant of Classic).

 

[Malrex]

I have no idea what Nordic LARP is.....but all I can think about is axes and beer and I think all of us should do it together.

 

[squeen]

I have no idea what Nordic LARP is.....but all I can think about is axes and beer and I think all of us should do it together.

I hear Iceland is nice, but someone might get pushed into a volcano.