Quote from: RPGPundit;619192But again, something like "dungeon world" is in no sense of the world a "retroclone".

RPGPundit

Nor is it by any stretch of the imagination "old school".  The whole X-World system is an attempt to build mostly traditional looking play through the use of defined mechanics to in essense force roleplaying from the perspective of the genre and tropes of a setting, not from immersion in the setting itself (and yes, that is a difference).

It's 100% narrative new school in that it uses mechanics to control the experience of the players to enforce literary emulation.

Is it a storygame?  Not as people usually define the term, no, but it sure as hell isn't traditional or old school.  It really is a new thing.

Quote from: Libertad;618795What time frame encompasses Old School to you?  This question is directed not just to Benoist, but to others as well.

I see two important factors in defining "old school":

• It has to relate in some way to the early days of the hobby;
• It can't approach role-playing from a detached or "meta" viewpoint.

The Pundit will be happy to know that, from my viewpoint, factor #2 means no storygame can ever be old school. Storygames are, by definition, very meta, with mechanics that relate directly to altering a storyline.

I see the time cut-off for actual old school games as the transition period from hobby press publishing to large-scale marketing. AD&D 1e and D&D Basic thus are technically old school (close to the original ruleset,) but the step up in production standards and the push to get the game in traditional toy stores and bookstores means that TSR starts taking into account marketing needs instead of just selling stuff the authors like. 2e again still has a recognizable old school skeleton, but the whole existence of 2e is based on a detached marketing analysis of the game.

Quote from: David Johansen;618982Pre Dragonlance?

So HERO is old school but GURPS isn't?

Can't speak for HERO, since I barely played it. But I played a lot of GURPS, and it definitely isn't old school. First, because it's a reboot of an older game, The Fantasy Trip, which Steve Jackson couldn't get the rights to when he left Metagaming.

Second, because even though it never had the kind of distribution that AD&D 2e had, it's obviously being designed to meet slicker marketing standards than the old TFT rules.

Third, I'd argue that any game that starts worrying more about "accurate" and "balanced" numbers, as opposed to just pretending to be fictional people in a fictional world, is departing from the more naive old school approach and is becoming more indirect, more detached, more meta. I'd actually apply this to HERO as well, and probably any generic ruleset.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;619140'Not old-school' != 'storygame.'

I think GURPS is an example of what emerged in gaming as the wargamers diminished in numbers and influence.

But...

GURPS combat is clearly a hex and counter era wargame...

Anyhow, my point was only that Dragonlance really isn't a good point of division as GURPS and HERO are as alike as two peas in a pod.  Which isn't surprising since TFT was a major inspiration for HERO and GURPS is TFT ramped up to the point of absurdity.

My own thoughts on "Old School" don't relate as much to play style.  I remember DMs who had stories and plots and characters and I remember DMs who ran the game like a board game.

1. Do it yourself.  Take what you like and leave the rest.  It is whatever you want it to be.

2. Concise and direct rules.

3. Long winded discussions of the "faults" of "other rpgs."

Quote from: David Johansen;618982Pre Dragonlance?

So HERO is old school but GURPS isn't?

IMO, GURPS is transitional. TFT is wonderfully old-school; GURPS 1e/2e is borderline; 3e, the most iconic version, isn't. TFT gets the nod for easy play, no angst, no questioning why you're adventuring, it's just what you do. Champions I don't know so well but 1e/2e were pretty slender and no-nonsense, no? I have Fantasy Hero 1e which I think is contemporary with Champs 3e; it reads kinda like GURPS 2e in that it has some complexity and of course "Disadvantages", but it's still straightforward about what you're doing.

QuoteI originally envisioned The Crucible and The Cauldron as a setting for Dark Passages but it doesn't really fit.  It's got more in common with "among the beautiful creatures" in terms of themes and style of play.  Besides, it's a deliberately offensive setting I mainly wrote to see if I could come up with something you couldn't possibly discuss on rpgnet without getting banned.  Maybe I'll write up some mechanics for it using poptarts and a box of steel wool for resolution.

I don't understand but it sounds nice. Those are kinda old-school in themselves.

Quote from: David Johansen;619378GURPS combat is clearly a hex and counter era wargame...

Hexes are a legacy of Melee/Wizard in GURPS. They don't make it 'old school' any more than 4e D&D's grids do.

GURPS is properly the terminus of the wave of simulationist games that grew out of C&S and RuneQuest.  It's a game obsessed with quantifying and comparing everything from a simulationist stand point.  It's hexes are nothing like D&D 4e's grid though the tactical play may seem similar at a glance.  In GURPS the grid is a tool for quantifying and structuring the simulation.  In D&D 4e the grid is a tool for tracking game effect advantages.  The place where this shows the most is that GURPS still plays beautifully without a grid because it's just a prop that helps to describe the action.  In D&D 4e the grid is an essential part of the function of the rules.  Or in other words, in GURPS you fit the action to the grid and in D&D 4e the action is dependant on the grid.

GURPS spends a page of the GM's chapter explaining why dungeon crawls are an immature and low grade form of roleplaying.  So probably not old school

Champions 2e was, in any case, mainly focused on combat and combat comparison.  The philosophical basis of the points is as such very different than GURPS and might be considered old school though Champions was always a do it our way game rather than one you customize to taste.

Quote from: RPGPundit;619189There are two interpretations of "old school"; but the second one you offer is not either of them.

Your first definition (strictly modeled after rpgs published prior to a certain date) is correct; the other definition would be "rules and play that match the attitude of gameplay from that era".  By neither definition could you play "My Life With Master", enter a dungeon, and call it "old-school roleplaying" in spite of it not being either old-school nor roleplaying.

There might be two interpretations of "old school" by old schoolers but what I wanted to say was that people from outside, not versed in true old school style play, think when they read "old school", and design for.

It's like story-metaplot-loving Das Schwarze Auge players who gleefully play Munchkin and really, honestly think that they have a parodistic, D&D-like experience that entitles them to mock D&D even more since they found their preconceptions about D&D confirmed.
(And who run Dungeonslayers in full-on dungeon mode and liking it, sometimes because they really like that style of play or sometimes because they revel in a self-conscious, deconstructionistic, postmodern "we-play-a-dungeon-game-the-way-we-think-a-dungeon-game-has-to-be-played" stance.)

I am not defending that view, I just wanted to explain why some people attach an Old School badge to Dungeon World and similar games. Some of them truly believe they are doing something old school-ish.
And most of the time there is not even an agenda behind it. Just a little misguidedness and/or lack of experience.

So yes, even I could see myself playing Dungeon World but I would play it in full-on old school mode, with DM rolling dice and nothing of the weird stuff; basically just using the beautiful character sheets and the skill/feats/class abilities.
(I wonder how long it takes until someone does an old school interpretation of the basic Dungeon World die-rolling/character class design system...)

Quote from: RPGPundit;619192But again, something like "dungeon world" is in no sense of the world a "retroclone".

Seconded.

GURPS is a paradox to me. While I don't consider it necessarily old-school. Its definitely not new school. At least not to me. Which I guess shows, if to no one else but me the subjectiveness of "Old school". I see people talk of grid with GURPS. But when ever I used it. I always followed the axiom of just using the rules I wanted/needed for my use. So I never used it. I view GURPS as a tool kit. Where the basic mechanic, system is well, very simple. Perhaps even old school. But it can be more complex the more you add to it. But, its not necessary. Which I suppose could really describe every role playing game from the start.

Swordsmen & Skeletons is an experiment.  It is a one page retroclone that if fully playable http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/177317/Swordsmen--Skeletons  Through clever minimizing, it gives you three character classes (playtested through tenth level), four character races, weapons and equipment, some 44 spells (priest and warlock) eighteen monsters with quick modifications, and rules for over 200 magic items, as well as encounter and treasure tables and rules for combat and adventure.

When it was pointed out to me that, to make it a real retroclone, it needed an OGL, we used the other side of that page to write up a play example as well.  This system was played for a year of real time from first level to a gotterdamerung completion of a campaign, and was enjoyed by all players.

Note that, like all retroclones, it has its personalizations.  Characters tend to be more powerful at low levels than with the original system, but death is nearly absolute, as is the case in most fantasy novels and legends.

I think Fantasy Craft would qualify as a "clone" in the "other category". It has some d20 3.x in there with new bits (albeit some tasty bits) in there.