Quote from: Phillip;804570It's a D&D-centric thing, and the game of trying to label other old games "old school or not" is fatuous because there was no such 'school' back in the day. People made up stuff they found fun to play, and that was it.

The first 'school' I recall was the 'realism' fetish chatted up in promotion of C&S and RQ (with a riposte from Gygax in AD&D calling the conceit ludicrous in fantasy games).

This. Here. Noticed the divergence early on. My gaming group was an early adopter of both Runequest and C&S, purchasing and running games for both right when they were initially released. D&D was ok, None of us except for the rules lawyer GM and the Monty Haul players, liked AD&D much though.

We were looking for new RPGs that more accurately depicted actual historical combat and battles as we read about it in history and reference books. The combat accuracy fostered a suspension of disbelief and made it easier for the players to accept the game and immerse themselves in the game.

We also sought this out for new Magic as well and sought out RPGs that fostered Magic as a fluid and teachable science that was consistent, and affected the game world consistently with only some variation of style.

This was an ongoing experience and experiment. We tried out new games all the time to see if they had rules and mechanics we liked better for our game worlds and campaign ideas.

And I opened a can of wurms with this thread.

Ok let me sum it up. 1 and 3 are true, 4 is bullshit and 2 is unrelated. And with 2 is meant the default way of playing. Now it seems some old games have a default way of playing and some don't.

I find the second point the most interesting of them all. D&D has for example as default playstyle: "Kick in door, kill monsters, loot the room.". This is actually great, because you know what you are expected to do in a game of D&D.

As the Butcher said: Shadowrun and Masquerade 1e also apply. I agree. Would you say "politics" is the default playstyle in Masquerade or is it "the war with the Sabbat" or "doomsday is coming"?

Anyway I think Cthulhu also has a default playstyle. You are assumed to be an investigator. Period. In other games you work for an organisation who gives you assignments like Delta Green, the Hoffmann Institute (Dark Matter) or Aegis (Conspiracy X).

Then there are games who are very broad, but still very specific about their playstyles. For example Hellfrost which has about twenty playable factions. It offers several playstyles depending on the faction. If you join the Grey Legion you will fight a lot and if you join the Reliquary you will go relic hunting. Maybe one might argue those playstyles don't really differ a lot in this game actually.

There are also games who are a bit obfuscated about their playstyle. The new WoD mortal line always makes your characters bumb into the supernatural by coincedence. So you always have to arrange the characters and the setting in a way the make it all work out. You must make up reasons why they all know each other, they have to live in a certain area of the city or they have to be relatives from the last missing person. A game like East Texas University is much easier in use, because it has a default playstyle.

Quote from: Phillip;804570It's a D&D-centric thing, and the game of trying to label other old games "old school or not" is fatuous because there was no such 'school' back in the day. People made up stuff they found fun to play, and that was it.

The first 'school' I recall was the 'realism' fetish chatted up in promotion of C&S and RQ (with a riposte from Gygax in AD&D calling the conceit ludicrous in fantasy games).

I agree with Phillip and Zweihander on this. I don't even use the term "Old School". I realized early on, back in the 80's that there were different "Generations" of RPGs.

The first generation being D&D and the like where character choice was limited to classes, stats were rolled for. Skills were limited, if any at all, and usually attached to class or race. Mechanics would be a mess with different ways to resolve different conflicts.

The second generation came about in the early 80's (maybe earlier, I don't know) with games such as Hero and GURPS. Character design was loosened up. Stats, skills and role in the group were chosen. Magic use was more flexible. Mechanics were streamlined into consistent common methods.

The third generation was looser still and moved away from the details of character design. These games emphasized story and performance over mechanics. They arose in the 90's and later. Amber Diceless is the prime example of a 3rd generation RPG.

I'd say the most popular games are 1st and 2nd generation. It would require polls and study to determine which is tops in today's gaming culture. To me, from reading this site, it seems about 50/50.

As always, I could be wrong. But that's the way I see it.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;804518So do modern RPG's differ so much from old school RPG's? And on what points?

Some modern RPGs differ from old school RPGs. Some 'modern' (as in, newly designed) RPGs are old-school RPGs, if we're distinguishing "old school" from just "old".
OTOH, "new school" isn't exactly a thing in that there are multiple branches going on here. Schools of thought and design I can think of nowadays would include the the post-forge "narrativist" storygame thing (Forgies, recent systems being I guess Cortex+), supporters of rules-heavy/ limited-GM-authority/heavy PC customization (the 3.x charop crowd), and as an offshoot of them the "tactical wargame" crowd (4E and friends). You also have hybrids like Dungeon World (forgie hipster + old school) or 5E (everything mixed up in a bucket with the eggs on top).

My old school does the kid 'n play & the running man. Slap on the MC Hammer cassette, I feel like bustin' a move! Someone ready the painkillers, stat...

(The new Geico commertial with Salt 'n Pepa punched me in the nostalgia. Have I traveled so far from my Rhythm Nation? Will no one Let the Music Take Control, Let the Rhythm Move You?)

All of my friends who play RPGs think that the term "old school" implies "ultra-lethal character meat grinder and extremely pedantic or cumbersome rules". So I just don't use it in conversation anymore.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;804734supporters of rules-heavy/ limited-GM-authority/heavy PC customization (the 3.x charop crowd), and as an offshoot of them the "tactical wargame" crowd (4E and friends).

I now seem to realize old school is nowhere near as rules heavy as D&D 3.5. I guess the first two editions of D&D are much lighter and easier to quickly go through a few combat scenes.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;804734Some modern RPGs differ from old school RPGs. Some 'modern' (as in, newly designed) RPGs are old-school RPGs, if we're distinguishing "old school" from just "old".

An important distinction, since a lot of approaches published and fairly popular around the same time as or before the 1st ed. AD&D PHB and DMG tend to get called  "new school" in the D&D context.

D&D itself was by original intent extremely malleable, a springboard rather than a constraint for creativity, and that is evident in  The Dragon as well as Alarums & Excursions.

QuoteOTOH, "new school" isn't exactly a thing in that there are multiple branches going on here. Schools of thought and design I can think of nowadays would include the the post-forge "narrativist" storygame thing (Forgies, recent systems being I guess Cortex+), supporters of rules-heavy/ limited-GM-authority/heavy PC customization (the 3.x charop crowd), and as an offshoot of them the "tactical wargame" crowd (4E and friends). You also have hybrids like Dungeon World (forgie hipster + old school) or 5E (everything mixed up in a bucket with the eggs on top).

Quote from: jan paparazzi;804518I found this link.

It defines old school rpg's with four different attributes:

• Simulation: Roots in wargames
• Strong central narrative: Default format
• Garage production values: Crafted by hobbyists
• Lack of conventional wisdom: Undefined target demographic

Out of these attributes are point 1 and 2 the most interesting I think. Point 3 and 4 have everything to do with amateurism and the fact RPG's were still in it's early phase. When the industry became professional those things were gone.

Point 1 is something I don't really miss. It's still the default for most fantasy RPG's even the modern ones. Point 2 is a broad description of what the characters do. For example in Cthulhu you investigate weird stuff, which is way above your pay grade and you end up dead or crazy.

So do modern RPG's differ so much from old school RPG's? And on what points?

Edit:

Also found this link.

Modern RPG's have the following attributes:

• Narrative structure is just as important as mechanics
• Unified mechanics instead of numerous special cases
• Options to depart from the central narrative
• A raised bar in terms of layout, graphics, and editing

So it looks like new RPG's are more streamlined, but also less focused.

What a complete and utter load of bullshit this all is.

Quote from: RPGPundit;805569What a complete and utter load of bullshit this all is.

Agreed.

1. I started playing D&D in 1980 (or 81, brain getting foggy...). I had no idea what a wargame was. I get that it started with Chainmail, but my interest was (and still remains) about the roleplaying game as it's own medium. I don't think I'm alone on this focus.

2. What is so absolutely fucking hilarious about this Wiki's idea of "strong central narrative" was how opposite those games actually were. Sure, you're adventurers in a fantasy realm, but the possibilities were broad. Even more hilarious is the story-game crowd talking about "laser focused" games that dispensed with the "anything is possible" paradigm and instead how games should focus on "one idea or theme" and how this "Wiki" is stating the opposite. That was a "new school" thing, not an OS thing. I am detecting an attempt to redefine history...

Also, "strong central narrative" is a terrible term to use regarding RPGs. As a good GM I need to let my players forge a story based on game-play. We're not writing a story.

3. Has fuck all to do with anything. Old School as it is professed by various publishers and players seems to have a lot more to do with how you play and how you tailor products to support play than production values. The "how you play" and "tailor products" parts also seem to have broad definitions.

4. I see "conventional wisdom" here is code for "what us normal people think RPGs should be doing". Playing yourself as a character is unconventional? A wargame with RPG elements is unconventional? Not being able to die is unconventional? Next you'll tell me not using dice is unconventional...

Also, if you're going to start a Wiki about something in a vain attempt to be as cool as Wikipedia, perhaps some research is in order. Maybe read 50 - 100 RPGs from popular categories? Have some idea of what exists, what has been done, and (gods forbid) maybe play a few? I think RPGTalk can be dismissed at this juncture as a place where people "not getting it" are trying to establish credibility in the absence of actual experience or desire to be educated.

What is Old School?

I think Old School is pretty easy to define. It's about rolling up some characters and playing. Not over-thinking all the mechanical bits, not analyzing play-styles, not wringing hands over one player's or another's personal pet-peeves; just exploring, adventuring, getting navel-deep in danger, and showing up a week later at your favorite watering hole to tell the tale.

The OSR seems to have been trucking along just fine without the analysts sticking their dicks into it and seems to have become more controversial the more said analysts hump the OSR's leg like confused horny dogs.

The OSR people don't need your leg-humping, they just want you to play the fucking game!

Just my two cents...

Yeah, I agree. To me old school rpg's have roots in wargaming. If it has miniatures combat with flanking, backstabbing and line of sight mechanics. But then again Cthulhu doesn't have that either, so I wouldn't call that old school.

But really I think that's old school. NWoD Mirrors has mechanics in it for minatures play. That's is so not WoD. I thought I would never see that in a White Wolf book in a million years. It gives more oversight, but it gets turns the combat into something more tactical and it breaks the narrative flow a little. That's why.

Anyway I am done with this topic. Only point 1 is valid in my opinion. Point 3 and 4 are utter bullshit. And 2 is wrongly named and not relevant. I will make another topic about this "default playstyle" point.

Quote from: trechriron;8055822. What is so absolutely fucking hilarious about this Wiki's idea of "strong central narrative" was how opposite those games actually were. Sure, you're adventurers in a fantasy realm, but the possibilities were broad. Even more hilarious is the story-game crowd talking about "laser focused" games that dispensed with the "anything is possible" paradigm and instead how games should focus on "one idea or theme" and how this "Wiki" is stating the opposite. That was a "new school" thing, not an OS thing. I am detecting an attempt to redefine history...

This is interesting. The possibilities might be broad, but ... well I am digging into Savage Worlds right now. And most settings seem to spell out what you are supposed to do in that particular game. Which is still broad anyway. But you know what to do in 50 Fathoms, Slipstream or Rippers. It's pretty clear.

Now I came from a new WoD background and with most nWoD setting it was so open I had absolutely no clue what I was supposed to do. For example Mage the Awakening. I still have no idea what to default playstyle is in that game. Mostly it is about climbing the ladder in Mage society and reaching high positions. But what do they do? No idea. It's just like the Stonecutters in the Simpsons.

Quote from: trechriron;805582Also, "strong central narrative" is a terrible term to use regarding RPGs. As a good GM I need to let my players forge a story based on game-play. We're not writing a story.

Agreed. Default playstyle is much better.

"Old School" means the writer was thinking "I made up some shit I thought would be fun!" rather than "Role playing games are DEEP!  and MEANINGFUL!  and MEANINGFULLY DEEP!  and DEEPLY MEANINGFUL!"

I guess maybe our proponent of "no defund target audience" never saw any of the ads TSR put out in the late 70s, early 80s.

To me-

Old-School: Any D&D game previous to 2000

New-School: Any D&D game from 2000 to present.

Done.

Now I won't comment at all on how "Good" or "better" any of these games were because.....well do we need that sort of negativity here?