To me, the biggest distinction that makes sense is that "Old School" is firmly wedded to the "Free Kriegspiel" mindset.  The world is the referee's, the referee has total decision making power over everything that happens, and the rules are merely a set of notes to ease the referee's decision making.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsspiel_%28wargame%29

I COULD simply adjudicate every combat using my judgement, but I use dice and the OD&D hit chart because it's easier for me.

Etc.

Quote from: Haffrung;846983Also, see: 4E to 4E Essentials nerdfury, with 13th Age standing in for Pathfinder.

True enough, but those two games are bigger changes than 3e to 3.5 to Pathfinder.  Essentials was like the old D&D to AD&D that TSR tried and failed.  And 13th Age is more to 4e, than 3e, yes?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847067To me, the biggest distinction that makes sense is that "Old School" is firmly wedded to the "Free Kriegspiel" mindset.  The world is the referee's, the referee has total decision making power over everything that happens, and the rules are merely a set of notes to ease the referee's decision making.

Gaming like it's 1876.

One of the hardest things I've had to unlearn is the idea that the dice or rules give something legitimacy.  That something arrived at because a die was rolled is somehow more ironclad than something the referee decides.  What really helped has been a progressive moving of more and more of the system into the black box leaving more and more actual description left as the only real basis to make decisions upon.

Another thing I do when I play is have my character sheet put away inside a binder or folder (or just upside down) and only pull it out when I need it.  I just keep my notes about the descriptions, items we have, people we know etc., out all the time.

I still enjoy playing the occasional game where the system is there to be used by all participants, but I'm finding everything is so much slower and less happens than when you just trust the referee to apply it as needed and concentrate on description.  The exception to this would be story-game/rpg hybrids where every player is also a referee to a degree.  Lots can happen very rapidly in those games, but they don't give the same experience of being a persona navigating a described environment.  They're a different sort of beast.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;847071True enough, but those two games are bigger changes than 3e to 3.5 to Pathfinder.  Essentials was like the old D&D to AD&D that TSR tried and failed.  And 13th Age is more to 4e, than 3e, yes?

Essentials is seamlessly compatible with standard 4E. Nothing changed in the core rules. Classes and published material from the two lines can be used interchangeably without any conversion. There's a far greater difference between B/X D&D and AD&D, for example. And yet people used those two systems almost interchangeably, and I recall no nerdfury aimed at TSR over  the introduction of the B/X stream.

The Essentials furor shows just how toxic D&D forum culture had become, and how fiercely even the tiniest mechanical variations were resented as an almost personal affront - at least by the system-wonks who were some of 4E's most vocal supporters.

Quote from: NathanIW;847096Gaming like it's 1876.

One of the hardest things I've had to unlearn is the idea that the dice or rules give something legitimacy.  That something arrived at because a die was rolled is somehow more ironclad than something the referee decides.  What really helped has been a progressive moving of more and more of the system into the black box leaving more and more actual description left as the only real basis to make decisions upon.

That's one reason OD&D spread like wildfire.  "Sit down and Al will help you roll a character" and five minutes later that person is playing.  "Don't worry about the rules, just tell me what you want to do."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847176That's one reason OD&D spread like wildfire.  "Sit down and Al will help you roll a character" and five minutes later that person is playing.  "Don't worry about the rules, just tell me what you want to do."

Yeah, sometimes I feel this is one of the reasons why RPGs aren't more popular today. I mean, would I ever read 200 pages of rules for any other game?

Quote from: Eric Diaz;847194Yeah, sometimes I feel this is one of the reasons why RPGs aren't more popular today. I mean, would I ever read 200 pages of rules for any other game?

When I was younger I loved reading big thick rpg books. Now, after having played a bunch of different systems with wildly varying amounts of rules crunch, I have concluded that large overblown rulebooks do not add any appreciable extra fun to the play experience. I can have just as much or more fun playing with a 64 page rulebook like B/X than with a huge tome full of bells & whistles such as Pathfinder.

The people I'm playing with are WAY more important to contributing to a fun time than a rulebook.

Actually what this discussion always shows is how much the definitions shifts dependent on what you mean by 'old'.
It also shows that many 'indy' games share characteristics with 'osr', light rules, no universality, quirky mechanics. Others do not.
The only big thing I see between a lot of modern 'indy' games and a lot of 'OSR' advocate is the role of GM as 'auteur' and final arbiter, as opposed to a shared responsibility in many more co-operative games. FATE can be run in a very top down, the GM says kind of way, Aspects or no.
But that's not truly an 'old' versus 'new' thing. One can play Traveller as a shared responsibility game, or run it as an auteur GM. In truth most groups lie in the middle and adjust as personnel and people change.

Auteur versus Co-operative is an interesting axis and a lot of OSR advocates 'seem' to prefer the former, but I am not sure you can parse that from the rulesets or even the style of play.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847176That's one reason OD&D spread like wildfire.  "Sit down and Al will help you roll a character" and five minutes later that person is playing.  "Don't worry about the rules, just tell me what you want to do."

Totally agree, and we see that with the explosion of light accessible games from the rebirth of OSR to the indy games with one characteristic and one mechanism.

In truth, D&D 5e is a very quick game to sit down, roll up, and play as well.

Ditto 13th Age, you only really need to know 3 things in that system, combat and how your character race and class work. in 5e you also need to understand magic.

But you want real speed, FAE, now that's fast.

Quote from: tzunder;847210Totally agree, and we see that with the explosion of light accessible games from the rebirth of OSR to the indy games with one characteristic and one mechanism.

In truth, D&D 5e is a very quick game to sit down, roll up, and play as well.

Ditto 13th Age, you only really need to know 3 things in that system, combat and how your character race and class work. in 5e you also need to understand magic.

But you want real speed, FAE, now that's fast.

FAE is, in turn, way too slow compared to The Sundered Land which is also "don't worry about the rules".
Then again, I play even games like GURPS in "don't worry about the rules" mode. I had to, because I regularly have beginners at the table;).

I think part of the problem with defining "old-school" games themselves, is that its different to to different people. Not to mention ever expanding. To people that started playing with B/X, yeah, that's old school. People that started playing 4e, 3.5 would be old school.

There as many Old Schools as there are players.

I have been playing for 35 years and self taught from blue book with no one else to watch or lean from.
My games have always been
i) character driven - PCs need to feel like they fit in the world they need in game motivations and hooks. Looking for treasure "because" is weak sauce
ii) PCs are special - you want to give me a page of background on your PC fantastic I will incorporate it as that helps me make the world more real
iii) Tracking resources is pretty tedious
iv) NPCs have plots the game evolves through PCs interacting with these plots
v) Dungeons really don't make a lot of sense as  presented in D&D. Put more thought into why and how not just what and where.
vi) Big bunches of hirelings don't make sense. They don't fit the types of literature I want my games to feel like and if the PCs are special because they dare to take risks and so they have classes and powers, then how come they persuaded 20 normal blokes to come along as well in exchange for a couple of gold coins.

Now none of that seems to match the "old School" being touted here but at least in the UK there aren't many Older Schools.....

Quote from: Eric Diaz;846493People talk about "old school" D&D (and other games), but there are many different visions of it floating around. Matt Finch's primer is a good start, but maybe not enough for all versions.

So, Ill list some of his ideas (first four) and some others, and you can tell me what is important to OS in your opinion, or add your own number.

1) Rulings, not Rules. You don't need many rules, the GM can come up with something.
2) Player Skill, not Character Skill. You don't roll find or disarm traps, you describe it.
3) Hero, not Superhero. Characters become power but not too powerful (whatever this means).
4) No such thing as "game balance". Challenges aren't tailor-suited to the characters - if they go wandering to Forest of Death or whatever, they are risking their necks.

Generally yes to all of these.  However, with 3 I think there could be room for games where the PCs get to 'superhero' level. Never at the beginning, though.  Even so, there can be settings where the rest of the world is generally low-powered, so that even name-level dudes seem amazing when they get there (Albion is a lot like that).  Or settings where by the time PCs get to higher levels they will be quite epic and the setting is meant to reflect it (Arrows of Indra is like that).

QuoteSome things I find important:

5) Starting characters aren't special. They don't have elaborate backgrounds or many special abilities.

I'd generally agree too, however, I think the more important thing is that what you are at the start is not your choice.  It's not about buying the right feats or spending points on background perks.  If you have something special or are something special it's because you were lucky on random rolls.

For example, both in Albion and Arrows, a PC could theoretically get to start out at lv.1 as an impoverished peasant, or start out as a really well-connected noble with comparatively stupid amounts of resources.  But it should be about the luck of the dice.

Quote6) Resource management is important. You shouldn't be handwaving money, encumbrance, torches etc.
7) There is no "story" being created on purpose. The focus is survival and profit, not catharsis. There is no start-beggining-end, there are things that happen, and that's it. You can tell your exploits after the fact, but you aren't thinking of "what would make for a good ending" when you're fighting the ogre.

Yes and DEFINITELY yes.

Quote from: Pat;846495A few more common characteristics.

The main area of exploration is multi-level dungeons. Secondarily, wilderness hex crawls.

I don't agree that this is essential.  My games tend to feature wilderness travel, roleplay/intrigue with NPCs or NPC-factions, and dungeon crawling (plus, in Albion, warfare and its consequences) in about equal measure.

Quote from: jibbajibba;847318v) Dungeons really don't make a lot of sense as  presented in D&D. Put more thought into why and how not just what and where.
vi) Big bunches of hirelings don't make sense. They don't fit the types of literature I want my games to feel like and if the PCs are special because they dare to take risks and so they have classes and powers, then how come they persuaded 20 normal blokes to come along as well in exchange for a couple of gold coins.

To me, the acceptance of these two elements without kvetching over realism is a fundamental element of "old school" rpging.  As soon as you try to explain or rationalize "dungeon ecology" you start moving away from old school style of play.   As well, efforts to replicate any particular literary narrative in the game also moves away from OS play...

I tend to think that wrt rpgs, people generally use "old school" to reference a time as much as a style - the mid 70s to early 80s.  I don't think very many people refer to the early 90s or 2000s when they talk of old school rpgs...