I don't see following the rules, and making up new rules to cover things not in the printed rules, as being mutually exclusive.

Quote from: StuartI don't see following the rules, and making up new rules to cover things not in the printed rules, as being mutually exclusive.

Nor do I, but it's an argument that I have seen made in numerous instances. Perhaps this wasn't what Yamo meant to imply, though given his well-established disdain for systems that don't spell out everything in minute detail, I suspect that this was exactly what he meant. He's very much against making things up on the fly, though D&D originally encouraged such play (if not outright demanded it).

I can't speak for Yamo, but for me oldschool games were more about following the rules as written, and creating new rules when needed, instead of fudging / ignoring existing rules (both official and group-created) in the interest of telling "a story" through the game.

Quote from: StuartI can't speak for Yamo, but for me oldschool games were more about following the rules as written, and creating new rules when needed, instead of fudging / ignoring existing rules (both official and group-created) in the interest of telling "a story" through the game.

I agree.  Having house rules that you follow as rules is very OS in my book.  :cool:

Same here. The idea is that if you make a rule to fill a gap or fix something you don't like in the rules as written, it then becomes a new, formal rule.

Furthermore there's a clear line between "rules" and what I will call for lack of a better term "social understandings".

Quote from: GrimGentThose rules are pretty darn simple, all in all. But how did you manage the whole collective side of the chargen process (namely, designing the Chancel and the Imperator) without knowing how to purchase the various perks and disadvantages in the book...?

They were explained by the GM. We played through a few sessions and there was never a mention of advancement.

Quote from: StuartI can't speak for Yamo, but for me oldschool games were more about following the rules as written, and creating new rules when needed, instead of fudging / ignoring existing rules (both official and group-created) in the interest of telling "a story" through the game.

Pretty close. Although I'd say, it was Old School to follow the rules and hope a future supplement had the new rules you were looking for!

"Old School", in my mind, is not about PC awesomeness.  That doesn't mean PCs are weak though.

Originally every character started with 1d6hp and every weapon did 1d6 damage.  0hp = dead.  The game was not about winning with awesome power. It was using yer noggin to beat the other guy.

Quote from: StuartI can't speak for Yamo, but for me oldschool games were more about following the rules as written, and creating new rules when needed. . .

I agree.

Quote. . . instead of fudging / ignoring existing rules (both official and group-created) in the interest of telling "a story" through the game.

I haven't seen too many AD&D 1e players, for instance, that didn't ignore the grappling rules or weapon speed rules. I think that ignoring stuff in favor of houserules that you like better is perfectly "old school". . . it's the "story" thing that is key.

"Story" (or more correctly, plot) wasn't much of a concern in OD&D and other early RPGs -- adventures were less about structured plots than they were about running through a gauntlet of keyed (and usually completely unrelated) encounters, as you mentioned earlier. To this end, I think it may be fair to say that at its most basic level, "old school" games are those that:

• Contain simple, mutable, rules.
• Eschew structured plot.

I'm tempted to go one step further and say that eschewing internal consistency (both in rules and adventure design) is also a defining feature of many "old school" games. Witness the early D&D dungeons with a monster in every room, yet zero interaction amongst them, charcters adventuring just because they can, etc.

Some people dismiss this as "gonzo" but I think that "gonzo" is the deliberate attempt to avoid internal consistency, whereas most "old school" lack of consistency arose, not by design, but as a result of such games not yet having their own identity and borrowing heavily from other mediums.

Quote from: howandwhy99"Old School", in my mind, is not about PC awesomeness.  That doesn't mean PCs are weak though.

Originally every character started with 1d6hp and every weapon did 1d6 damage.  0hp = dead.  The game was not about winning with awesome power. It was using yer noggin to beat the other guy.

This is critical, in many modern games the dice are basically weighted in the characters' favour, in old school games the character's survival depended on the player playing smart and being lucky, the game itself gave no breaks.

Quote from: jdrakehI haven't seen too many AD&D 1e players, for instance, that didn't ignore the grappling rules or weapon speed rules.

I guess I should have said 'selectively ignore'.

Quote from: KrakaJakWe played through a few sessions and there was never a mention of advancement.

Well, advancement is relatively slow in Nob: a short campaign might yield enough CPs to raise one attribute, so it's not really much of an issue over a single scenario or so. You should still get dynasty points at the end of each session, though.

Quote from: jdrakehNor do I, but it's an argument that I have seen made in numerous instances. Perhaps this wasn't what Yamo meant to imply, though given his well-established disdain for systems that don't spell out everything in minute detail, I suspect that this was exactly what he meant. He's very much against making things up on the fly, though D&D originally encouraged such play (if not outright demanded it).

That's the most bizzare interpretation of my gaming preferences I've ever heard. Are you sure you're not confusing me with somebody else? Point of fact: I'm not too interested in how many rules a game has, I just prefer that whatever rules the group agrees upon be applied fairly across the board without case-by-case "fudging." Extrapolating new rules to cover new situations is of course a vital part of the GM's responsibilities during the course of most campaigns.

Quote from: jdrakehI'm tempted to go one step further and say that eschewing internal consistency (both in rules and adventure design) is also a defining feature of many "old school" games. Witness the early D&D dungeons with a monster in every room, yet zero interaction amongst them, charcters adventuring just because they can, etc.

Some people dismiss this as "gonzo" but I think that "gonzo" is the deliberate attempt to avoid internal consistency, whereas most "old school" lack of consistency arose, not by design, but as a result of such games not yet having their own identity and borrowing heavily from other mediums.

Do you really think that people were doing all that inconsistent stuff because they were just more ignorant then? Old School games KNEW they were gonzo, and liked it that way.  They didn't take the "hobby" as seriously as some people do now.

RPGPundit

Back when I did inconsistent dungeons and so on I wasn't being gonzo, I was being an adolescent.

Put another way, I'm with jdrakeh on this one.