TheRPGSite

I found this link. (http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/Old_school_role-playing_games)

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  (http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/Central_narrative)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 (http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/New_wave_role-playing_games).

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.

Doesn't accurately reflect my experience. Just to take the very first point: hand someone red box bd&d and a copy of d&d 4th ed: which is more like a wargame?

Quote from: jan paparazzi;804518Simulation: Roots in wargames

Correct.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;804518Strong central narrative: Default format

If you define "central narrative" as "standard mode of play" (as the article does -- poor choice of words IMO), well, Vampire: the Masquerade 1e applies too. So does Shadowrun. And in both instances, even more so than, say, AD&D 1e or Classic Traveller.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;804518Garage production values: Crafted by hobbyists

Fair enough, though I'd offer DCC and LotFP (at very least) as counterpoints.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;804518Lack of conventional wisdom: Undefined target demographic

Utter bullshit. Fuck this guy and horse he rode on.

Quote from: The Butcher;804528.



Utter bullshit. Fuck this guy and horse he rode on.

Definitely agree with you about this point.

There's a difference between old, original role-playing games and old school role playing aka Old School Renaissance type role-playing as a hobby.

Quote from: Lynn;804542There's a difference between old, original role-playing games and old school role playing aka Old School Renaissance type role-playing as a hobby.

Right, and the emergence of "new schools" and their application specifically to D&D - not Chivalry & Sorcery, En Garde, Bunnies & Burrows, Traveller, RuneQuest, Champions, etc. - is what defined an even newer "old school" in opposition.

Quote from: Lynn;804542There's a difference between old, original role-playing games and old school role playing aka Old School Renaissance type role-playing as a hobby.

There absolutely may be, depending on how far back we're dialing this particular DeLorean.

Not that the article's author addresses it, natch.

In my experience, the most common problem with the "old school" label is that everybody seems to define "old school" as "stuff the people who introduced me to RPGs used to play" and we're left with a distinct universe of games lumped under the "old school" banner for each successive generation of gamers.

RPGs vary so much that you need to judge each on their own merits. For example Runequest 2nd edition, AD&D 1st edition, and Dungeons & Dragons are all "old school" but very different games.

The same with some newer concepts like narrative roleplaying. The 1st and 2nd edition of Runequest were heavily flavored with the myths and mores of Glorantha. Games like Chivalry & Sorcery tried to promote medieval realism. Nearly the whole of 2nd edition AD&D was filled with products catering to settings with grand narratives like Forgotten Realms, Birthright, etc.

What is true that RPG diversified and continue to diversify. For each major them, concept, or play style there are several alternatives for a gamer to choose from. Some popular, some not well known.

The use of old school roleplaying for marketing depends on who you are exactly talking about. The audience for Runequest is not the same as Classic Traveller nor it is the same as classic D&D. There is some overlap but the various communities and fanbases have their own distinct characteristics. There is no magic "old school" key that make marketing to these groups a successful aside from doing the grunt work of learning what they like and how they operate.

It'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).

Quote from: jan paparazzi;804518I found this link. (http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/Old_school_role-playing_games)

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

#2 isn't connected to old-school gaming. At best, it's a way to distinguish "universal" systems or later versions of D&D that tried to be closer to universal. And its definition of "strong central narrative" doesn't match what most people would think of when they heard that phrase; it makes me think more of tightly-focused indie RPGs, which are definitely not "old school".

#4 is nonsense. Basically, the writer of the article wanted to lump together all games published before a certain cut-off point, couldn't think of what theme united them all, so they defined "practically any theme" as a theme. "Old school games are old school because everyone did their own thing!"

#1 and #3 are closer to being accurate, but aren't. But that's a topic for later, maybe.

The source of pretty much all the problems behind the article is the mistaken belief that "old school" means "old". Outside of RPGs, "old school" refers to a way of doing things that is being challenged by a newer way of doing things... for example, I once tracked down an example from around the '20s or '30s exploring whether "old school Anglican" was identical to "high church" or merely overlap.

What makes the old school "old school" was the fact that some people objected to the way some of the original RPGs did things. The first proto-new school games came out within a few years of the originals. They were challenges to the old way of thinking, and the OSR, in turn, is a challenge of the new school. But some people have a lot of problems with the idea of any game challlenging the principals of other games.

There is no such thing as "old school"; there's only games that inspire nostalgia and those which do not.

Every time some moron tries to define the term "old school" I come to despise the term that much more.

Quote from: Omega;804588Every time some moron tries to define the term "old school" I come to despise the term that much more.

I think I know how you feel. We spend so much time arguing what's "old school" and what's not that we've reduced the label to a ragged, unindentifiable mess.

Which is why I like to be specific about my tastes. "I like RPGs with traditional mechanics and open-ended campaigns that don't follow a prederminate plot, set in worlds that respond to PCs' actions in a lifelike manner."

Sure, you can still poke holes in this, but I still think it's a hell of a lot more conductive to meaningful debate than "I like old school hurr durr".

Quote from: The Butcher;804566In my experience, the most common problem with the "old school" label is that everybody seems to define "old school" as "stuff the people who introduced me to RPGs used to play" and we're left with a distinct universe of games lumped under the "old school" banner for each successive generation of gamers.

That's true.

I think the real problem is that some people are hanging labels seemingly in an effort to define an evolution of games as something that replaces rather than co-exists, and not necessarily version successive ones, but also in quality and "right to exist".

The games are only progressive in a linear way based on how the companies originally sold them, 1st, 2nd, 3rd editions, etc, rather than how gamers actually play these games, which treats various "editions" as standalone games in their own right.

Quote from: The Butcher;804566In my experience, the most common problem with the "old school" label is that everybody seems to define "old school" as "stuff the people who introduced me to RPGs used to play" and we're left with a distinct universe of games lumped under the "old school" banner for each successive generation of gamers.

That's been my longstanding assertion.  These are the definitions I've been using for years:

Old School: That which was standard practice (or what I thought to be "standard practice," or how people at my school gaming club played, anyway) the month I discovered the hobby.

New School: Any way of doing things popularized starting about 9-18 months later, most of which is crap.

Ancient History: Anything people did before I discovered the year before I discovered the hobby, of which I will only begrudgingly acknowledge the existence if someone flashes me a publication date, most of which is crap.

What really is Old School/New School?  Honestly, I believe the serious advocates first decide whether "Old School" or "New School" is the side they want to pick, based either on the "lame geezer antique/modern, hip, cool" or the "first & greatest/all glitz no substance newbie crap" dichotomies. The games and styles they like are slotted into the one side, the garbage they dislike into the other, and a gentlemen's agreement is made to ignore the dozens of games contradicting the premise on the wrong side of the agreed-upon date. Voila.

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. (http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/Old_school_role-playing_games)

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  (http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/Central_narrative)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 (http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/New_wave_role-playing_games).

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?

Quote from: Batman;805902To me-

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

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

Done.

3.0e, Players' Option, Complete Handbook of Ninjas — old school.

OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, the whole damn OSR — new school.

Yup, flawless logic.

Quote from: The Butcher;8059043.0e, Players' Option, Complete Handbook of Ninjas — old school.

OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, the whole damn OSR — new school.

Yup, flawless logic.

3.0 (published August 1st, 2000)
Complete Ninja's Handbook (published 1995)

So.....try again?

Well I was attempting to be pretty specific by saying "D&D", the ACTUAL game with the title Dungeons and Dragons on the book and not just any ol' RPG that has some similarities to a game that has dragons and sometimes Dungeons in it.

Apparently that wasn't specific enough.

Old school = this shit reminds me of the shit I was playing before the internet existed.

New school = this shit reminds me of the shit I have been dicking around with since internet rpg discussion became a thing.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;805588Yeah, 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

.
Call of Ctthulhu is simply not D&D, so of course it's not any freaking 'school' of D&D! Believe it or not, people who don't play D&D may care nothing (and even know nothing) about factional squabbles in D&D fandom.

QuoteBut 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: Phillip;805987Call of Ctthulhu is simply not D&D, so of course it's not any freaking 'school' of D&D!

Wait, so "old school" and "new school" is only about D&D? At the very least it has to extend to "D&D-ish" games, otherwise nothing is in either school unless it's explicitly named D&D. Is your point that Call of Cthulhu is the wrong genre, or the wrong style of play, to be old school or new school? Maybe we need an entire thread on what's "school" without regard to old or new.

While CoC is obviously not Old School D&D, I would say it could be considered "old school".

Quote from: Phillip;805987Call of Ctthulhu is simply not D&D, so of course it's not any freaking 'school' of D&D! Believe it or not, people who don't play D&D may care nothing (and even know nothing) about factional squabbles in D&D fandom.

I'm not sure what your point is - the post you quoted did not mention D&D at all.

The OP does not mention any particular game, in particular it does not mention D&D.

Are you saying that  Old School/New School only relates to the D&D family?

Surely, it must relate to other games, as the idea is of a change of mindset, rather than a change in the way that a particular game works.

Quote from: Old Geezer;805591"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!"

What I say is that in rpgs, enthusiasm is more important than skill, and that "old school" is at its best an attempt to make everyone enthusiastic about gaming.

Enthusiasm is more important than skill in the writing of games. This is why people like AD&D1e, which is a convoluted mess, or Rifts or Synnibar, which are just insane. It's one reason GURPS1e was popular and 4e was a flop - the second one was so deliberately constructed and detailed it just took the life out of it. Meanwhile from the same game company, Munchkin is the big money-maker for them, even though it's stupid - it is at least enthusiastic.

Enthusiasm is more important than skill in the playing of games, too. This is why a player who shows up on time and brings snacks and has their dice ready to roll when needed is more popular than one who doesn't do those things. It's why a player who always has an idea of what they want to do next is more popular and useful than one who hesitates and considers and analyses and...

In roleplaying games, enthusiasm is more important than skill. Gaming's like sex in this way.

Quote from: Phillip;805987.
Call of Ctthulhu is simply not D&D, so of course it's not any freaking 'school' of D&D! Believe it or not, people who don't play D&D may care nothing (and even know nothing) about factional squabbles in D&D fandom.

I don't play D&D myself. So welcome to the club.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;806068What I say is that in rpgs, enthusiasm is more important than skill, and that "old school" is at its best an attempt to make everyone enthusiastic about gaming.

Enthusiasm is more important than skill in the writing of games. This is why people like AD&D1e, which is a convoluted mess, or Rifts or Synnibar, which are just insane. It's one reason GURPS1e was popular and 4e was a flop - the second one was so deliberately constructed and detailed it just took the life out of it. Meanwhile from the same game company, Munchkin is the big money-maker for them, even though it's stupid - it is at least enthusiastic.

Enthusiasm is more important than skill in the playing of games, too. This is why a player who shows up on time and brings snacks and has their dice ready to roll when needed is more popular than one who doesn't do those things. It's why a player who always has an idea of what they want to do next is more popular and useful than one who hesitates and considers and analyses and...

In roleplaying games, enthusiasm is more important than skill. Gaming's like sex in this way.

Just.....no.

Enthusiasm is what you bring to the game,  not what the game somehow exudes. It also highly interconnected to the other players and DM. If someone has a terrible time with the people they're playing with they often associate the game as terrible too. Further I fail to see the correlation between "old-school" and enthusiasm or the lack of the latter in more modern "new school"  RPGs.

I like the idea of Enthusiasm vs. Execution. People who love Palladium for example generally accept any of the "inconsistencies" or issues some have with the system. Fans just play the game and enjoy some of the "over the top" ideas in it. :-D

Now, this theory doesn't cover 100% of what could constitute OS vs. NS, but I think the theory has merits.

Quote from: Diffan;806092Enthusiasm is [...]  not what the game somehow exudes.

Depends on the game, old chap. Which was my point.

Quote from: rawma;805993Wait, so "old school" and "new school" is only about D&D?

Other game communities have their own schools. "Skills are new school" is a line I encountered at Knights & Knaves Alehouse, which might fly with AD&D - but can hardly be the case with RuneQuest (published the same year as the 1st ed. PHB) or Traveller (published the year before) or even Empire of the Petal Throne (1976).

Fans of Tunnels & Trolls, En Garde, Chivalry & Sorcery, Bunnies & Burrows, The Fantasy Trip, Champions, Pendragon, Paranoia, Witch Hunt, Ghost Busters, etc., may have their own schools of thought or even edition wars over issues that have nothing to do with controversies in D&D circles - and take for granted things that are fodder for D&Ders' flames.

QuoteAt the very least it has to extend to "D&D-ish" games, otherwise nothing is in either school unless it's explicitly named D&D. Is your point that Call of Cthulhu is the wrong genre, or the wrong style of play, to be old school or new school? Maybe we need an entire thread on what's "school" without regard to old or new.

My point is that it's a different game designed by different people for different reasons - not to push a 'school' against another 'school' in a fight for claim to the One True D&D (or anything else), but just because it was fun. And that was before the current D&D schools even existed!

How would it be if devotees of TFT or RQ started applying the labels to everything based on how TFT-ish or RQ-ish (and more specifically in line with their style of playing the game) they assess the other games to be?

Character sheet design determines if a game is old or new school.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;806409Character sheet design determines if a game is old or new school.

Oh, man, no kidding. Might be a personality flaw, but I love it when characters fit on index cards.:-)

Quote from: cranebump;806469Oh, man, no kidding. Might be a personality flaw, but I love it when characters fit on index cards.:-)

I'm a 1-page charsheet guy. I like the front side to have the usual stuff on it, for filling in. And the back side to be left blank, for me to keep a small journal or notes on things happening with my character.

My character flaw would be that I prefer my charsheets to be landscape instead of portrait.

I hate hate HATE all the wasted space on character sheets nowadays.

I generally just pop open inDesign and make my own sheets for every character I play. Its the only way.

And seriously, there are very few characters that won't fit on one sheet in actuality, there is just all that WASTED SPACE.

Other than casters with long spellbooks if you write out all your spell effects. But that could be an issue in Old School D&D as well if you write out all your spells. For low level characters I can usually fit in all the spell descriptions with the initial page, higher level casters I generally half to move to using a separate "book". (I generally make it fold in half so I can flip through it like a book. I'm a huge dork).

Also I agree on Landscape, its better at the table, because it leaves more of the middle of the table free (even though I really don't use maps and stuff)