Quote from: Age of Fable;368330

I don't know if you saw my recent review in the reviews section (or my blog), but I have specifically singled out Majestic Wilderlands as a step in the right direction.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;368345I don't know if you saw my recent review in the reviews section (or my blog), but I have specifically singled out Majestic Wilderlands as a step in the right direction.

RPGPundit

I guess what we're trying to say is that there are many more steps in the right direction that you'd care to acknowledge.
Or so it seems.

I haven't seen GenreDiversion, but I feel there's a bit of a disconnect when some people try to claim their game is "old school" largely on the basis of simplicity. For me, at least, "old school" doesn't care about "unified mechanics", in fact "unified mechanics" are often actively disliked for various reasons related to "feel". IMO "Old school" also tends to follow a standard pattern in terms of what parts of the game are "mechanicized".

Essentially, they look like this: (1) Core combat system, but not overly complex; (2) optionally, but usually, one or more "powers" systems for magic, psionics, whatever; (3) some collection of task resolution for some activities outside of combat, mainly focusing on the physical. May include skills, or may be highly rudimentary. (4) Absolutely nothing resembling formalized "conflict resolution" or even the thought that it could exist.

Again IMO, old school games revolve around providing not-very-complicated mechanics for doing stuff, in the concrete in-the-moment sense. As such the mechanics are an adjunct to the real core of the game, which is highly analogue "playing pretend". The mechanics are there to answer questions about stuff where the group (the GM in particular) can't come up with an obvious result without thinking about it. But they treat that stuff as real stuff, not as an abstract "simple contest" or "opposed contest".

Or another way I'd put it: if it feels like it was designed by someone who also played/designed Avalon Hill and SPI games in the 1970's, it'll feel "old school".

Quote from: estar;368343The art used for the hex cover are 19th century public domain art. The top is from a english medieval illustrator, the bottom a russian historical illustrator, and the right is a romantic (art-style) painting.

I picked the hex cover. I thought it was an interesting design. Recognized the paintings, too.
Shipped today, btw.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;368368Or another way I'd put it: if it feels like it was designed by someone who also played/designed Avalon Hill and SPI games in the 1970's, it'll feel "old school".

That's about as good an accurate a definition as I've heard

Quote from: Benoist;368346I guess what we're trying to say is that there are many more steps in the right direction that you'd care to acknowledge.
Or so it seems.

Well, ONE is already a really good start (especially if its something as impressive as MW); so there's no need to get defensive; but still, what are those other steps?

My hope is really that you end up getting a dozen people doing stuff in the style of Majestic Wilderlands due to being inspired by them, but I don't see a dozen products out there right now which compare favorably to MW.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;368368if it feels like it was designed by someone who also played/designed Avalon Hill and SPI games in the 1970's, it'll feel "old school".

To me, GD3 feels "old school". It's part of why I like it so much.

Quote from: RPGPundit;368678Well, ONE is already a really good start (especially if its something as impressive as MW); so there's no need to get defensive; but still, what are those other steps?

My hope is really that you end up getting a dozen people doing stuff in the style of Majestic Wilderlands due to being inspired by them, but I don't see a dozen products out there right now which compare favorably to MW.

RPGPundit

When is the last time you read an issue of Fight On! for instance?

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, ONE is already a really good start (especially if its something as impressive as MW); so there's no need to get defensive; but still, what are those other steps?

Write. Good. Shit That Rocks.

DIY. Basement Gaming rooted in grungy production values, simple rules, and a familiar genre with clear-cut influences. Not all that different from garage-band rock and roll. These games ROCK. They might be short, might not have high-end graphics and mechanical doo-dads, might look like something slapped together on the coffee table, might sound like something from 1974 - but, when you're rocking your fucking ass off, who really cares how modern you look doing it?

Quote from: Kellri;368769Write. Good. Shit That Rocks.

DIY. Basement Gaming rooted in grungy production values, simple rules, and a familiar genre with clear-cut influences. Not all that different from garage-band rock and roll. These games ROCK. They might be short, might not have high-end graphics and mechanical doo-dads, might look like something slapped together on the coffee table, might sound like something from 1974 - but, when you're rocking your fucking ass off, who really cares how modern you look doing it?

But here you're speaking in theoreticals. Care to give EXAMPLES? After all, your argument is that there are good steps forward being taken right now...

RPGPundit

Quote from: Sigmund;368696To me, GD3 feels "old school". It's part of why I like it so much.

I might feel the same way if I looked at it. (BTW, is there a free version of the rules?)

My main point was that I see a repeated plaint of "why isn't X accepted as old school--it's such a simple, silky-smooth system just like Basic?" The reason is because simplicity isn't all there is to it. In fact simplicity expressed as universal resolution mechanics is fairly un-old-school, particularly when the rules suggest using the universal resolution mechanics to resolve every situation instead of invoking ad-hoc methods or just plain talking.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;369016My main point was that I see a repeated plaint of "why isn't X accepted as old school--it's such a simple, silky-smooth system just like Basic?" The reason is because simplicity isn't all there is to it. In fact simplicity expressed as universal resolution mechanics is fairly un-old-school, particularly when the rules suggest using the universal resolution mechanics to resolve every situation instead of invoking ad-hoc methods or just plain talking.

Agreed, Eliot. I keep pointing people to my first blog entry lately on System Structure. Old school games were all Accretive systems, while GD3 is a Framework system. Framework systems do not - and cannot - have the same flavor as Accretive systems, due to the level of abstraction necessary to have a uniform API. They have other, wonderful, benefits to be sure - my system is very definitely a Framework system - but Accretive systems are all about flavor.

-clash

Bingo. While I was typing my post I was thinking of conglomerate rocks, but accretive is closely related and captures the same idea. The big rocks in a conglomerate correspond to the multiple, varied subsystems; they're held together by a matrix of sand or clay which corresponds to talking, judgment, and social negotiation.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;369034Bingo. While I was typing my post I was thinking of conglomerate rocks, but accretive is closely related and captures the same idea. The big rocks in a conglomerate correspond to the multiple, varied subsystems; they're held together by a matrix of sand or clay which corresponds to talking, judgment, and social negotiation.

Exactly. I called them "Accretive" because of how they are designed - when an exception occurred which wasn't handled by existing sub-systems, you created a new sub-system which did the job, wedged it into the matrix, and went on rolling. Each little nugget gave the whole a unique flavor.

By contrast, Framework systems are sub-system dependent too, but instead of a matrix, there is a backbone structure with uniform interfaces where you can plug in whatever sub-system you like, so long as it accepts and puts out something the framework interface understands. Rugged, yes. Flexible, yes. Easy to maintain, yes. Flavorful... not so much.

Designing game systems is like designing aircraft. Nothing is perfect for all uses. It's a matter of compromising what you don't need for this purpose in favor of what you need for this other purpose.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;369026Agreed, Eliot. I keep pointing people to my first blog entry lately on System Structure. Old school games were all Accretive systems, while GD3 is a Framework system. Framework systems do not - and cannot - have the same flavor as Accretive systems, due to the level of abstraction necessary to have a uniform API. They have other, wonderful, benefits to be sure - my system is very definitely a Framework system - but Accretive systems are all about flavor.

-clash

Well, I am not an adherent of the "OSR", so that's probably part of the issue. I like and play "old school" games such as OSRIC and LL, but I'm not up on the OSR scene or into fiddling with S&W or any other game to make it my own. Another issue for me is that DnD is not the only, and perhaps not even the main, game I think of when thinking of "old school" (which for me means a feeling approximating the one I had in the "old" days). I played Dragonquest, Top Secret, Superworld, 1e Shadowrun, Stormbringer, Traveller, and TFT as much or more than DnD back then, so they have at least as much of an influence on what feels "old school" to me as DnD. GD3 feels "old school" to me. YYMV, and of course even without an "old school" feel, GD3 still rocks

P.S. Forgot to add, I don't think Brett has released a free version of GD at this time, but GDi, which is the less involved predecessor to GD3 is only $1.95 for the pdf, and GD3 appears to be only $7.95 at the moment. Not bad at all.