The only reliable way to make it more like what I consider 'old school' (Not sure I like that term..) is quite simple:

De-emphasize acting and performance.
  - this isn't to say players won't do it anyway. Even in the very earliest roleplaying games, people clearly spoke in character every once in a while. But simply remove the idea that they have to or should strive to, or should feel bad when they aren't doing it.

Re-Emphasize player skill and gamesmanship.
  - It's a game, treat it as one.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThose are some of the best things about D&D, though. Ditch those things? That's terrible advice.

Well, good if you like them, but we're talking about "old-shool" gaming, from which the points listed clerly deviate. It seems we have different concepts about that one.

Quote from: jdrakehIronically, I'm actually buying Return to the Tomb of Horrors from Cal this payday, specifically to convert it to 3.5 as a sequel to the ToH redux

If you follow the 3.x philosophy that poisons and traps are never instant death it runs really well. It's still a meat grinder, with PCs dying left and right, but at that high level they'll be coming back soon anyway. I ran it as a follow-up to some home brewed stuff that had been a follow-up to Dragon Mountain (a mountain they barely stepped foot in during the entire campaign).

My group made it all the way to the final battle with Acererak during his Apotheosis and had a TPK when they were about 20 damage away from destroying the phylactery. They'd have made it if we were playing 3.5 instead of 3.0, because of the way they toned down the rules on vorpal weapons.

The next time I run D&D you can bet it'll be in a dark future where the negative material plane is alive and hungry.

It's hard  to  impart an old-school feel when playing 3.5.

With 3.5, there is a rule for everything and gamers will use those rules if it provides them benefit.

Whereas back in the day, you might say, "Make a Dex roll to climb that rope." In 3.5, you check the climb section to  determine the DC. Then, if the character has any skill synergies, you apply those as a bonus and then if the equipment is of master quality another bonus applies. A lot of detail is offered and will be exploited by players.

Another thing I noticed is finding secret doors. Maybe it was just the way we played but we would describe what we are doing to find a secret door; "I carefully look at the wall, searching for a crack or pull the torch holder to see it anything happens." The DM may either say it opens or rolls a d6. In 3.5, you make a Search roll. The search roll is for every 10 ft. You need to check the Search section to determine the DC.

None of the above are deal breakers but 3.5 is a different mindset and hard, in my opinion, to play old school. If you want to ignore the many rulesin 3.5,  that's fine but then you are not playing to the strengths of 3.5 (detail and power gaming).

My friends have a fine time playing 3.5 but they all enjoy the min-max of character builds and the power gaming aspect during play.

You will undoubtably have fun but it may not be "old-school" as you  remember it.

Quote from: enelsonIt's hard  to  impart an old-school feel when playing 3.5.

With 3.5, there is a rule for everything and gamers will use those rules if it provides them benefit.

Whereas back in the day, you might say, "Make a Dex roll to climb that rope." In 3.5, you check the climb section to  determine the DC. Then, if the character has any skill synergies, you apply those as a bonus and then if the equipment is of master quality another bonus applies. A lot of detail is offered and will be exploited by players.

Another thing I noticed is finding secret doors. Maybe it was just the way we played but we would describe what we are doing to find a secret door; "I carefully look at the wall, searching for a crack or pull the torch holder to see it anything happens." The DM may either say it opens or rolls a d6. In 3.5, you make a Search roll. The search roll is for every 10 ft. You need to check the Search section to determine the DC.

None of the above are deal breakers but 3.5 is a different mindset and hard, in my opinion, to play old school. If you want to ignore the many rulesin 3.5,  that's fine but then you are not playing to the strengths of 3.5 (detail and power gaming).

My friends have a fine time playing 3.5 but they all enjoy the min-max of character builds and the power gaming aspect during play.

You will undoubtably have fun but it may not be "old-school" as you  remember it.

You've certainly nailed my take on it.

-clash

The best place to start is to identify what you mean by "old school".

I think the detailed system is more flexible in play than some people are giving it credit for. In particular, if you're not anal about DCs and untrained checks, except for specialist stuff, and you adopt a 'say yes or roll' principle to smooth over bottlenecks, that stuff can be handled OK.

As to the incentivizing of powergaming and support for it, I totally agree, and I've decided I can live with it. Mainly by restricting multiclassing and race choice and substituting campaign-focused prestige classes and feats for the endless proliferation of splatbooks.

I guess what I really want to know is what support is missing for

1) making up my own monsters
2) randomly rolling encounters, map structures, dungeons, treasures, etc.

and then anything else you guys can think of.

I guess I should say that the kind of campaign I have in mind is this: limited map, limited information about the home culture, limited choices of race and class; then gradually expanding things as the players move out of their home base and explore the world.

So, support for making it up as you go, is what I'm looking for. Forget old-school (though it's always fun to argue about), just useful things for GM improvisation and default environments that haven't been detailed in advance.

Quote from: Calithena1) making up my own monsters
2) randomly rolling encounters, map structures, dungeons, treasures, etc.

Ther'es plenty of support for these two things if that's what you are interested in. Although, just as in the old days, it's not exactly a science. And monster-building is much more complex than it ever was in the past. (So maybe monster building kinda is a science now, whereas it wasn't before).

I may do some articles about it. I love makin' monsters.

I'm not a big fan of random stuff and have never regarded this as a hallmark of old school gaming, but even so, a "mad lib" style of randomness is probably a good idea if you want to go that way.

"The players discover a ________ _______ where a ___adjective___ ________ is _______ a(n) ___
(e.g. "The players discover a purple yacht, where an undeath slime-monster is torturing a elven golem")

Of course you've got to have a d00 table for each entry, or it wouldn't be True Scientific Realism.

Note: For added convenience, make it a "