Quote from: rawma;852351I meant, where did you see the opposite, where PCs went up a level in the middle of a dungeon? It seems it would also characterize non-old-school, outside of computer/video games, so hardly worth listing as characterizing old school.

The majority of my experience in running and playing with 3.5, 4th, and 5th edition doesn't require rest in a town for any advancement due to leveling. Frankly its an alien concept that I haven't seen or used in almost 15 years.

One thing that is constaty emphatised in old RPG rules that I do not really see nowadays is that RPG is supposed to be "open-ended roleplaying" which means that GM should create a world of her own where players have adventures.

Thus all rules were guidelines rather than rules set in stone as they served as a stepping stone for GM to make her own world. Subsequently I think that "rulings not rules" is quite misleading. In my view it is really "rules are guidelines for making your your own world".

Quote from: Batman;851039I feel "Old School" is all in how you approach a game, adhering to specific tenants and ideals instead of a particular system. For a more in-depth analysis...

• Char-gen:
- Stats rolled in order
- Limited number of options, usually fitting a Tolkien-esque style campaign.
- Tight reign on options like spells, feats, and other character-based choices.


• Resource Management:
- Making resource replenishment more difficult, costly to the group/campaign to take.
- Using existing resources in uncommon/out of the box ways.

• Obtaining Features:
- Getting new spells, maneuvers, options, etc. takes in-game time, research, and planning. Ex. A Fighter doesn't automatically gain/learn a new combat feat just because....game. He needs to learn from a warrior. A wizard doesn't automatically get new spells willy nilly, they need to research for them.
- Higher HP, saves, attack bonus, AC upgrades need to be applies during downtime in a safe area, not in the middle of a monster a infested dungeon.

• Healing/Hit Points
- Restrict healing on a daily basis
- Make afflictions more difficult to remove.
- Slower hit point recovery

• Adventuring/Exploration:
- No "standardization" on encounters
- No guarantee that encounters will be level appropriate or can be overcome through combat.
- Bigger emphasis on hex-crawling than planned or plotted games.

• Scope/Goals
- Rulings not rules, adjudication is far more important than a rules-lawyer.
- Game isn't designed to be "beaten" but rather experienced. You don't play to level up, leveling up is a by-product of your play.

These are some of the things that always jump out at me when I discussions on old school. Luckily every version of D&D can do this so its not tied to a specific version. At least, the way I see it

I wouldn't advise trying most of that in 4e D&D, at any rate.

Quote from: S'mon;852365I wouldn't advise trying most of that in 4e D&D, at any rate.

Eh, it's feesable so long as everyone going into the campaign knew ahead of time what was changing. I think different systems evoke different feels but that doesn't mean one can't tweak any system to emulate a more "old-school" feel. For example, 4e can be modeled in the ways I listed in what I feel is old school pretty easily:

Char-Gen =  stats are 4d6 drop lowest in order. 4 classes (Wizard, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue), 4 races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling). No Themes. No Background bonuses. Powers drawn from PHB. Feats drawn from PHB and Essentials (no Dragon mags).

This method will most likely have lower results than the normal point-buy (or higher, depending on rolls) but it will also have more diversity because certain go-to combinations might not work well because you're rolling in order.

Resource Management is actually easier in 4e because everyone is using the same method. The Rogue and Fighter are going to want to rest as much as the Cleric and Wizard because they're either out of Surges or daily effects too.

Obtaining features and advancement only in town is system independent. And it gives classes like the Fighter and Rogue incentive to invest some of their money on obtaining new exploits.

HP/Surge recovery: I've actually tweaked a lot with this, often decreasing the amount of surges each class gets and the rates at which they recover. All it means is that they can't take on as many encounter per day as they normally would. And if pacing is something that is very important to the campaign, it makes it easier. Something like "You regain 1/2 the amount of healing surges after a long rest when you're not in a safe area and you recover only a surge worth of HP." Also using a lot more diseases is a great way to make lingering affects scarier as well as using monsters that drain surges when they hit.

Adventure/Exploration is also largely system independent. There's always this stigma floating around that 4e is bound to being within Level -3 to Level +3 and outside of that is bad or something. Frankly, that's terrible advice if you're running most sand-box games. If my group is playing 4E sandbox and they wander into a cave there's a change they'll face a dragon who FAR FAR exceeds their level or capabilities. Tough shit, you better run or hide or lie out your ass if you want your character to survive the next 10 minutes. That's the best part about this game IMO, anything can happen.


Basically so long as your group goes into the campaign knowing that this is the style attempted to be emulated and they're cool with that, it's totally do-able and not particularly hard either.

Quote from: Nikita;852359One thing that is constaty emphatised in old RPG rules that I do not really see nowadays is that RPG is supposed to be "open-ended roleplaying" which means that GM should create a world of her own where players have adventures.

Thus all rules were guidelines rather than rules set in stone as they served as a stepping stone for GM to make her own world. Subsequently I think that "rulings not rules" is quite misleading. In my view it is really "rules are guidelines for making your your own world".

I think Ken St. Andre put it especially well in the US 5th ed. T&T (1979), but I don't have that text at hand. I don't recall an RPG handbook of the time that did not say essentially the same (and I include AD&D here).

It could have gone without saying, though, for the folks who already took it for granted having come from the earlier hobby-game scene. It was just par for the course in miniature wargames, outside of tournaments.

Even there, I think we could distinguish specific scenarios from the "bring your optimized build" tournaments. The WRG rules sets catered more to the latter than did the usual run of one-hobbyist-to-another booklets.

Quote from: Phillip;852429I think Ken St. Andre put it especially well in the US 5th ed. T&T (1979), but I don't have that text at hand. I don't recall an RPG handbook of the time that did not say essentially the same (and I include AD&D here).

It could have gone without saying, though, for the folks who already took it for granted having come from the earlier hobby-game scene. It was just par for the course in miniature wargames, outside of tournaments.

On same thought, once guidelines are there to support your game world building, the natural outgrowth is that the massive equipment catalogs, monster parades and god lists are not intended to be used simultaneously and within same game world and/or campaign but rather to serve as representative pieces from which you pick and choose what to include in your own game. I think that this is something that should be emphasized nowadays (even if it is logical to people who come from figurine war gaming).

Quote from: Batman;852356The majority of my experience in running and playing with 3.5, 4th, and 5th edition doesn't require rest in a town for any advancement due to leveling. Frankly its an alien concept that I haven't seen or used in almost 15 years.

Huh; learned something new. I have never, ever played in a D&D campaign where you could level up without returning to town or the equivalent.

Quote from: rawma;852600Huh; learned something new. I have never, ever played in a D&D campaign where you could level up without returning to town or the equivalent.

My experience is pretty much the same... not just in D&D either. In Earthdawn we'd have to study/train before seeing the gains... seeking out a good trainer could be a significant part of the game at higher circles... it wasn't like World of Warcraft where there's an explosion of light and suddenly your shoulder pads get bigger...

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;851170Old school is playing a role-playing game like it's a CLUE board game.

Well, I remember hearing about this sort of game style.  In fact, that's what the old Tomb of Horrors did, isn't it?  Your characters were game pieces to be pushed around a board, and the puzzles challenged the actual players, not the characters.  A 'background' was frowned on, simply because it was a waste of time, your board game pieces were not going to survive long enough to actually matter.

Now, this is how that module was described to me.  However, I remember the whole Aleena the Cleric thing, which had players invest into their own and other characters.  Which is also how I used to play, especially my first few games.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;849214You remembered! I'm touched!

The Red Cataphracts were the first 25mm metal figures for games I ever painted up. They were culled from the scrap box of broken and discarded figures at the Little Tin Soldier Shoppe here in Minneapolis, the summer of 1976.

Ah, the Tin Soldier! That is old school. Ever talk to Neil Cauley, the guy who bought that and turned it into Pheonix Games? Great guy. I guess he was a little young to be part of the original Braunstein-to-Chainmail-to-OD&D gaming circle around here, but I know he sat at MAR Barkers table for quite a few years.

Ah, good times...

Oh, and as to old school--

Old school is a style. Style of play and style of writing. It's just like styles of music (jazz, punk, classical). Just like them, the definitions are nebulous, the boundaries are fuzzy, any given piece that falls in the category can omit pretty much any given defining feature (one could say that punk rock is a form of music that juxtiposes the tonal with the atonal, but at least half of routinely cited punk songs tend to violate that definition, etc.). Historical context is useful and informative, but material made outside of the timeframe can be considered to be included in the style, while stuff inside said timeframe might be excluded.

Not exactly a groundbreaking analysis, but I thought I'd add my opinion.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;852613Well, I remember hearing about this sort of game style.  In fact, that's what the old Tomb of Horrors did, isn't it?  Your characters were game pieces to be pushed around a board, and the puzzles challenged the actual players, not the characters.  A 'background' was frowned on, simply because it was a waste of time, your board game pieces were not going to survive long enough to actually matter.

Now, this is how that module was described to me.  However, I remember the whole Aleena the Cleric thing, which had players invest into their own and other characters.  Which is also how I used to play, especially my first few games.

No, ToH isn't about D&D as a clue-type game.  Yes, it was an exercise of showing that player skill is different than having a high-level character but saying that it was a "Clue" sort of mentality is going to far IMO.

BitD, lots of people were bragging about having 50th-level characters loaded down with artifacts and what not.  Gary hated that give-away game where players advanced even if they had no real skill at playing.

So he designed ToH so that level was almost irrelevant.  A skilled player can avoid the death traps, regardless of level.  A high-level character played by a low-skill player will die.  RJK playing Robilar beat ToH solo.  But it isn't that early players didn't care about their characters at all, it was just that they were secondary (but still a part of) to playing D&D.  

Aleena the Cleric is the result of different people making the books, who promoted role-playing as a primary activity in D&D, instead of one of many facets of the game.  The game moved towards that mindset after it was adopted and promoted through official materials.  

Early, D&D was an rpG.  Later it was an RPg, and maybe moving to where the game aspect was almost completely dropped, with the advent of adventures where the players were almost sideshows to the writer's exposition.  But it was never just a "G" without the RP.

I completely disagree with most of this.

This is a common postmodern misinterpretation of "old school", that has been endlessly parroted by modern day grognards. But that isn't necessarily how all or most people played D&D.

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.

Many gaming tables (not all) were obsessed with following the rules.

Quote from: Eric Diaz2) Player Skill, not Character Skill. You don't roll find or disarm traps, you describe it.

Again, another postmodern grognard mischaracterization of "old school". Many gaming tables didn't do it that way. Some groups focused on player skill, some on character skill, and some on both.

Quote from: Eric Diaz3) Hero, not Superhero. Characters become power but not too powerful (whatever this means).

Powerful characters existed in 1e. And I'm not going to discuss OD&D, because I don't find that game to be particularly culturally relevant.....beyond its formation of the rpg hobby.

Quote from: Eric Diaz4) 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.

Game balance was important in AD&D (I will not discuss OD&D), but was not as carefully codified as 3e. AD&D had adventure modules specifically designed for characters with a specific range of levels. DMs didn't spontaneously nuke PCs with Red Dragons and Balors at 1st-level, because game balance was important.

It's not that game balance wasn't important; it was that AD&D tried to create a more convincing ecology and environment than 3e (rather than focusing more on "appropriate" challenge ratings for PCs, like 3e did)....and in that, it (AD&D) succeeded.

But game balance was still present.

Quote from: Eric DiazSome things I find important:

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

That depends upon the campaign. Most "old schoolers" don't regularly play OD&D, but play other "old school" games instead.

Quote from: Eric Diaz6) Resource management is important. You shouldn't be handwaving money, encumbrance, torches etc.

This, I agree with.....but DMs often handwave it anyway, due to boredom, forgetfulness, etc.

Quote from: Eric Diaz7) 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.

What say you?

Again, it depends upon the campaign.

Please take what the postmodern grognards say with an epic grain of salt. Not all (or even most) gaming tables in the 1970's and 1980's necessarily played D&D that way.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;852831I completely disagree with most of this.

This is a common postmodern misinterpretation of "old school", that has been endlessly parroted by modern day grognards. But that isn't necessarily how all or most people played D&D.

"Old School" has become a term of art, not a historical designation. I think "Classic Gygaxian" would be more fitting, but I'll use "Old School" for the sake of discussion and for the same reason folk of older times spoke of  'the Fair Folk' or 'the Kindly Ones'.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;852831I completely disagree with most of this.

Probably because you want 'old school' to be a historical category rather than describing an approach, set of expectations or a community in operation today?

QuoteAnd I'm not going to discuss OD&D, because I don't find that game to be particularly culturally relevant.....beyond its formation of the rpg hobby.

When it comes to RPGs and the term 'old school' ignoring OD&D is nonsensical.  The approach that people are talking about when they use the term is one particular approach to OD&D.  If your looking for it to be a historical category this might frustrate you.  It will make no sense to you that a different game from the 1970s doesn't count.  Or even a different approach to OD&D for that matter.  As with all revival and reconstruction it isn't about historical categorization but about what people are doing with it today.

QuotePlease take what the postmodern grognards say with an epic grain of salt. Not all (or even most) gaming tables in the 1970's and 1980's necessarily played D&D that way.

Hint: it's not a term meant to describe all play that went on in the 70s as a historical category but about what one approach from that period and what people are doing with it (and how they are extending it) today.

I used to think that any definition of old school that excludes games or approaches from the 70s was useless.  Then I realized it's not about doing history, but about playing and making games today.

Also, there's nothing 'postmodern' about people who attempt to claim that this one approach was more universal than it was.  That's just an error and has nothing to do with the philosophy of the person making the claim.